Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:02 PM Apr 2013

Lawmakers suggest terrorism involved in Boston

WASHINGTON (AP) — With little official information to guide them, members of Congress strongly suggested on Monday that the deadly Boston Marathon explosions were acts of terrorism and vowed to bring anyone responsible to justice.

"My understanding is that it's a terrorist incident," Sen. Dianne Feinstein told reporters, saying she had been in contact with U.S. intelligence agencies. Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said intelligence officials reported no advance warning that "there was an attack on the way."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the senior Republican on the panel, issued a written statement that said, "As the evidence mounts that this was a terrorist attack, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies must do whatever is necessary to find and interrogate those responsible so we can prevent similar attacks."

The remarks stood in contrast to President Barack Obama's own brief statement at the White House, where he made no mention of terrorists or terrorism as a possible cause of the bombings.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/senate-and-house-mark-deadly-explosions

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lawmakers suggest terrorism involved in Boston (Original Post) The Straight Story Apr 2013 OP
What might be, other than terrorism? MNBrewer Apr 2013 #1
It isn't terrorism without knowing the motivation. SlipperySlope Apr 2013 #9
I disagree that an insane person can't intend terror MNBrewer Apr 2013 #10
Clarify... SlipperySlope Apr 2013 #11
Well, the chances of it being anything other than terrorism are MNBrewer Apr 2013 #12
Admittedly slim... SlipperySlope Apr 2013 #14
Send in the Drones! nt OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #2
Of course it is terrorism... Bay Boy Apr 2013 #3
Obviously domestic. nt rdharma Apr 2013 #4
White House: Boston Explosion ‘Appears To Be’ Terror Attack Tx4obama Apr 2013 #5
...or in other words ...we need more funding for the military. n/t L0oniX Apr 2013 #6
Here we go again rightsideout Apr 2013 #7
Well, duh tularetom Apr 2013 #8
Nice to know we are arguing semantics now. Of course it's terrorism. Only question is... Locut0s Apr 2013 #13

SlipperySlope

(2,751 posts)
9. It isn't terrorism without knowing the motivation.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:11 PM
Apr 2013

By definition terrorism is carried out for political reasons. If the bomber was simply insane then it would not be considered terrorism.

SlipperySlope

(2,751 posts)
11. Clarify...
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:40 PM
Apr 2013

It isn't a matter of sanity, but it still comes down to knowing intent.

Hypothetically...

If a maladjusted teenager drops pipebombs in trash cans because he is thinks it would be funny, that is not terrorism.

If a maladjusted teenager drops pipebombs in trash cans because he is wants the United States to leave Afghanistan, that is terrorism.

Right now we know nothing, but the leading assumptions seem to be that this was either done by Jihadists or by Teabaggers. If either of those theories turn out to be true then this would be terrorism.

But if it was done by someone who was holding a grudge for being disqualified from last year's marathon, or someone who wanted school to be cancelled tomorrow so they wouldn't have to take a test, then it wouldn't be terrorism.

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
12. Well, the chances of it being anything other than terrorism are
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:45 PM
Apr 2013

pretty small, but, given our admitted lack of information there is a very tiny, infinitesimal chance that it's NOT terrorism.

also.

I'd say your example of the person holding the grudge would actually count as terrorism.

SlipperySlope

(2,751 posts)
14. Admittedly slim...
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:13 AM
Apr 2013

I'll readily agree that the most likely profiles for who did this would both fit the definition of terrorism, but still point out we shouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence.

As far as a disgruntled person setting bombs, I'm reminded of the school bombing in Michigan that killed 44. That bombing is generally not considered terrorism as there was no apparent political motivation (although even there a small minority still consider it to be).

I realize that quibbling over definitions is silly. What happened in Boston happened and what we call it doesn't change anything. It seems that the word "terrorism" has simply become too politically charged; witness the debate over whether the Fort Hood shootings were terrorism or not.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
5. White House: Boston Explosion ‘Appears To Be’ Terror Attack
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:06 PM
Apr 2013

White House: Boston Explosion ‘Appears To Be’ Terror Attack

The explosions that struck the Boston marathon on Monday "appear" to be to a terrorist attack, according to the White House.

"Any event with multiple explosive devices -- as this appears to be -- is clearly an act of terror, and will be approached as an act of terror," the official said in a statement, according to Politico.

"We don’t yet know who carried out this attack, and a thorough investigation will have to determine whether it was planned and carried out by a terrorist group, foreign or domestic," the official added.

Addressing the nation on the attacks, President Barack Obama also urged the American people to show restraint before all of the facts have emerged.

more...

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/white-house-boston-explosion-appears-to-be-terror

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022679829



rightsideout

(978 posts)
7. Here we go again
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:09 PM
Apr 2013

The Bengazi (however you spell that) blame game is starting to gear up again.

My thought is you can't say much if anything until you know more details especially during the "fog of war."

One thing's for sure, it was carefully planned. Who ever did this obviously studied the race and timing.





tularetom

(23,664 posts)
8. Well, duh
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:10 PM
Apr 2013

Of course it's terrorism. Anytime a bomb is set off in a public place what else can you call it?

Of course that does not mean it's political terrorism of any kind. It may just be a nut with his own personal grudge.

What these politicians mean when they call it terrorism is that "mooooslims done it". And it may be the case that this was the work of fanatical Islamists. Of course it may also be some right wing nut pissed off about paying his taxes.

Nobody knows yet so why don't they all just STFU and let the investigations unfold.

Locut0s

(6,154 posts)
13. Nice to know we are arguing semantics now. Of course it's terrorism. Only question is...
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:48 PM
Apr 2013

Is it home grown or not. I suspect it is, though wouldn't be surprised either way.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Lawmakers suggest terrori...