Why is a bomb "a cowardly act of terror" and a Newtown-style shooting "a horrible tragedy"?

[lumberjack_jeff]

I'm not sure that the way we americans frame acts of violence reduces their occurrence.

In fairness, maybe the difference is about having a perpetrator in custody.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. I think that both are both. n/t

[Macoy51]

36. Agree

Agree. Both phrases fit each event. Killing unarmed civilians is cowardly and a tragedy. If someone wants to show how tough they are, I suggest they attack a Army unit at the rifle range.


Macoy

[Redford]

50. Yep, right on

Both are both

[snooper2]

2. I've heard the Newtown shooter referred to as a coward many many times..

The two incidents are the result of different factors in our society. Agenda's conflating the two are pretty intellectually lazy-

[malaise]

38. Not on Fox news or in any RW media n/t

[Tx4obama]

3. Some links below, I think this is what the OP may be referring to...

O’Reilly Calls Out Obama’s ‘Mistake’ In Labeling Boston Attack A ‘Tragedy’: ‘This Is What The Nazis Did’
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-calls-out-obamas-mistake-in-labeling-boston-attack-a-tragedy-this-is-what-the-nazis-did/


Krauthammer Defends O’Reilly’s Criticism Of Obama For Calling Boston Bombing A ‘Tragedy’
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/krauthammer-defends-oreilly-hitting-obama-for-calling-boston-a-tragedy-when-human-evil-is-cause-its-a-crime/


Btw... George W. Bush called 9/11 a TRAGEDY.

Clip of Bush using the word 'tragedy' in reference to 9/11, here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/exactly-one-guess-who-else-made-same-mistake-that-bill-oreilly-slammed-president-obama-for/

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

4. Actually, people have used the word tragedy to describe Boston....

....and it's a misuse of the word.

[Luminous Animal]

9. Really. It wasn't a disastrous event?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

10. It was horrible, it was a disaster, it was vile....

....but that's not the true definition of tragedy.

Newtown was a tragedy in hindsight because it could have been prevented and clearly there were warning signs avoided.

[Luminous Animal]

11. It is definitely one definition.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

12. It's a misuse of the word

What other definition someone has invented is wrong, the same as use of the term "irony" or "ironic" or "momentarily".

[Luminous Animal]

15. Okey-doke. Perhaps you should write to the University of Oxford and let them know

they've got the definition wrong.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/tragedy

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

17. I don't need to bother

I accept the fact that unfortunately, they have decided to just go with the flow when it comes to the massive misuse of words by the general public.

After all, they added "refudiate" because noted wordsmith Sarah Palin used it.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Who they? Not Oxford. Not MacMilllan. Not Miriam-Webster.

Not Oxford American Dictionary (though the editors did declare it the "word of the year" which is not an endorsement nor does it mean that the editors consider it a legitimate word). Not the American Heritage Dictionary.

Oh wait, the Urban Dictionary lists it so you must be right.

The definition from the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,tragedy

TRAG'EDY, n. [Gr. said to be composed of a goat, and a song, because originally it consisted in a hymn sung in honor of Bacchus by a chorus of music, with dances and the sacrifice of a goat.]

1. A dramatic poem representing some signal action performed by illustrious persons, and generally having a fatal issue. Aeschylus is called the father of tragedy.

All our tragedies are of kings and princes.

2. A fatal and mournful event; any event in which human lives are lost by human violence, more particularly by unauthorized violence.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

25. You can go by the book if you wish, and not worry about it any further

Leave the somewhat academic kvetching to me I guess.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Indeed. Academia has been disputing the alternative meaning of 'tragedy' for 200 years.

At least. I am looking forward to the resolution of this non-existent controversy.

[Javaman]

37. +1 Zing! nt

[sabrina 1]

22. Have they used the word 'terrorist' for the Newton killer?

I don't recall the word 'terrorist' being used to describe any of the last several mass killers. Eg, maybe I missed it, that is possible, but I never heard the Colombine killers called 'terrorists' either. But the underwear bomber who didn't manage to kill anyone, thankfully was referred to as a terrorist, the shoe-bomber, the NY car bomber, all were referred to as 'terrorists' even though none of them succeeded in killing anyone.

I think the reason is white mass killers are suffering from mental illness while brown people who kill or try to kill large numbers of people are called 'terrorists'. It is political, we are not trying to justify wars against upper middle class white people, there isn't much money in it.

But if it turns out to be someone from the ME, it can be used to justify the continued wars for profit we are always involved in. Not to mention the bigotry involved.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

24. Well it IS political

A terrorist, I guess has a political agenda (McVeigh and Kascinski were rightly called terrorists, as was Rudolph when it was figured out he did it) whereas the Columbine kids and Lanza had some sort of tipping point that caused them to seek revenge. It's the same as labeling a serial killer (Jeff Dahmer) separately from a mass killer (Lanza), as serial killers have some sort of pathological disorder that compels them to commit multiple crimes in a somewhat repetitive manner.

Whomever committed the Boston attack is a terrorist, period regardless if they are from the Middle East, support the teabaggers or banning pit bulls and the Olive Garden. Obviously Lanza and Klebold and Harris also inflicted terror, but there was no rational endgame for them or some outside group to benefit from other than going out in a twisted blaze of glory in their own sick minds.

[KittyWampus]

26. I posted an article numerous times by an author who labels mass shooters as suicidal terrorists.

Every time they sank like a stone.

[sabrina 1]

30. Well I think they are terrorists. But I have not heard them referred to that way on the media.

I didn't see your threads but would have agreed with that author.

[KittyWampus]

45. What Drives Suicidal Mass Killers> NYTimes Editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/what-drives-suicidal-mass-killers.html?_r=0

[Whisp]

34. terror should only have one definition

the poor souls in any of those circumstances anywhere are riddled with terror. Because they are human beings

[Renew Deal]

5. We discussed this issue on DU after Newtown

Terror typically is tied to some sort of agenda. Newtown was mass murder.

[Common Sense Party]

7. I had thought this reasoning was obvious.

I guess not.

[KittyWampus]

27. The Newtown shooter did have an agenda. #1. Revenge and #2. Suicide.

[BainsBane]

32. Terrorism by definition involves a political motive

According to definitions used under US law by Homeland Security annd the FBI.

[BainsBane]

29. Of course we don't know what the agenda of the bomber was

Or if they had one. The media is assuming it is terrorism.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

31. If the bomber is currently sitting back, enjoying the chaos they've created....

....then they have an agenda, and they are a terrorist.

[The Roux Comes First]

6. Actually, I thought Sirota's Salon post was more thought-provoking:

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

[Bonobo]

8. The better question is:

"Why is one 'terrorism' and the other is a 'crime'?"

[Life Long Dem]

13. Both

But a coward hides until they are caught.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

14. I hate the use of the passive voice.

Like things happen without causes. They have causes.

Kind of like a non-committal history book: "Citizens disagreed about the role and practice of slavery. There were uprisings by slaves and escapes through the Underground Railroad" yada yada.

I just made up that quote, but you get the idea.

Yeah, we had a frickin' Civil War over that, and people are still divided in their opinions of the Confederacy!!!

The books don't say "Yeah, the Confederates were a bunch of traitors and should have been hanged."

[MADem]

16. The added issue of mental illness. The idea that, had the shooter gotten the care required

from a professional, perhaps in a structured setting, and medicinal support, instead of being encouraged to go to the range and shoot, and play violent video games around the clock, with insufficient medical/psychiatric intervention to address his issues, the murder of those children might not have happened. That kid killed his mother--and then he went and murdered a bunch of little kids.

We don't know what we are up against in Boston. We have suspicions based on the modus operandus of the perpetrator. Is this an asymetrical warfare attack in contravention of the the Geneva Conventions being carried forward from overseas, or the work of a crazy home-grown group with more specific goals? For all we know it could be a domestic hate group that got their ideas from AQ on the net.

We want to KNOW, but we're just going to have to wait-n-see. We have to be careful to resist urges to pull strings and make guesses, and let the investigators investigate. It's frustrating.

[BainsBane]

33. This sums up the general reaction

?w=545

[MADem]

43. That's just not the point I was making.

That person in your illustration IS mentally ill--he's not Tim McVeigh (a white domestic bomber) or Eric Rudolph (another domestic bomber who was white), and he wasn't part of a movement, or a member of a cell, he didn't hold meetings, recruit followers, write manifestos--he just went nutso one day, picked up a gun and started shooting. I don't remember people saying that McVeigh and Rudolph were "mentally ill." They did say that about Ted Kaczynski, yet another white bomber, but they also said he was guilty as hell and knew what he was doing.

That graphic is all about "guns." This horror in my home town is all about planting bombs to inflict the most damage in a public setting while the perpetrator of the carnage--unless that perpetrator is in the hospital or (unlikely) morgue now-- sauntered away.

Most importantly, we just don't know what color the perpetrator is, or why he--or she--planted these bombs.

It will really mess up the paradigm if the perpetrator is an Asian woman, won't it?

[BainsBane]

46. the point is about perception

Not reality. The point is about how society views these things, as is the point of the OP.

[MADem]

47. Well, I disagree with the tortured construct of the OP--I think you can't insist that an apple is

an orange, or get petulant when people refuse to agree that an apple is an orange.

A bombing is not a mass shooting. They are both terrible crimes, but they aren't the same.

Tim McVeigh is not Adam Lanza. They both did terrible things, but their reasoning was not the same at all.

I think society can see the difference.

[BainsBane]

48. of course the reasoning isn't the same

You're missing the point. Before people knew a thing about Lanza or Holmes they decided he was mentally ill. An Arab or African-American in similar circumstances would be viewed completely differently. Stereotypes exist.

[MADem]

49. I don't agree with that at all. The "mental illness" angle--for Holmes, Lanza and that Korean kid

Seung-Hui Cho who shot up VA Tech--came AFTER the backstory on them came out.

The "disgruntled for (fill in a reason)" is always the initial "go-to." It does happen, though, that people who know seriously mentally ill people have an awareness of their illness, usually as a result of non-compliance with their pharmaceutical protocol. These people who know the suspects pass on their POVs to the media, and the media reports it. It's not a presupposition, it's the consequence of reporting.

[unblock]

18. I think Jon Stewart had a rant about "cowardly" once....

Or maybe bill maher? Anyway the point was, there are many negative words to describe such acts, but "cowardly" isn't one of them. Despicable, horrible, mean, rotten, criminal, abominable, etc., but not cowardly.

It takes a whole lot of bravery and courage to plan and execute such terrorist acts. Building and handling explosives, walking around with them, planting them, doing things calmly, knowing you could get blown up at any moment or found out and foiled spending the rest of your life behind bars, sorry, but that's not cowardly.

It's just something I think people say as an insult, even knowing it's not true. Like they want to deny anything with a positive connotation.

[TwilightGardener]

19. That's always bothered me too. I don't know why the first insult that comes up

is "cowardly" or "coward". What do bravery or cowardice have to do with surprise attacks on strangers? It's not really applicable--it's not a battlefield. I remember the heat that Maher caught for saying that, but I agreed with him to the extent that calling such people "cowards" is kind of silly.

[Fla_Democrat]

21. This it?

[Life Long Dem]

23. Taking credit for the act could take away the thought of a coward

Pakistani taliban would take credit for this, if they were responsible.

[MADem]

44. Doesn't fit this example at all--It was Bill Maher and he was talking about the 911 hijackers.

His point was that they put their money where their mouth was--they weren't cowardly because it takes a certain degree of crazed bravery to fly a plane into a building. It takes guts to know--without any question--that you get on a plane with a plan to die that day.

Maher lost his "Politically Incorrect" gig over that comment. He rose from the ashes, bigger, badder and better, on HBO.

There IS something cowardly about planting a bomb and running away. It takes no bravery, no courage, no nada. If the perpetrator had been wearing a suicide vest, that would be a different story.

No one thinks "they" are going to get blown up when they deploy an IED. No one thinks "they" are going to get caught. Why? Because "they" are the smartest person in the room, better than you, better than me, better and smarter and sharper than anyone. Tim McVeigh is a perfect example of this sort of hubris. So's Ted Kazcynski. They believed they were more intelligent than anyone else, and they planned their bombings with the idea that they would get away with them. They weren't brave--they were pompous.

In order to do this sort of thing, one has to be possessed of an enormous amount of hubris, but hubris does not equate to bravery in the slightest. The Boston bomber was a chickenshit who ran away from those bombs, they weren't worn as articles of clothing and positioned right in the middle of the grandstand to inflict the most damage--that would take some of that "bravery" being discussed here.

[brush]

35. They're both acts of terror . . .

along with cross burning and lynchings.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

39. Terrorism typically implies some sort of agenda.

The perpetrator wants people to be afraid or horrified to bring light to whatever agenda he believes in.

Whereas mass shooters typically don't act out of a greater agenda but rather either out of some sort of twisted vengeance, or just plain psychosis.

A notable exception to this rule would be Anders Brevik, the man who shot over 80 children at a summer camp in Norway. He most certainly did have an agenda. Of course, he also worked in a smaller bombing to divert police attention.

But it would be interesting if--if--the person behind the Boston bombing was acting simply along the lines of a Loughner, Holmes or Lanza. In other words, he was just acting out of his own mental delusions. He'd still be a "bomber", but would he be considered a "terrorist"?

[LanternWaste]

40. don't think that calling something A implicitly denies in anyway that it may also be B

I don't think that calling something A implicitly denies in anyway that it may also be B, any more than calling something else B denies that is may also be A.

From my perspective, both incidents merit both descriptors... but it begs the question, "how many adjectives and phrases do we apply to an event until we've satisfied the sensibilities of all?"

[MineralMan]

41. The two expressions are not mutually exclusive.

They both often apply to such situations. It depends on where you're standing and what you're looking at.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. I just think the "oh well, what are you going to do?" attitude toward mass shootings...

... stands in stark contrast to the panicky hyperactive calls to do something (start a war, ideally) about bombings.

There are legitimate reasons for the differences, I suppose. A shooter is an identifiable target, while this bomber is still at large. I think the main difference is the fact that the solutions for preventing bombers (unlike guns) are abstract enough that they don't have an obvious requirement to sacrifice anything.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. Because one was probably intended to terrorise, and the other probably wasn't.

I don't know for sure what motivated either the Boston bomber or the Newtown shooter.

But my guess is that the former was motivated primarily by the effect that hearing about the bombing would have on the wider community, while the latter's motivations were personal.

If correct, that would mean that the former was terrorism and the latter was murder.

It is unfortunate that in America post 9-11, murder for purposes other than terrorism does not seem to attract as much odium as murder for the purpose of terrorism.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

52. because an idiot made up the rules

[forestpath]

53. To not offend the gun humpers.