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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Greenwald: Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine? [View all]
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
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
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
112 replies, 14813 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (54)
ReplyReply to this post
112 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Greenwald: Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine? [View all]
xocet
Apr 2013
OP
They should all be treated as hateperps and known as murderers forever after.
graham4anything
Apr 2013
#1
The motive is known. It is radical Islam that influenced them, that may not be the
still_one
Apr 2013
#2
The last two years of their activities, there is no suspect about it. The older one was thrown out
still_one
Apr 2013
#16
"Terrorism is a violent means of coercion perpetrated for a religious political or ideological goal"
Douglas Carpenter
Apr 2013
#103
It was either self-motivated recruit, or in their 6 months of travel previously got
still_one
Apr 2013
#70
Tamerlane posted banned videos on his Russian social media page. If I cared to argue with stupid-
KittyWampus
Apr 2013
#77
The difference is that these guys expressed political/religious/social consciousness
geek tragedy
Apr 2013
#3
Especially when they targetted a high profile event--their bombs were designed to draw attention
geek tragedy
Apr 2013
#22
They attacked the Boston Marathon. It doesn't take a spectacularly high IQ
geek tragedy
Apr 2013
#34
pretty elementary. Just another rather obvious thing that this author doesn't get.
grantcart
Apr 2013
#46
i think it's motive, but in the end they are all horrible events, Sandy Hook is not "less bad"
JI7
Apr 2013
#12
There is evidence that the men committed a crime but there is no known evidence that they crime
Luminous Animal
Apr 2013
#35
The key phrase, of course, is "in furtherance of political or social objectives"
TwilightZone
Apr 2013
#41
I agree that there is a possibility but I agree with Greenwald that applying a terrorrist
Luminous Animal
Apr 2013
#52
Why would Oklahoma City have been terrorism but Boston marathon bombing not terrorism?
geek tragedy
Apr 2013
#23
I tend to agree, but that poster was claiming that describing this as terrorism is racist. nt
geek tragedy
Apr 2013
#29
A lot of people called it terrorism assuming it was white supremacists or not knowing at all who did
geek tragedy
Apr 2013
#40
Well, you can pretend there is zero information from which to infer a motive.
geek tragedy
Apr 2013
#56
Didn't you know? Only brown people that kill white people are terrorists! n/t
backscatter712
Apr 2013
#30
They had funny foreign sounding names, and were Muslim. For the redneck right, close enough. n/t
backscatter712
Apr 2013
#36
Harris & Klebold tried to use bombs at Columbine. James Holmes made bombs in Aurora.
backscatter712
Apr 2013
#37
The targets of their violence were people against whom they had a personal grudge. nt
geek tragedy
Apr 2013
#63
I was pretty young when it happened but I always remember that one of them asked a girl
DeadEyeDyck
Apr 2013
#101
What gets me is when the gun nuts act like they will shoot any cop coming for their guns.
Spitfire of ATJ
Apr 2013
#49
"Federal authorities charged Tsarnaev with using a weapon of mass destruction"
ProSense
Apr 2013
#51
Oh. I understand. It would be terror if the definition is expanded some day
Jeremy Almond
Apr 2013
#65
I don't think we need to expand the definition of terror. Holmes and Lanza are mass murderers
Luminous Animal
Apr 2013
#76
I am sure that those exposed to their actions felt terror but that does not mean
Luminous Animal
Apr 2013
#87
Then, it would seem that you're confusing terrorism with the legal charge of use of a WMD.
TwilightZone
Apr 2013
#98
They have to have a special category for Muslims so they don't have to treat them fairly
harun
Apr 2013
#83
what was the stated or implied political motive in the Boston Marathon bombing?
Douglas Carpenter
Apr 2013
#108