Greenwald: Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

[xocet]

Here is an interesting perspective on violence in the USA and the interpretation thereof:

Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?
Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 April 2013 11.07 EDT

Two very disparate commentators, Ali Abunimah and Alan Dershowitz, both raised serious questions over the weekend about a claim that has been made over and over about the bombing of the Boston Marathon: namely, that this was an act of terrorism. Dershowitz was on BBC Radio on Saturday and, citing the lack of knowledge about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism." Abunimah wrote a superb analysis of whether the bombing fits the US government's definition of "terrorism", noting that "absolutely no evidence has emerged that the Boston bombing suspects acted 'in furtherance of political or social objectives'" or that their alleged act was 'intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.'" Even a former CIA Deputy Director, Phillip Mudd, said on Fox News on Sunday that at this point the bombing seems more like a common crime than an act of terrorism.

Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either.

In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened. After initially (and commendably) refraining from using the word, President Obama has since said that "we will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had" and then said that "on Monday an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three people at the Boston Marathon". But as Abunimah notes, there is zero evidence that either of the two suspects had any connection to or involvement with any designated terrorist organization.

More significantly, there is no known evidence, at least not publicly available, about their alleged motives. Indeed, Obama himself - in the statement he made to the nation after Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured on Friday night - said that "tonight there are still many unanswered questions" and included this "among" those "unanswered questions":

"Why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?"

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook

[graham4anything]

1. They should all be treated as hateperps and known as murderers forever after.

as Hillary said, makes no difference.

They hate. All of them. That is the common trait between all of them, whether they asssassinate a John Lennon, or that corrupt cop in California, or pairs, or a group, they all have hate in common.

[still_one]

2. The motive is known. It is radical Islam that influenced them, that may not be the

Politically correct thing to say to some, but it is what it is

It was based on an ideology to kill innocents

Same with Tim mcfeigh(sic), but his influence was not extreme religion but extreme right wing extremism

In both cases they were attacking civilians as a way of attacking government policies

That is terrorism, and too bad mr greenwald doesn't understand the distinction

[whatchamacallit]

5. You know something the president doesn't?

Your projection is suspect.

[still_one]

16. The last two years of their activities, there is no suspect about it. The older one was thrown out

Of a mosque in Boston for arguing with the Iman for using MLK in his sermon, saying he was not Muslim and should not be mentioned

In their own Internet activity the older one expressed his views, there is no ambiguity about it, and your comment that my projection is suspect is nonesense

When the Christian phallangists slaughtered innocent Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila that was terrorism.

The abortion clinic bombings are terrorism based on a specific ideology to create terror, the school shootings are on an individual basis not specifically after a government or religious dogma, but some perceived thing in their perpetrators mind

Terrorism is a violent means of coercion perpetrated for a religious political or ideological goal

[markpkessinger]

82. But it's not at all clear . . .

. . . that these two intended to do anything other than cause mayhem. Merely because ONE of them had an association with radical Islam does not necessarily mean this act was done in service of a radical Islamic agenda. They don't appear to have wished to make any particular point, nor coerce anybody into anything specific.

[still_one]

84. I think they became extremely antiAmerican and that is the point. The driver

of the car they hijacked said they told him they would not kill him because he wasn't an American

[antigone382]

90. Jared Loughner had reasons for his attack as well.

He discussed his reasonas abundantly on the internet. It had something to do with the gold standard and the education system being a fraud. It made no coherent sense because he is schizophrenic (in my strong opinion based on abundant evidence), but it was a "reason" still, and in his own mind it did seem to involve a political goal. Yet what he did is not called terrorism, at least so far as I have ever heard.

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. "Terrorism is a violent means of coercion perpetrated for a religious political or ideological goal"

What were they trying to coerce and what was their political, religious or ideological goal in this attack? What was the religious, political or ideological message implied in this attack? This was murder and an attempt at mass murder. But I don't see how this fits the definition of terrorism. If they had not been caught we wouldn't even be able to speculate on their motives - because there was never any attempt to suggest they had any motives and certainly - no effort to suggest that they had any political, religious or ideological motives. One of the two culprits being religious or even a supporter of religious violence does not make the definition of terrorism when there is no evidence at any attempt at coercion and no evidence of any attempt to communicate a political, religious or ideological message in the commission of these attacks.

[Jeremy Almond]

8. Can you cite the radical islamists who influenced these murderers?

Name of the organization, please.

[still_one]

70. It was either self-motivated recruit, or in their 6 months of travel previously got

Hooked up to an organized group

[KittyWampus]

77. Tamerlane posted banned videos on his Russian social media page. If I cared to argue with stupid-

I'd look up the radical group he was drawn to.

[CJCRANE]

18. Is it still terrorism if there is no coherent worldview or stated aim?

I think it probably is "terrorism" but so far we don't have clear evidence that they had any particular aim or coherent political objective.

It's possible that they did it as some kind of revenge or thrill or to become famous. Their religious affiliation might be tangential.

[Mojorabbit]

25. I always defined it as political =terrorism

Disturbed person snaps =not terrorism
If we label all disturbed people that lose it terrorists then we start down a very slippery slope IMO

[Dragonfli]

45. The dictionary tends to agree with you

terrorism noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It has been used throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent; examples include the reigns of certain Roman emperors, the French Revolution (see Reign of Terror), Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Argentina during the “dirty war” of the 1970s.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

[geek tragedy]

3. The difference is that these guys expressed political/religious/social consciousness

in a way that the Aurora and Sandy Hook and Tucson murderers did not.

Certainly, if these guys were named Schmidt and posted videos extolling the virtues of the Third Reich or KKK, there wouldn't be much doubt that this was an act of terrorism.

At some point, this gets to be a silly argument.

[stevenleser]

6. I agree. That is the difference for me. nt

[still_one]

20. Exactly, and that is what most people define as terrorism

[geek tragedy]

22. Especially when they targetted a high profile event--their bombs were designed to draw attention

and to have a psychological impact on society.

[CJCRANE]

21. I'm not sure that they've expressed anything

except that they are muslim.

For example, if someone who states that they are christian (even a christian fundamentalist) commits a crime but there is no coherent worldview or stated political aim, is that terrorism?

[geek tragedy]

24. They had AQ videos on their youtube page.

Also, remember that publicity and attention were key to their crime--that was the goal.

[Myrina]

27. and you've verified that the Youtube pages are really theirs, huh?

And somehow you personally know - thru telekensis I guess - that their "goal" was publicity?

[geek tragedy]

34. They attacked the Boston Marathon. It doesn't take a spectacularly high IQ

to figure out that people attack high profile events in order to gain attention/publicity/inflict terror on the public.

I guess you must think it was that other fanatical idiot named "Tamerlan Tsarnaev" who posted AQ videos on this youtube page.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/boston-bombing-suspect-posted-video-al-qaeda-prophecy-youtube

I choose not to play dumb.

[still_one]

71. This isn't rocket science

[grantcart]

46. pretty elementary. Just another rather obvious thing that this author doesn't get.

[geek tragedy]

47. But, Glenn Greenwald nt

[TwilightZone]

59. That seems to be the underlying issue here....

He can't possibly ever be wrong about anything.

[geek tragedy]

62. Well, to the extent he always fails to consider facts that

contradict his opinions, in a way he always guarantees that he's right, so long as you confine yourself to the factual universe he edits into place.

[TwilightZone]

68. I always found it amusing...

that he had to add multiple "UPDATES" to many of his Salon articles to "clarify" stuff he got wrong or misrepresented.

NEW INFORMATION!

[grantcart]

107. Sainthood has its perks.

[antigone382]

91. Jared Loughner did express political reasons before his actions.

They made no sense because he is schizophrenic (in my opinion), but they were political nonetheless. The Virginia Tech killer also expressed contempt for America's way of life as a justification for his actions. And then of course there was the Right Wing guy who shot up the Knoxville UU Church to punish liberals several years back. Yet none of these was referred to as terrorism (except that last example, but almost exclusively only on liberal boards because it totally flipping *is* terrorism by every definition).

I'm not saying that the Boston Bombing is not terrorism, but I don't know that the line between that action and the actions I have described is as clear cut as folks are indicating. It seems to me that whether or not an act is defined in our minds as terrorism has more to do with the weapon used (bombs/explosives vs. guns) and ethnic/religious factors (Muslim/Middle Eastern vs. not) than it does with the actual intent.

[Nye Bevan]

4. How about the beltway snipers? They certainly instilled terror (nt)

[geek tragedy]

9. Certainly the term could have been fairly applied to them.

Curious as to why it never did.

[Common Sense Party]

39. Because it happened during Bush's administration.

He wouldn't allow it to be termed ANOTHER domestic terrorism attack on our soil. Messed up the whole "Bush kept us safe" B.S. narrative.

[Raven]

7. Did the fact that they used bombs have anything to do with it? n/t

[Jeremy Almond]

10. So everyone who uses a bomb to murder is a terrorist?

?

[Raven]

14. I was merely asking the question, not expressing an opinion one way

or another. The weapon used seems to be one of the differences between Boston and the other attacks. I suppose it could also be that the FBI has more information about terrorist ties than we know right now. And finally, there is the political aspect. Obama has been criticized for being hesitant to use "terrorist" in the past.

[Lindsay]

11. That was my reaction to the question.

Guns are as American as the proverbial apple pie - enshrined in the Constitution. Bombs are not; therefore, terrorism.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

64. Can bombs be considered "arms"? n/t

[DeadEyeDyck]

102. I would hope so. They are stored in an armory, are they not?

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Yes, why the charge of WMD use

[JI7]

12. i think it's motive, but in the end they are all horrible events, Sandy Hook is not "less bad"

because it wasn't done by terrorists .

[TwilightZone]

13. "there is no known evidence"

He apparently hasn't been paying attention.

"Evidence" is often circumstantial, and there's plenty of that available. From what's been made public thus far, a political motive is a clear possibility.

[Luminous Animal]

35. There is evidence that the men committed a crime but there is no known evidence that they crime

they committed was an act of terrorism.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and 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”

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

[TwilightZone]

41. The key phrase, of course, is "in furtherance of political or social objectives"

As I stated, based on circumstantial evidence - including statements made by family members, the suspects' social media, Russian inquiries - there is the possibility of a political motive.

In that event, it fits the definition you provided.

Even if we ignore the political aspect, attacking the Boston Marathon would seem to qualify as a social objective, if not a political one.

[Luminous Animal]

52. I agree that there is a possibility but I agree with Greenwald that applying a terrorrist

label at this time is irresponsible.

You say that the bombing qualifies as a social objective but you have addressed the what the objective was and how the bombing furthered "it".

What if the guy (as has been suggested) was merely pissed off that he wasn't able to become a U.S. citizen?

[TwilightZone]

58. The social agenda was to attack a very public event, the Boston Marathon.

Even without a political agenda, that is terrorism per your own definition.

[Luminous Animal]

72. To merely attack furthers what? If there was no objective to further

then it was not a terrorist attack.

You need to take the definition as a whole not paring it to phrases to fit your prejudices.

in furtherance of political or social objectives

A social objective does not mean merely social. An objective is an intended goal.

Do you know what the goal was?

[markpkessinger]

85. Creating mayhem for its own sake . . .

. . . furthers no social or political agenda.

[truedelphi]

75. What men?

people who only spend time on DU or at the Mainstream Media stations, they know for certain that it was the two Tsarneav brothers.

Those of us who spend our among multiple sources of information including Sibel Edmond most excellent web blog know this:

One) There was a backpack implicated in the explosion, due to the fact that said backpack was found at the scene of the bombing. It was blown up but still had identifying marks.

That backpack is dark grey or black in color, and quite importantly, it has a small white square on it.
Two) There are at least four people with such a backpack near the scene of the explosion. Three of these people are later on seen joining a group of people identified as being part of the bombing drill squadron. One of those three no longer has his backpack. (We know there was a bombing drill that day because the Boston Globe tweeted the fact, announcing that there would be an explosion!)

The fourth person is the young nineteen year old brother. He is seen in footage before the explosion with his backpack. It has no white square, so it is not the backpack that ends up gong off as part of the explosion.

As some of the thinking people I hang out with have explained - if there was indeed a drill, and that fact was also mentioned by a track coach who attended the Marathon and spoke with a TV channel 15 out of Mobile, Alabama,
then we don't know what the nineteen year old's involvement was. Perhaps he ad been approached by the FBI and asked to participate. How hard would it be for them to explain they needed some participants at the drill to carry in items tainted with explosives residue, to test the capacity of bomb sniffing dogs to perform in the high crowd capacity setting of the Marathon? This kid was rather a nice person, and he was possibly simply helping out. His mother has told the press that her kids were under the influence of the FBI.

Oh I know, a good decent American citizen can explain to me that our government would never ever hurt any innocent person. Except for all those times we have hurt innocent people. Including Aaron Swartz. (Interesting that it was DOJ in Boston that harassed him so much!) And then going back a little bit further in our history: some one million civilians killed in Iraq, the last big event resulting in us patriotic Americans getting all fire up and wanting to see someone creamed for the injury done to us on Nine Eleven.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Intent would be primary

[apnu]

17. Its a great question.

And I think the "terrorism" charges are being levied by hysterical people not associated with this case. We don't know what the charges are in the indictment because it is sealed. Many politicians have said this is terrorism, but I haven't heard a prosecutor or cop investigating the case say that.

I think the "terrorism" term is being bandied about because in this case the perps are 1) ethnic minorities from a predominately Muslim place that has a history of violence and 2) they used bombs as the primary weapon of mass murder and attempted mass murder. No the gun battle in Watertown doesn't count here. In the other cases cited by Greenwald the killers were "homegrown" (that is to say white) and used guns as the primary weapon of choice.

Greenwald's question is great because it strikes at the heart of racism and xenophobia that has deep roots in America. That's really what he's talking about, IMO.

We don't know how Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be charged until the indictment is unsealed.

[geek tragedy]

23. Why would Oklahoma City have been terrorism but Boston marathon bombing not terrorism?

[CJCRANE]

26. We don't know yet if or what group or ideology influenced them.

As I said before I think it probably is terrorism and that they were influenced by a cult-like preacher.

But the evidence isn't there yet (and usually in these cases we don't hear about the "mentors", they just disappear into the background).

[geek tragedy]

29. I tend to agree, but that poster was claiming that describing this as terrorism is racist. nt

[apnu]

38. No that's not totally right.

I'm saying people other than the cops and prosecutors are jumping on the terrorism bandwagon for racial reasons. Because the bomber's religion is Islam and bombs are involved. Also McVeigh's motivations were more along the lines of terrorism in that there was social and political reasons for the bombing. In the case of Boston, we don't yet know what the motives are, and Greenwald also says this, so how can we call it terrorism yet?

And so I'm saying, again, people jumping to terrorism as a conclusion don't have all the facts and are hysterically and emotionally reacting to the bombing. I think people, here in the US, easily jump to "terrorism" because our culture defines any attack involving an Islamic person an act of terror because we're so paranoid and afraid, culturally.

And if you look at the usual suspects on the Republican side, they're giddy to call this terrorism. These are the same people who pat their wallets after they pass a black man on the street. They see a young Muslim kid and automatically assume this is terrorism before collecting all the facts to verify if that is the case.

Its the presumption that this must be a terrorist attack because of the bomber's ethnicity and culture that's racist. It may very well be an act of terror, then again was not Columbine or Tucson also meant to terrorize people as well as kill them?

[geek tragedy]

40. A lot of people called it terrorism assuming it was white supremacists or not knowing at all who did

it.

In this case--the targets of the bombing were no one in particular--the target was the very famous, high profile event itself.

Indiscriminate violence targetting high profile events or locations is almost always terrorism.

The point wasn't to kill or maim that little boy. The point was to do something that would grab the public's attention.

And that gets you about 95% of the way to 'terrorism.'

[TwilightZone]

44. Agreed.

According to the link someone else provided above (curiously, in defense of it *not* being terrorism), the key phrase is "in furtherance of political or social objectives".

Even ignoring everything we know about family statements, the suspects' social media, the Russian inquires, etc., attacking the Boston Marathon pretty clearly fits that criterion.

[apnu]

50. How do you know the "... point was to ... grab the public's attention" ?

We know nothing of the bombers' motivations yet.

[geek tragedy]

56. Well, you can pretend there is zero information from which to infer a motive.

But I won't join you in that charade.

They targeted the Boston Marathon. A high profile, high security event.

People do not take the risk of trying to attack high security events like that unless they want publicity.

[apnu]

111. infering anything before all the facts are in is dangerious

That's how we got to Iraq.

So until I hear and see actual facts, I'm reserving my judgement.

[Arugula Latte]

19. People getting blown to bits by bombs is bad, but

people getting blown to bits by guns is an essential expression of freedom.

[Bad Thoughts]

28. So all types of violence could be terrorism?

I'm annoyed that terrorism has come to be defined what Arabs/Muslims do to Americans, now every appalling attack should be called terrorism? I'm surprised that Greenwald would want us to become so imprecise, muddy our understanding of what happened with obtuse definitions. Boston was terrorism because of how it was carried out: anonymously, to achieve maximum fear, to suggest that another attack was under way, and to suggest that the public at large was not safe. The mass killings he points to were not meant to be repeatable or to incite fear of another attack (athough they might produce that result).

[backscatter712]

30. Didn't you know? Only brown people that kill white people are terrorists! n/t

[Nye Bevan]

33. But these guys were not "brown" (nt)

[backscatter712]

36. They had funny foreign sounding names, and were Muslim. For the redneck right, close enough. n/t

[dems_rightnow]

106. The redneck right...

..... pretty much accepts the OKC bomber as a terrorist, with his funny sounding name of "Timothy".

[ProSense]

31. Terrorists:

Eric Rudolph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph

Timothy McVeigh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

Add all mass murders to the list, wouldn't bother me.

Add the company in West, Texas.

[SidDithers]

32. Maybe it's nothing more than bombs instead of guns?...nt

Sid

[backscatter712]

37. Harris & Klebold tried to use bombs at Columbine. James Holmes made bombs in Aurora.

I don't think it's merely choice of weapons.

[DeadEyeDyck]

55. and Columbine killers clearly expressed

antichristian hatred. Seems that would make then terrorists.

[geek tragedy]

63. The targets of their violence were people against whom they had a personal grudge. nt

[DeadEyeDyck]

101. I was pretty young when it happened but I always remember that one of them asked a girl

if she believed in God and she said she did, so they blew her brains out.

To me, that is more cold and calculating than killing random people. To look right into the eyes of a kid and then shoot them is cold-blooded murder.

[Bluenorthwest]

110. The only witness says that did not happen...

http://www.salon.com/1999/09/30/bernall/

[sarisataka]

42. Simple

mur·der [mur-der]
noun
1.
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

It has to do with motive and intent, similar to the difference between first and second degree murder. IMO it is still arguable whether or not their actions constitute terrorism. One reason we still hold trials.

[adieu]

43. There's a colloquial definition

of a terrorist, which would put these two as a terrorist. Then there's a legal definition of a terrorist, and it's not clear that these brothers would be considered as a terrorist under the legal definition.

The colloquial meaning is someone who terrorize many people. In that case, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, and virtually all mass killing gunners would be terrorists, as would all those bombers, Eric Rudolph, McVeigh, et al.

I'm guessing the colloquial definition of a "terrorist" is someone who commits a crime of extreme violence, including death or dismemberment, indiscriminately upon a group of people. This would differentiate between killing a marked person (Dr Tiller's murder or John Lennon's murder, or even a stranger picked out among a crowd), or a random killing of an individual (Zodiac killer). I would prefer to not go there as that's an extra level of refinement that is not necessary within our laws. I mean, does it matter that the person is a terrorist versus a mass murderer, except in the strict legal sense of the word, "terrorist"?

[Brainstormy]

48. It isn't ideas

that should define terroism. It's an organized and identifiable group and organized funding that should make the difference. Otherwise the slippery slope we've been going down since 9/11 will just get worse.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. What gets me is when the gun nuts act like they will shoot any cop coming for their guns.

[ProSense]

51. "Federal authorities charged Tsarnaev with using a weapon of mass destruction"

"Federal authorities charged Tsarnaev with using a weapon of mass destruction"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022735913

FYI

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Easy... They used explosives

And explosives are part of the legal definition

FYI I think the definition needs to add the use f guns.

Motive also plays a role, why the Sikh temple attack was classified as terrorism.

[Jeremy Almond]

57. Do you mean the "explosives" part of the definition if sufficcient?

Or should we read the explosives part in the context of the whole definition?

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. The legal definition needs expanding IMHO.

Because Holmes caused plenty of terror and so did Lanza, but not legally speaking.

[Jeremy Almond]

65. Oh. I understand. It would be terror if the definition is expanded some day

Thanks for your excellent clarification as to why it is "easy" to conclude that this was terror.

[Luminous Animal]

76. I don't think we need to expand the definition of terror. Holmes and Lanza are mass murderers

and that designation suits them just fine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. So there was no terror involved?

There was, not politically motivated, but here was.

It won't, don't worry. We would not want to anger the NRA.

[Luminous Animal]

87. I am sure that those exposed to their actions felt terror but that does not mean

that everyone who feels terror has been the victim of terrorism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. I know the legal definition

IMHO it needs to be expanded to cover mass shootings.

That is my opinion.

[Luminous Animal]

92. Why?

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Because they do cause terror

And change social norms of behavior...see all this noise about making schools more like fortresses.

That is why.

[Luminous Animal]

95. Being held at gun point while being mugged causes terror.

Designating criminal activity as terror creates the just the right conditions to allow "the authoritarians" to turn schools into fortresses.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. We're not talking of a mugging and you know it

Rest easy, won't happen...the NRA needs to be protected.

[TwilightZone]

67. The FBI doesn't seem to agree.

http://www.fbi.gov/albuquerque/about-us/what-we-investigate

The FBI defines terrorism as “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.” The FBI further classifies terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization.

So, crashing a plane into a building isn't terrorism? That's a new one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Re-read the definition you just posted

In the narrow sense using weapons of mass destruction, which is part of the Federal Complaint, is a component

Tell me, what was the objective of the AQ on Sept 11?

Your answer is there. Moreover, planes were used as WMDs.

[TwilightZone]

73. Explosives are not automatically a weapon of mass destruction.

In this particular case, they are because of context, but a blanket statement of "easy, they used explosives" is not an accurate definition of whether or not something is defined as terrorism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. No, not always

But it is a component in how to charge.

IMHO this has to be expanded to include extensive use of gunplay and mass murders...which usually lack a political angle to it...why they are usually not classified as such. And by the way, Greenwald knows this.

[TwilightZone]

98. Then, it would seem that you're confusing terrorism with the legal charge of use of a WMD.

Your assertion is that it's terrorism because they used explosives, which you then claim fits the legal definition of terrorism.

There is no legal definition of terrorism. If there were, these questions wouldn't need to be asked.

The usage of explosives in this context applies to usage of a WMD, which is what he's being charged with, of course. The terms are not interchangeable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Yeah right...

I guess Jonathan Turley is clueless too.

Have a good day

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. If there's someone left over to do it again, it's terrorism

because that is what instils the 'terror'. So if it's a suicide attack, or it's inevitable they will be captured, then they need associates who aren't there to 'carry on the cause', for it to be terrorism. If they escape (or have left before it's even happened), then they can do it again. At Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine, the perpetrators all stayed to be killed or captured, and didn't have associates. This was like Oklahoma City - ie terrorism.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

61. Another salient argument from Greenwald.

Thanks for posting.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. An excellent point.

In any case someone goes buck wild and tries to hurt as many people as possible without regard for WHO the targets are, or even in the case of Tuscon, a primary identified target, and then indiscriminate fire, you could fairly call that terrorism.

Wouldn't make any sense not to really.

[Iggo]

78. Mooooooslims.

[SoCalDem]

80. Pretty obvious to me..

Why is armed robbery different from burglary? Separation from divorce?
cats from dogs?

They are different because they are different.


Loser-loners who amass a weapons cache and go to a school/theater/mall and shoot up the place are not "terrorists", even though their victims are terrorized.

Politics has redefined "terrorism" to be an act that expresses cultural/religious/ideological grudges, and whose intended victims are merely pawns to be used for body-count, and to make the general public fearful enough to alter their behavior/beliefs.

[Alva Goldbook]

81. Maybe it's because Sandy Hook wasn't terrorism?

If we're just going to call horrible crimes terrorism now, then we might as well label rapists and murderers "terrorists". Talk about stupid.

[harun]

83. They have to have a special category for Muslims so they don't have to treat them fairly

under the law or give them any rights.

[PatrynXX]

86. 3 dead vs who?

also think it's offensive to those killed during 9/11 to compare the two. the Snipers killed more.. Guns always kill more overall except when there's Radiation involved..

[Rex]

94. If you create terror among the masses are you a terrorist?

Directly or indirectly?

[Tikki]

97. Because the NRA hasn't received permission yet to call themselves the NR&BA...

I'm sure it's in the works...



Tikki

[Xithras]

100. In the end, Boston may not end up being classified as an act of terrorism.

The only person who knows for sure whether or not it was terrorism is lying in a hospital bed right now, exchanging notes with the FBI.

One interesting tidbit that was discussed this morning is that the younger brother was apparently not a radical Muslim by any sense of the term. He wasn't active in any Muslim groups, and didn't attend any mosque. While its clear that his older brother did attend a mosque and may have held some fundamentalist views, we still don't know what his actual goal was with the bombing. One of the unanswered questions is still the lack of a claim of responsibility, which nearly always accompanies a terrorist attack.

In the end, the only difference between a "terrorist attack" and a common mass murderer is intent. It's like the difference between a beating being classified as a "hate crime" or a simple random assault. The physical results of the attack are identical, but the motivation of the attackers plays a big role in how we prosecute and penalize it.

[AnnieBW]

104. Because of the motive?

Aurora, Sandy Hook, Columbine were not about a political message. OKC, Fort Hood, and Boston were. I guess the motive matters.

[Douglas Carpenter]

108. what was the stated or implied political motive in the Boston Marathon bombing?

The two obviously did not plan to be caught - so if they had not been caught - what would have been the implied political message if we did not know they were Chechens or Muslims which obviously they did not intend anyone to know?

[arely staircase]

105. political motivation

Tim McVeigh and the Unabomber got the terrorist label because their crimes were political motivated

[dsc]

109. Loughner was terrorism by any reasonable definition

While his clear mental illness made his political motive very hard to understand, it doesn't make his political motive less political. I have no idea if this latest attack was terrorism or not, since I have no idea yet as to the motive for the attack. If there is a political motive then I would think it is but then so was Tucson.

[El Fuego]

112. Loughner was terrorism as defined by United States Code!!! 18 U.S.C. 2332b

18 USC § 2332b - Acts of terrorism (excerpt)

(a) Prohibited Acts.—

(1) Offenses.— Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b)—

(A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; ...

(b) Jurisdictional Bases.—
(1) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are—...

(C) the victim, or intended victim, is the United States Government, a member of the uniformed services,or any official, officer, employee, or agent of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches, or of any department or agency, of the United States;