Two explosions reported at the Boston Marathon (Updated: 6:50PM EST April 16 2013)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Heronblade:

Mimsofthedawg:

Why? It IS terrorism?

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You're forgetting the possibility that this was not done in order to make a statement. There are people out there that are f***ed up enough to do this kind of thing for kicks, among other things. The term terrorism only applies when one's objective involves creating and using fear to get one's way.

But since the perpetrator not having some kind of social/political agenda is unlikely, they are more likely trying to avoid the term because the public these days automatically associate terrorism with certain extreme groups of Middle Eastern origin, forgetting in the process that the term would apply just as well if this had been done by a radically violent splinter group that hates marathon runners for some random reason.

I think you're forgetting that it was an act of terror... in that it terrorized people... it doesn't have to be a political act or assigned to some overarching group. If the man who did this was an American woman who likes to look at "pretty lights in the sky" and didn't even consider the deaths of innocents as a byproduct/consequence of her actions, it would still be an act of terror.

Sound like anything could be an act of terror? Your right. The legal and dictionary definitions are very broad, and it is usually up to the discretion of the prosecutors whether or not to claim it as such. But the legality of it is inconsequential, it was a terrorizing act. IE, terrorism.

EDIT: and yes, I am saying that the definition of terrorism is NOT the act of doing something to coerce and influence the world nad get ones way. It is one definition, but it isn't even the legal/official definition, nevermind how most people think of terrorism.

EDIT 2: FBI definition: "The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

"social objectives" ie~ if someone did it for "kicks"

EDIT 3: further elaboration: "We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," etc.). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence."

EDIT 4: statement from Obama: "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror,"

xDarc:

"They" are the same group of people who destroyed evidence, killed witnesses, changed security, and hand picked the people on the Warren Commission on the Kennedy assassination. "They" are the military industrial complex that people like Dwight Eisenhower warned about. A recent example would include people like Dick Cheney and defense contractors like Haliburton.

Most Americans believe in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and pretty much every president we've had since has been a puppet- yet I've noticed younger people these days either don't know/care or just figure it was so long ago all that corruption must have just died out and sorted itself on it's own... it ain't so.

Uh-huh.

Well, whatever makes you happy, mate.

PhiMed:

xDarc:
There are a few things that make me think this will come out as a domestic attack from a homegrown militant patriot group. Today is the deadline to file your taxes. We are also hearing that there was some observance of events in Newtown at the start of today's event. Most reporting states at least 3 dead with dozens injured.

Adam Jensen:
I have friends and some relatives in Boston. I hope they're all OK. Physically I mean. No way they're getting out of this one without some emotional scars.

It was probably a work of domestic terrorists. The bombs were too ineffective to be anything other than homemade. I hope they catch the bastards soon and execute them in public.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Kopikatsu:

Suggesting that it was a home grown right winger made me think of an interesting scenario.

Reportedly, the explosions happened near where some of the parents of the Newtown shooting's victims were. Wouldn't it be strange if a very anti-gun control proponent tried to 'finish the job' using explosives, as a means of protesting the (many) proposed new gun control regulations by showing that explosives made with commonplace materials can be just as bad (or worse) than a firearm?

It's more than just that. Today is tax day in the US, and apparently in Boston it's also Patriot day, a local holiday. The race was dedicated to the Sandy hook victims, and had parents of the survivors victims in attendance. If you know anything about our fringe right wingers (and I mean way out there, not your garden variety republicans), that sounds like the kind of symbolism they'd go for.

Edit: scratched out typo. Not sure if their kids got out alive, all I know is it's Sandy Hook parents. Some of them were also running in the marathon, I heard an interview with one of them on the radio on the way in to work this morning.

I love how everyone on this site says, "Oh, yeah, it's totally a white right-winger. They're known for using bombs in public places in this country. Taxes and guns have totally been the motivation for attacks like this one in the past, and there is no other group who has shown this pattern."

Tomorrow is Israeli Independence Day.

Are you guys serious?

WOW. Most domestic terrorists attacks are associated with anarchists or communists/environmentalists (the latter two are definitely lefties, the third one is arguably leftist as well).

At the same time, the argument could make sense... but just that this is where some people went to first..... knowing the Escapist is a borderline-marxist community in general (or at least, that most conservatives on this site keep their mouth shut in the offtopic/ R&P forums) just underscores the ridiculousness of this.

I'm reminded of a quote I heard once:

Conservatives think Liberals are wrong. Liberals think Conservatives are evil.

Mimsofthedawg:

At the same time, the argument could make sense... but just that this is where some people went to first..... knowing the Escapist is a borderline-marxist community in general

Oh dear. You don't know what marxism is, do you? I have a marxist friend and let me tell you, he's atually leftist, quite readically so. Escapist is actually quite liberal.

I hope people I know from the area are ok.

Mimsofthedawg:

Conservatives think Liberals are wrong. Liberals think Conservatives are evil.

Yes, because no conservatives ever try to paint their opposition as godless baby-killers who only choose to be gay for the evulz.

I'm not saying those nutjobs represent all right-wingers, but I've been accused for working for Satan more than once for being left-leaning, just saying.

It was the Nazis! Hitler's distant cousin, Arnold Schwarzenegger is their leader! He said, and I quote, "I'll be back!". He's back, and Nazier than ever!

Too soon? Probably. But I'm not waiting 22.3 years.

SecretNegative:

That's a very intresting thing I've noticed with a lot of Americans (obviously not all Americans, in case I have to make that clear) you seem to have an unhealthy fear of your own government. Believing they're committing acts of terrorism in order to change the ammendment, lying about most things, killing their own civilians and so forth. I don't really get it.

This is actually a psychological condition.

The people who believe that they kill our own people to go to war (ala 9/11) or blow up people to change the 2nd amendment (ala now) are really scared of powerlessness. It frightens them so much subconsciously that our government, as big as it is, as powerful as it is, and with such strong intelligence agencies could let something so dramatic and terrifying slip past them without much of a blip on their radar that they would rather believe that it was some evil master plan by big bag politicians.

They would much rather believe in the fact that someone with dastardly intelligence is out to get them rather than the fact that they are capable of being threatened by small terrorist groups.

rasputin0009:
It was the Nazis! Hitler's distant cousin, Arnold Schwarzenegger is their leader! He said, and I quote, "I'll be back!". He's back, and Nazier than ever!

Too soon? Probably. But I'm not waiting 22.3 years.

You know, at least the jokes on 4chan are jokes. You just spouted some random gibberish.

Desert Punk:

This is actually a psychological condition.

The people who believe that they kill our own people to go to war (ala 9/11) or blow up people to change the 2nd amendment (ala now) are really scared of powerlessness. It frightens them so much subconsciously that our government, as big as it is, as powerful as it is, and with such strong intelligence agencies could let something so dramatic and terrifying slip past them without much of a blip on their radar that they would rather believe that it was some evil master plan by big bag politicians.

They would much rather believe in the fact that someone with dastardly intelligence is out to get them rather than the fact that they are capable of being threatened by small terrorist groups.

Also sounds reasonable, if a little fetched, but...

Hey wait a minute, you have the exact same avatar as that guy with 4000 posts, I think. God damn it people!

SecretNegative:

Desert Punk:

This is actually a psychological condition.

The people who believe that they kill our own people to go to war (ala 9/11) or blow up people to change the 2nd amendment (ala now) are really scared of powerlessness. It frightens them so much subconsciously that our government, as big as it is, as powerful as it is, and with such strong intelligence agencies could let something so dramatic and terrifying slip past them without much of a blip on their radar that they would rather believe that it was some evil master plan by big bag politicians.

They would much rather believe in the fact that someone with dastardly intelligence is out to get them rather than the fact that they are capable of being threatened by small terrorist groups.

Also sounds reasonable, if a little fetched, but...

Hey wait a minute, you have the exact same avatar as that guy with 4000 posts, I think. God damn it people!

We all miss dear Vault greatly, I will likely change my avatar in a couple more months or so!

And not that far fetched. It is far more comforting to believe in an all knowing and far reaching if evil government than to have to accept that anyone who gets a wild hair up their ass can kill you (editorial you as the mods are jumpy) any time they want.

chadachada123:

Lionsfan:

chadachada123:
Probably just some sociopath looking to kill people.

I see absolutely no reason yet to suspect it to be terrorism related.

(Remember, of course, that terrorism requires the intent to instill fear in others). I expect it to end up being some jaded guy that finally realized that you can kill far more people with explosives than with firearms, if you're competent.

Edit: Oh, yeah, it's tax day. This would certainly be the day for someone that has nowhere left to turn to pull something like this off.

How was this not an attempt to instill fear in others? Terrorism doesn't necessarily have to be for any particular political cause, but this is basically textbook terrorism

How WOULD it be? Wanting to kill people is not necessarily tied to wanting to cause fear. An example would be the vast majority of mass (esp. school) shootings, which had no goal other than "get known/let others know my pain" and/or "just kill as many as possible/kill the people that caused me to do this."

As Owyn_Merrilin pointed out, just wanting to kill people without intent to coerce* is not terrorism. I further argue that there's no evidence (yet) that the dude wanted to make a statement with this act, with no reason (yet) to assume so, but that's a lesser point.

*Ill-defined, I know, but I lack a vocabulary wide enough to explain what I mean here.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. With the school shooters, I do think they're trying to cause fear, they're trying to have others fear them.

As for not making a statement, I think that just by doing it, he's making a statement. Especially since this person used a bomb to target people.

Mimsofthedawg:

Heronblade:

Mimsofthedawg:

Why? It IS terrorism?

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You're forgetting the possibility that this was not done in order to make a statement. There are people out there that are f***ed up enough to do this kind of thing for kicks, among other things. The term terrorism only applies when one's objective involves creating and using fear to get one's way.

But since the perpetrator not having some kind of social/political agenda is unlikely, they are more likely trying to avoid the term because the public these days automatically associate terrorism with certain extreme groups of Middle Eastern origin, forgetting in the process that the term would apply just as well if this had been done by a radically violent splinter group that hates marathon runners for some random reason.

I think you're forgetting that it was an act of terror... in that it terrorized people... it doesn't have to be a political act or assigned to some overarching group. If the man who did this was an American woman who likes to look at "pretty lights in the sky" and didn't even consider the deaths of innocents as a byproduct/consequence of her actions, it would still be an act of terror.

Sound like anything could be an act of terror? Your right. The legal and dictionary definitions are very broad, and it is usually up to the discretion of the prosecutors whether or not to claim it as such. But the legality of it is inconsequential, it was a terrorizing act. IE, terrorism.

EDIT: and yes, I am saying that the definition of terrorism is NOT the act of doing something to coerce and influence the world nad get ones way. It is one definition, but it isn't even the legal/official definition, nevermind how most people think of terrorism.

EDIT 2: FBI definition: "The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

"social objectives" ie~ if someone did it for "kicks"

EDIT 3: further elaboration: "We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," etc.). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence."

EDIT 4: statement from Obama: "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror,"

Actually, no. Social in this case means social issues -- things like abortion and gay marriage, or whether women should be allowed out of the house without being covered head to toe. It doesn't mean you're trying to socialize with someone. So it turns out I've been paraphrasing the legal definition all along, while you've been going with something completely different.

And I saw Obama's statement. Poor choice of words.

I'm just happy only three died, it is a miracle with how many people where in that area. Still my heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones due to a couple of extremist psycho's.
I hope the people who done this are caught and brought to justice.

SecretNegative:

Mimsofthedawg:

At the same time, the argument could make sense... but just that this is where some people went to first..... knowing the Escapist is a borderline-marxist community in general

Oh dear. You don't know what marxism is, do you? I have a marxist friend and let me tell you, he's atually leftist, quite readically so. Escapist is actually quite liberal.

Wait, hold on, what? I have no idea what you just said. Seriously. None. Retype in english.

I actually do know what Marxism is, and unless you're trying to play on words (traditionally, liberalism means "openmindedness" and "freedom" and the like, but today is associated with greater, larger, and more centralized government), I stand by what I said. It is a historical misnomer that communism/marxism/etc. is disassociated with contemporary Liberalism and Socialism. All three (four? five?) movements share similar goals, and in several statements by Chairman Mao and Lenin the comradery that exists between them is referenced (their association with them was up-played or downplayed depending on political circumstances) and other communists organizations (such as the South African Communist Party) actively joined hands with other left-leaning and anarchist groups to further certain social reform. Perhaps the two are not the exact same (I'm not arguing that they are), but to express a belief that they are radically different is to live in a disillusionment of history. I would venture a guess to say that contemporary academists tried to portray a greater distinction between Progressives and Communists in an effort to disassociate certain progressive agendas from the "evil reds", but I haven't done much research on the subject. I have done enough, as a historian, to articulate a strong enough argument that there is, indeed, a correlation between Communism, progressivism, and contemporary Liberalism (a correlation that is decisively left-leaning in contemporary political terms). That is not to say that anyone of those breeds others, nor is it to suggest that Democrats in America or the Labour Party in the UK, etc. are inherently communist. It's simply to say that they share much in common.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Mimsofthedawg:

Heronblade:
You're forgetting the possibility that this was not done in order to make a statement. There are people out there that are f***ed up enough to do this kind of thing for kicks, among other things. The term terrorism only applies when one's objective involves creating and using fear to get one's way.

But since the perpetrator not having some kind of social/political agenda is unlikely, they are more likely trying to avoid the term because the public these days automatically associate terrorism with certain extreme groups of Middle Eastern origin, forgetting in the process that the term would apply just as well if this had been done by a radically violent splinter group that hates marathon runners for some random reason.

I think you're forgetting that it was an act of terror... in that it terrorized people... it doesn't have to be a political act or assigned to some overarching group. If the man who did this was an American woman who likes to look at "pretty lights in the sky" and didn't even consider the deaths of innocents as a byproduct/consequence of her actions, it would still be an act of terror.

Sound like anything could be an act of terror? Your right. The legal and dictionary definitions are very broad, and it is usually up to the discretion of the prosecutors whether or not to claim it as such. But the legality of it is inconsequential, it was a terrorizing act. IE, terrorism.

EDIT: and yes, I am saying that the definition of terrorism is NOT the act of doing something to coerce and influence the world nad get ones way. It is one definition, but it isn't even the legal/official definition, nevermind how most people think of terrorism.

EDIT 2: FBI definition: "The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

"social objectives" ie~ if someone did it for "kicks"

EDIT 3: further elaboration: "We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," etc.). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence."

EDIT 4: statement from Obama: "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror,"

Actually, no. Social in this case means social issues -- things like abortion and gay marriage, or whether women should be allowed out of the house without being covered head to toe. It doesn't mean you're trying to socialize with someone. So it turns out I've been paraphrasing the legal definition all along, while you've been going with something completely different.

And I saw Obama's statement. Poor choice of words.

That's up to interpretation.

And it wasn't a poor choice of words.

What I don't get is WHY there's a backlash against terrorism? What do progressive elements possibly have against labaling something as terrorism? Are they afraid of sparking outrage against "muslims"? Do they think that terrorism for political purposes is somehow worse than terrorism by the acts of a mad man? Does downplaying the idea that something was an "act of terror" help society in some way by helping to prevent prejudice? Or do they simply find the term distasteful, as though it's a poor man's colloquial term for an otherwise nondescript bombing? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Terrorism is an act of violence that terrorizes people. It's self explanatory in the word!

EDIT: excuse my poor spelling and any grammatical errors. I've been working on term papers all week - editing forum posts is on the lower end of important things to do.

Mimsofthedawg:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Mimsofthedawg:

I think you're forgetting that it was an act of terror... in that it terrorized people... it doesn't have to be a political act or assigned to some overarching group. If the man who did this was an American woman who likes to look at "pretty lights in the sky" and didn't even consider the deaths of innocents as a byproduct/consequence of her actions, it would still be an act of terror.

Sound like anything could be an act of terror? Your right. The legal and dictionary definitions are very broad, and it is usually up to the discretion of the prosecutors whether or not to claim it as such. But the legality of it is inconsequential, it was a terrorizing act. IE, terrorism.

EDIT: and yes, I am saying that the definition of terrorism is NOT the act of doing something to coerce and influence the world nad get ones way. It is one definition, but it isn't even the legal/official definition, nevermind how most people think of terrorism.

EDIT 2: FBI definition: "The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

"social objectives" ie~ if someone did it for "kicks"

EDIT 3: further elaboration: "We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," etc.). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence."

EDIT 4: statement from Obama: "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror,"

Actually, no. Social in this case means social issues -- things like abortion and gay marriage, or whether women should be allowed out of the house without being covered head to toe. It doesn't mean you're trying to socialize with someone. So it turns out I've been paraphrasing the legal definition all along, while you've been going with something completely different.

And I saw Obama's statement. Poor choice of words.

That's up to interpretation.

And it wasn't a poor choice of words.

What I don't get is WHY there's a backlash against terrorism? What do progressive elements possibly have against labaling something as terrorism? Are they afraid of sparking outrage against "muslims"? Do they think that terrorism for political purposes is somehow worse than terrorism by the acts of a mad man? Does downplaying the idea that something was an "act of terror" help society in some way by helping to prevent prejudice? Or do they simply find the term distasteful, as though it's a poor man's colloquial term for an otherwise nondescript bombing? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Terrorism is an act of violence that terrorizes people. It's self explanatory in the word!

EDIT: excuse my poor spelling and any grammatical errors. I've been working on term papers all week - editing forum posts is on the lower end of important things to do.

The answer is in the definition you're refusing to accept. Without knowing the motive, you can't know for sure if it's really terrorism, or if it's just some nutjob who decided to kill people that day. Most of the mass killings in recent US history have been the latter case.

Personally,i have an aunt who is a pretty hardcore runner,along with her husband,thank fucking god they're ok

I just hope this doesn't cause any more violence

It will be interesting to see who's behind it, but in any case, I wouldn't be putting this on my resumé. Two explosions, three deaths? Very well done indeed. slowclap.gif

No but really, it's horrific. If it turns out to be Islamic extremists again, I anticipate violence.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Mimsofthedawg:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Actually, no. Social in this case means social issues -- things like abortion and gay marriage, or whether women should be allowed out of the house without being covered head to toe. It doesn't mean you're trying to socialize with someone. So it turns out I've been paraphrasing the legal definition all along, while you've been going with something completely different.

And I saw Obama's statement. Poor choice of words.

That's up to interpretation.

And it wasn't a poor choice of words.

What I don't get is WHY there's a backlash against terrorism? What do progressive elements possibly have against labaling something as terrorism? Are they afraid of sparking outrage against "muslims"? Do they think that terrorism for political purposes is somehow worse than terrorism by the acts of a mad man? Does downplaying the idea that something was an "act of terror" help society in some way by helping to prevent prejudice? Or do they simply find the term distasteful, as though it's a poor man's colloquial term for an otherwise nondescript bombing? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Terrorism is an act of violence that terrorizes people. It's self explanatory in the word!

EDIT: excuse my poor spelling and any grammatical errors. I've been working on term papers all week - editing forum posts is on the lower end of important things to do.

The answer is in the definition you're refusing to accept. Without knowing the motive, you can't know for sure if it's really terrorism, or if it's just some nutjob who decided to kill people that day. Most of the mass killings in recent US history have been the latter case.

This is taken from Wikipedia. It is a well sourced article, so it has more weight than a run of the mill wikipedia page, and I could look for others, but it would belabor the point.

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. The writer Heinrich Böll and scholars Raj Desai and Harry Eckstein have suggested that attempts to protect against terrorism may lead to a kind of social oppression."

There isn't a simple, overarching definition of terrorism. Some governmental bodies define it as a political statement, others (including scholars) claim it is any "unlawful act of violence" that creates wanton fear.

The real issue at its core for people like me, I believe, is that to not call it terrorism deprives the situation of gravity, minimizing its importance. It's as thought we're saying an action by someone who has a political statement to make is more important than the action of a nutjob. It isn't. They both took lives. And if you asked those people on the ground if they were terrified, they'd say yes. It's simply an injustice to call it anything but terrorism, hence why Obama said what he said.

I hope that Obama's words are taken further to expand the definition of terrorism so that people are not robbed of the urgency of the situation and the justice due to them.

Black Reaper:
Personally,i have an aunt who is a pretty hardcore runner,along with her husband,thank fucking god they're ok

I just hope this doesn't cause any more violence

I've got a friend whose family is Muslim (although he's not) and who is of middle eastern descent. He's already received threatening letters from racist asswipes, even though there's absolutely no evidence pointing to this being the work of Islamic extremists, and even though, again, he's not even a Muslim. This is what happens when we spend an entire decade demonizing a religion and the skin color most commonly associated with it.

Mimsofthedawg:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Mimsofthedawg:

That's up to interpretation.

And it wasn't a poor choice of words.

What I don't get is WHY there's a backlash against terrorism? What do progressive elements possibly have against labaling something as terrorism? Are they afraid of sparking outrage against "muslims"? Do they think that terrorism for political purposes is somehow worse than terrorism by the acts of a mad man? Does downplaying the idea that something was an "act of terror" help society in some way by helping to prevent prejudice? Or do they simply find the term distasteful, as though it's a poor man's colloquial term for an otherwise nondescript bombing? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Terrorism is an act of violence that terrorizes people. It's self explanatory in the word!

EDIT: excuse my poor spelling and any grammatical errors. I've been working on term papers all week - editing forum posts is on the lower end of important things to do.

The answer is in the definition you're refusing to accept. Without knowing the motive, you can't know for sure if it's really terrorism, or if it's just some nutjob who decided to kill people that day. Most of the mass killings in recent US history have been the latter case.

This is taken from Wikipedia. It is a well sourced article, so it has more weight than a run of the mill wikipedia page, and I could look for others, but it would belabor the point.

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. The writer Heinrich Böll and scholars Raj Desai and Harry Eckstein have suggested that attempts to protect against terrorism may lead to a kind of social oppression."

There isn't a simple, overarching definition of terrorism. Some governmental bodies define it as a political statement, others (including scholars) claim it is any "unlawful act of violence" that creates wanton fear.

The real issue at its core for people like me, I believe, is that to not call it terrorism deprives the situation of gravity, minimizing its importance. It's as thought we're saying an action by someone who has a political statement to make is more important than the action of a nutjob. It isn't. They both took lives. And if you asked those people on the ground if they were terrified, they'd say yes. It's simply an injustice to call it anything but terrorism, hence why Obama said what he said.

I hope that Obama's words are taken further to expand the definition of terrorism so that people are not robbed of the urgency of the situation and the justice due to them.

Wikipedia is a terrible place to go for definitions like that. It's great at a lot of things, but it makes a terrible dictionary.[1] Especially because it doesn't matter what the legal definition or lack thereof is in some other country, since we're talking about the United States, which has a very clear one on the books. President Obama said what he said today in part to appease people like you, who were upset that he hadn't used the term in his initial statement on the matter, which he gave something like three hours after hearing about it, at a point when we really had no information about what had happened beyond "something exploded and a lot of people were injured." Even now, we don't know for sure why it was done, but terrorism is the most likely explanation.

Edit: Also, the thing you quoted mostly agrees with me, not with you. It's got a little bit of hemming and hawing about how maybe possibly under certain circumstances and in certain places your definition might be okay, but it skews closer to what I'm saying than to what you're saying.

[1] If you don't believe me, look at the way they insist on the gibibyte/gigabyte distinction, something which otherwise only exists in hard drive advertising statements. That's just a quick and easy example, by the way. The site is full of crap like that.

Mimsofthedawg:

Wait, hold on, what? I have no idea what you just said. Seriously. None. Retype in english.

I actually do know what Marxism is, and unless you're trying to play on words (traditionally, liberalism means "openmindedness" and "freedom" and the like, but today is associated with greater, larger, and more centralized government), I stand by what I said. It is a historical misnomer that communism/marxism/etc. is disassociated with contemporary Liberalism and Socialism. All three (four? five?) movements share similar goals, and in several statements by Chairman Mao and Lenin the comradery that exists between them is referenced (their association with them was up-played or downplayed depending on political circumstances) and other communists organizations (such as the South African Communist Party) actively joined hands with other left-leaning and anarchist groups to further certain social reform. Perhaps the two are not the exact same (I'm not arguing that they are), but to express a belief that they are radically different is to live in a disillusionment of history. I would venture a guess to say that contemporary academists tried to portray a greater distinction between Progressives and Communists in an effort to disassociate certain progressive agendas from the "evil reds", but I haven't done much research on the subject. I have done enough, as a historian, to articulate a strong enough argument that there is, indeed, a correlation between Communism, progressivism, and contemporary Liberalism (a correlation that is decisively left-leaning in contemporary political terms). That is not to say that anyone of those breeds others, nor is it to suggest that Democrats in America or the Labour Party in the UK, etc. are inherently communist. It's simply to say that they share much in common.

You know, some fo us aren't native language speaker, plus I was tired when I made that comment. You don't have to so very hostile.

Anyways, in short: Marxists heavily critisize the capitalist system and usually talk about a "class struggle" (don't really kow the english name for it, it's rich vs poor essentially). The escapist commuity very rarely do any of these things: Conclusion; The escapist is not Marxist. I recommend you to talk to actual marxists before making such statements.

SecretNegative:

Mimsofthedawg:

Wait, hold on, what? I have no idea what you just said. Seriously. None. Retype in english.

I actually do know what Marxism is, and unless you're trying to play on words (traditionally, liberalism means "openmindedness" and "freedom" and the like, but today is associated with greater, larger, and more centralized government), I stand by what I said. It is a historical misnomer that communism/marxism/etc. is disassociated with contemporary Liberalism and Socialism. All three (four? five?) movements share similar goals, and in several statements by Chairman Mao and Lenin the comradery that exists between them is referenced (their association with them was up-played or downplayed depending on political circumstances) and other communists organizations (such as the South African Communist Party) actively joined hands with other left-leaning and anarchist groups to further certain social reform. Perhaps the two are not the exact same (I'm not arguing that they are), but to express a belief that they are radically different is to live in a disillusionment of history. I would venture a guess to say that contemporary academists tried to portray a greater distinction between Progressives and Communists in an effort to disassociate certain progressive agendas from the "evil reds", but I haven't done much research on the subject. I have done enough, as a historian, to articulate a strong enough argument that there is, indeed, a correlation between Communism, progressivism, and contemporary Liberalism (a correlation that is decisively left-leaning in contemporary political terms). That is not to say that anyone of those breeds others, nor is it to suggest that Democrats in America or the Labour Party in the UK, etc. are inherently communist. It's simply to say that they share much in common.

You know, some fo us aren't native language speaker, plus I was tired when I made that comment. You don't have to so very hostile.

Anyways, in short: Marxists heavily critisize the capitalist system and usually talk about a "class struggle" (don't really kow the english name for it, it's rich vs poor essentially). The escapist commuity very rarely do any of these things: Conclusion; The escapist is not Marxist. I recommend you to talk to actual marxists before making such statements.

I'm not sure which escapist forum you're looking at, but I see that all the time. The most recent I can recall would be any one of the Margaret Thatcher threads. Also- see any threads back while Occupy Wall Street was a thing.

tangoprime:

I'm not sure which escapist forum you're looking at, but I see that all the time. The most recent I can recall would be any one of the Margaret Thatcher threads. Also- see any threads back while Occupy Wall Street was a thing.

I see people opposing unrestricted, lasseiz-faire capitalism often, yes. That's not a "marxist" stance the same way "not liking RTS games" doesn't make you "anti-games".

DJ_DEnM:
snippety

I've just now heard someone has officially been arrested on suspicion of being involved, at least according to CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/us/boston-blasts/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I really hope it's not a Muslim extremist. It probably isn't based on the type of explosive and the place/date of the attack.
But the last thing America needs is another excuse for a failed invasion.

idarkphoenixi:

DJ_DEnM:
snippety

I've just now heard someone has officially been arrested on suspicion of being involved, at least according to CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/us/boston-blasts/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I really hope it's not a Muslim extremist. It probably isn't based on the type of explosive and the place/date of the attack.
But the last thing America needs is another excuse for a failed invasion.

There's been contradicting information; some people say there HAS been an arrest, while other sources say there hasn't. In any case, I'd rather leave that open until we get confirmation from an official source, like Boston's Police Department or the Governor of Massachusetts.

idarkphoenixi:

DJ_DEnM:
snippety

I've just now heard someone has officially been arrested on suspicion of being involved, at least according to CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/us/boston-blasts/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I really hope it's not a Muslim extremist. It probably isn't based on the type of explosive and the place/date of the attack.
But the last thing America needs is another excuse for a failed invasion.

You have "hope" at it being a particular sick a-hole over another? That doesn't seem in bad taste at all.

Also, how have you come to the conclusion that it "probably isn't based on the type of explosive"? These are the same type of bombs used in the 2006 Mumbai transit attack, and attempted to be used by the Times Square bomber. Their design was outlined in an article in Inspire magazine (Yemani Al Queda published how-to for lone wolf jihadists) titled "Make a bomb in the kitchen of your Mom." Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/16/al-qaeda-magazine-pressure-cookers-make-bomb-kitch/

Also, "right wing extremist" domestic terrorists tend to hit government buildings, as it goes against their reasoning to hit the citizens they're trying to rally against the govt, so the target profile doesn't match. The date, being tax due day, and Patriot's day seem more incidental as it happens to be the day of the Boston Marathon, the target- but if you want to play that game, I'll point out that Israel's Independence Day was yesterday.

Edit: Well, Boston is in lockdown, one suspect dead, other on the run. Suspect appears to be Chechen. So, to everyone with the honest belief that this was domestic terror / tied to tax day / has to do with NRA or gun rights legislation / etc., all I have to say is this.


Muslim Extremists- are there really any group known to do this kind of shit in this current age? Well... I'll take that back, the US does it plenty, but normally just to Pakistani or Yemeni villages with a Reaper drone :(

Well, if anyone wants to watch this thing end in real time:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1155606219001/ (sorry that it's fox, but if you can find a better stream, post it)

1st suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, dead this morning in a shootout, 2nd suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, has been located and is hiding in the back of a boat in someone's yard. SWAT just pulled back and sent a robot in to get a look, suspect likely is injured from this morning's gun fight and may have bombs similar to the improvised grenades they attempted to use in the pursuit earlier.

EDIT: Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev taken by police alive after a 2 hour standoff.

It's been about 12 hours and already people are starting to move on. Two brothers, a pair of Muslims originally of Chechen extraction who immigrated as children are the primary suspects. One is in hospital and the other is dead. Open and shut right?

What about the SECOND bomb?

Both of the brothers have been repeatedly shown standing side by side. Who placed or detonated the second bomb?

I'm pretty sure there's at least one more guy out there.

There's been such a rush to get the story out first that no one is checking the facts. The New York Post already published a front page photo with the wrong people on it. What if the Tsarnev brothers were actually innocent? Or, what if only one of the brothers were involved, and the other became an accomplice after the fact?

Right now people are spending a lot of time looking for "signs of guilt" regarding the Tsarnaev brothers and lamenting the tragedy of officer Collier's death. But what if it ain't that simple? All the press will say is there was an "altercation" and Collier wound up dead.

If I were Dzhokhar Tsarnev's lawyer right now I'd be seriously worried about lynch mobs and preparing a "self-defense" case regarding the death of Officer Collier and the subsequent chase and manhunt.

Unfortunately, like hell is a foreign-born Muslim is going to get a fair trial in the States anyway...

Thomas Hardy:
What if the Tsarnev brothers were actually innocent? Or, what if only one of the brothers were involved, and the other became an accomplice after the fact?

Right now people are spending a lot of time looking for "signs of guilt" regarding the Tsarnaev brothers and lamenting the tragedy of officer Collier's death. But what if it ain't that simple? All the press will say is there was an "altercation" and Collier wound up dead.

You mean the part where there was an "altercation" leading to an officer's death, a robbery, a carjacking, a pursuit where the brothers used improvised grenades to deter police, and a shootout? *Spoiler Alert* Innocent people don't do that.

tangoprime:

Thomas Hardy:
What if the Tsarnev brothers were actually innocent? Or, what if only one of the brothers were involved, and the other became an accomplice after the fact?

Right now people are spending a lot of time looking for "signs of guilt" regarding the Tsarnaev brothers and lamenting the tragedy of officer Collier's death. But what if it ain't that simple? All the press will say is there was an "altercation" and Collier wound up dead.

You mean the part where there was an "altercation" leading to an officer's death, a robbery, a carjacking, a pursuit where the brothers used improvised grenades to deter police, and a shootout? *Spoiler Alert* Innocent people don't do that.

I've seen this happen a hundred times in movies. They thought the police were coming after them for a traffic violation, obviously!

tangoprime:

You mean the part where there was an "altercation" leading to an officer's death, a robbery, a carjacking, a pursuit where the brothers used improvised grenades to deter police, and a shootout? *Spoiler Alert* Innocent people don't do that.

Various news mention "altercation" or "shootout" but they never mention what kind of guns or equipment those guys had on them or in their house. Where and how did they get guns in first place if they had any? Police are known to be liberal with their guns and could've shot plenty of innocent people by mistake. Did they actually try to take them alive? Why would they shoot someone bleeding and hiding in the boat? Now republicans want to treat the surviving suspect as enemy combatant and just send him off to Guantanamo without public hearings, trials or lawyers, so we might never know anything about them.

Im not saying that those guys got set up but it does show some sort of incompetence on both government and media parts. If it weren't for the boat owner diligence, the suspect could've bled to death or stayed low until he could escape.

Sirevien:

tangoprime:

You mean the part where there was an "altercation" leading to an officer's death, a robbery, a carjacking, a pursuit where the brothers used improvised grenades to deter police, and a shootout? *Spoiler Alert* Innocent people don't do that.

Various news mention "altercation" or "shootout" but they never mention what kind of guns or equipment those guys had on them or in their house. Where and how did they get guns in first place if they had any? Police are known to be liberal with their guns and could've shot plenty of innocent people by mistake. Did they actually try to take them alive? Why would they shoot someone bleeding and hiding in the boat? Now republicans want to treat the surviving suspect as enemy combatant and just send him off to Guantanamo without public hearings, trials or lawyers, so we might never know anything about them.

Im not saying that those guys got set up but it does show some sort of incompetence on both government and media parts. If it weren't for the boat owner diligence, the suspect could've bled to death or stayed low until he could escape.

...they took the second one of them alive, hence, did not "try to shoot someone bleeding and hiding in a boat." There was an exchange of gunfire, and I believe the police were extremely restrained in their dealing with the second suspect, who was taken in alive. The first "altercation" where an officer was killed, as far as I heard on TV news, was a result of the brothers attacking and stealing the officer's weapon. They then went on to rob a store, and carjack someone. When police pursued, the brothers employed improvised grenades in an attempt to deter police. A shootout ensued, and the older brother was shot and critically injured before being run over by the younger brother attempting to flee in the stolen vehicle.

As for "now republicans want to treat the suviving suspect as an enemy combatant and just send him off to Guantanamo without public hearlings" bit, I'd like something referencing that. If anything, President Obama is the one who has kept Guantanamo operating despite his promise to close it 4 years ago, Obama is the one who has been ordering double-tap drone "signature" strikes on Pakistani and Yemani villages, and Obama is the one who signed the 2012 NDAA that allows indefinite detention of US Citizens without disclosing charges or providing consul.

tangoprime:

...they took the second one of them alive, hence, did not "try to shoot someone bleeding and hiding in a boat." There was an exchange of gunfire, and I believe the police were extremely restrained in their dealing with the second suspect, who was taken in alive. The first "altercation" where an officer was killed, as far as I heard on TV news, was a result of the brothers attacking and stealing the officer's weapon. They then went on to rob a store, and carjack someone. When police pursued, the brothers employed improvised grenades in an attempt to deter police. A shootout ensued, and the older brother was shot and critically injured before being run over by the younger brother attempting to flee in the stolen vehicle.

As for "now republicans want to treat the suviving suspect as an enemy combatant and just send him off to Guantanamo without public hearlings" bit, I'd like something referencing that. If anything, President Obama is the one who has kept Guantanamo operating despite his promise to close it 4 years ago, Obama is the one who has been ordering double-tap drone "signature" strikes on Pakistani and Yemani villages, and Obama is the one who signed the 2012 NDAA that allows indefinite detention of US Citizens without disclosing charges or providing consul.

The guy was already shot when the boat owner found him. Police and/or SWAT teams stormed in with gun fire and flash grenades, and only after they thoroughly "exchanged fire" with a boat they tried to negotiate and found out that nobody was responding and that the guy was almost dead to begin with. Again - theres no mention of any weapons those guys had apart from "improvised grenades" which just as well could've been rocks knowing how media likes to exaggerate everything.

As for republicans bit:

Republicans call for Boston bombings suspect to be 'enemy combatant'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/21/boston-bombings-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev

Pebkio:
While this is tragic, I'm going to go ahead and hold off on listening to anyone's explanation for a good week. Right now, everyone is thinking "terrorist" either domestic or foreign or whatever. I don't know, I'm not claim to know, I'm just going to claim that everyone always overreacts and gets things stupid wrong. We love to hate groups in this country, so we're looking to blame whatever groups we can. For instance, I bet most people on this very thread have already assumed it's more than one person. We don't know, but we're looking to point fingers.

It's really cold of me, but I think the most important thing to figure out is the motivation. Once I know what the motivation was, maybe even understand it, then I can accept anything. So I always look for the reasons and that's all I'd like to know: Why. Why bomb the spectators of a volunteer marathon? From what I understand of violence, this seems pointless, but now I'm just assuming. Maybe there was a reason, hate-filled evil reason, but maybe there was a point.

---

Edit: Holy hell! What the hell is wrong with all of you? Why are all of you saying it's either one or the other of a group of people: dirty brown people or dirty white people? What the fuck? That kind of thinking makes me hate the human race. This kind of ignorant, backwards, political straw-manning bullshit has to fucking STOP!

This entire thread, meant to inform, has turned into something extremely disgusting and I am ENTIRELY disappointed with the lot of you.

Sorry to anyone who didn't post any of this hate-mongering on the fourth page, but it's down-right disgusting back here.

Islam, fundamentalist or otherwise, isn't a race, and I said as much in my posts. You're not only culturally insensitive, but also a bit of a racist for stating Islam is an ethnicity. Your attempts to claim moral high ground by accusing us of implicating "dirty brown people" because we speculated that fundamentalist Islam might have been a motivating factor are kind of gross. Case in point: the actual bombers.

My point was that the people on this site said, on page one, because of their own biases, that it was most likely a "white right-winger". I thought that was a possibility, but that it was probably somewhere around possibility number 1,000 out of 1,001 total. I called them wrong, but I didn't call them disgusting. Apparently their racially motivated statements are acceptable to you, because I don't see you calling them out, despite the fact that they were dead wrong.

Discussions about possible motivations and possible culprits in the wake of tragedy are a way of seeking solace for people who are intellectually curious and problem-solvers by nature. You might not understand that. That's ok. Your failure to understand does not make you better than us.

You assume the worst of everyone's motivations, and that makes you worse than any of us.

Have a nice day.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked