The Boston Bombing Wasn't Terrorism.

[definition]ter·ror·ism (Noun)
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.[/definition]

The dirt-douchebag duo went home after the attacks, as if they wouldn't get caught. No responsibility was claimed. No political goals were specified. No pre-made Youtube videos were filmed. No manifesto written. No Al Qaeda Manual found under the pillow.

Lots casualties doesn't equal terrorism.

Weapons being used against crowds of people doesn't equal terrorism.

Building explosive devices isn't the practice of terrorists alone.

Explosive devices put into use, including against people, doesn't equal terrorism.

Are all who light fireworks (typically explosive devices) to celebrate the 4th of July (Independence Day) terrorists?

Being motivated to hurt people in response to perceived injustices doesn't always equal terrorism. Otherwise, all hate crimes are an act of terrorism?

A mass murder event, even when the perpetrator allegedly was influenced by a shadowy Muslim religious fundamentalist, isn't automatically terrorism.

An attack on a soft target grouping of people isn't inherently meant to SCARE people (to terrorize). To state that as being the intent of others, without a full statement by the perpetrators as being such, is a False Dichotomy.

Counter-attacking police who are in pursuit of you isn't terrorism.

Shooting guns and killing people, including police, isn't terrorism.

Just because something scares YOU, doesn't mean that was the true intent by those who did it.

Killing people just to kill people doesn't equal terrorism (mass murderers).

Being a violent Muslim doesn't make you a terrorist.

A Muslim violently attacking a non-Muslim doesn't inherently make it a terrorist act.

Terrorism IS a tactic of war (nothing more, it isn't a true philosophy by the standards herein). War is systematic violence. That doesn't mean all acts of violence are an act of war or terrorism.

Military'esque troops forcing their way into your family's home with machine guns in your face, marching you out with your hands on your head with Blackhawk helicopters overhead, while to you the well-trained subservient adult this might make you feel safe, as you might not be adult enough to know whether or not a 'terrorist' is hiding under your bed or in your cupboards, to your little children this IS TERRORISM.

It seems with all of the most politicized "terrorist" events since the new millennium, responsibility nor political goals have been claimed or specified. Now while The 9/11 Attacks were surely unprecedented on showmanship, regardless, the Boston Bombing was not. Only the police response was unprecedented. Nothing more. The most unprecedented use of police / domestic-military force in US history, yet the nation would prefer a shadowy cultist Muslim 'agent of influence' to be the big story?

DISCUSS!

Then of course, we also have that whole issue of "Weapon of Mass Destruction" being charged against this "terrorist".

NOTE: If we get a sworn, confirmed (in some way merit'able by public standards), statement that they were trying to end the wars (Iraq & Afghanistan????) via scaring EVERYBODY then this could be true terrorism. But since all sources are so absolutely on enacting fallacies across the board to trump this up as terrorism, I'm stating it isn't at this moment.

Gosh you know nothing about terrorism - goes to show how sheltered you are Lucky you.

Noooooo... Boston bombing was a nice peaceful protest wasnt it?! hahahaaha...

It was a terrorist attempt and an act of terrorism.
It isnt numbers at all. Its the intention , which is to put fear in people. And it worked closing down a whole city to prevent them from targetting other civilians. Thank goodness USA hit those idiots where it hurt.


Plus they did get their wise ideas from an Al Qaida magazine - hence the network behind their ideologies.

Just because violence is scary, doesn't mean fear is the intent.

Was the Batman movie theatre attack terrorism? No, just some media fame driven maniac psychopath looking to up the bar in a media frenzy world long growing bored with school shootings.

Oh, so it was just a fun idea then?

What a pillock !

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I think you need a better link to under stand that yes it was an act of terrorism

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. Terrorism's impact has been magnified by the deadliness and technological sophistication of modern-day weapons and the capability of the media to disseminate news of such attacks instantaneously throughout the world.

from the link www.merriam-webster.com... If one walk's in to a public place to do mass harm or killing by any means that is an act of terrorism. it is an act of terror www.merriam-webster.com...

I have to admit when I clicked on this thread I was set to have my blood boil. After reading it, your points make a lot of sense.

It was a politically/religiously motivated attack against civilians using clandestine methods. As the two known attackers were not soldiers is cannot be gorilla warfare, which is what we see in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many will see that and say that the insurgents fighting in those countries are not soldiers. To which I would say they would disagree with you. Insurgents are also fighting in foreign (to us) countries, whereas Boston was an attack against Americans in their own country.

I cannot bring myself to say this was simply a mass killing (like so many recently), simply because it was done for religious reasons. Before anyone attacks me for that, yes I would say the same thing if the attackers were Jesuit/Buddhist/Mormon/Adventist hybrids. I could care less what religion was involved, only that religion was the cause.

**all opinions offered are based on the premise that information provided is accurate**

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

There is more then one meaning

reply to post by bekod


AWESOME!

Great example.

It only explains how governments and media work together to scare masses of people into conforming to their political goals (that trumpeting fear is required to perpetrate).

Please read above: a hate crime isn't an act of terrorism.

reply to post by thesaneone


That's the same as my initial definition, only it uses more words to essentially say the same thing.

Nobody, in all of my studies, 10,000+ hours in this realm since 2004, nobody except The Media engages in perpetual 'senseless' fear mongering. Nobody, except perhaps the U.S Federal Government.

A faceless 'senseless' act, that happened to be performed by a Muslim, who intended to remain anonymous, doesn't equate to that being a design for political change.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


FBI:

There is no single, universally accepted, definition 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” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Seems to me like they had some objectives, possibly related to Islamic extremism. Doesn't seem to me like it was just due to insanity.

reply to post by salainen


Really? When the original redneck Klu Klux Klan members first rode out to scare the Negros into fearing trying to exercise their new freedoms, that WAS terrorism.

Every act of injustice by a redneck towards a negro was not.

Today, if a KKK member attacks a non-white, do we now declare that an act of terrorism?

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
well we have to disagree for to me it is and not because the Gov says it is or the MSM says it is, it is an act of terror www.fbi.gov... from the link

Hate crimes directed at the U.S. government or the American population may be investigated as acts of domestic terrorism. Incidents involving hate groups are also investigated as domestic terrorism (the FBI’s Civil Rights Program cannot investigate groups, only individuals).

If your still not convinced, well then there is this to read civilliberty.about.com... form the link

It's true that more categories may be added to the hate crimes law down the road. Personally, I would welcome additional protections for veterans, the elderly, children, and the homeless under the same terms as the Shepard-Byrd Act. All we are doing is stating that crimes that target communities need not pose a threat to the U.S. government, or to the country as a whole, in order to have a disproportionate effect on larger communities. The hate crime law, in other words, is not a statement that members of targeted groups are sacred; it is a statement that the government is not, and that every community terrorized by bias-motivated violence should be protected in a way that acknowledges the broader impact of such violence.

to me if one is found guilty of such an act, life with out parole. but them that's just me. convince me that if someone came in to my home and held me a gun point and raped my GF that would not an act of terrorism. for to me that is terror.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by salainen

 

Really? When the original redneck Klu Klux Klan members first rode out to scare the Negros into fearing trying to exercise their new freedoms, that WAS terrorism.

Every act of injustice by a redneck towards a negro was not.

Today, if a KKK member attacks a non-white, do we now declare that an act of terrorism?

edit on 11-5-2013 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)

I don't get what your saying. Whats this got to do with the KKK?


If a KKK member blows up some group of non-white people, sure thats terrorism. I don't see why it wouldn't be?

reply to post by bekod


A 'hate crime' can have a political goal in mind, to scare others of the intended ilk. But it could also just be a plain eruptive act of intolerant hate. Such over-boiling hate could even be directed at random people.

Do note that day 1, lesson one, moment one, I do believe this was automatically trumped up as an act of terrorism. The moment a crowd of random people, and a bomb, were combined into casualties, it was automatically equated into TERRORISM, as, after-all it was scary, even for all of the Empathy Entertainment Seekers who tuned in and didn't drop out. Even when the manhunt was on, terrorism (without anybody claiming responsibility). Firefight involved bombs: those were automatically terrorist bombs. The guy in the boat, running from police trying to kill him for killing police, obviously a terrorist. Luckily for some, he was apparently Muslim, but if you reference a logical fallacy list, this doesn't inherently make him a terrorist (one bent on enacting political change via this tactic of war).

Since there was clearly a militarized police response force already in place, test-fired in 2011, one might argue it would have been a goal for certain officials to make sure this remained classified as an act of terror instead of as an act of crime. To narrow list list, perhaps we might look to who benefited from nobody in the city being able to go to work and collect paycheck (which gave those poor citizens a $333Million loss of income (groceries budget) that day). Obviously, since all police regiments, and Dunkin Donuts employees (no joke) were called in for service, surely nobody in those circles make that list.

reply to post by salainen


The KKK political group, conducting a strategic operation, would most likely be an ordeal meant to scare non-whites into some form of submission. When this last happened? As far as I know that shooting, I think it was a church, killing those little girls. If so, that only burned them.

If a subscriber to KKK hierarchical racist beliefs kills a bunch of random people, if they don't state it as being politically strategic, such as the case of the little girls who got killed, not only is not not necessarily proper terrorism, it can ultimately prove to be the Achilles heel to any such supposed goals.

This is very similar to this pansy fairy punk 19 year old getting charged with a "Weapon Of Mass Destruction". Typically, WMD's are all of those banned internationally from use in warfare (Nuke/Bio/Chem). The US is so proud to not engage in WMD use (a lie actually (see Depleted Uranium)), yet a gunpowder filled kitchen pot embodied bomb, that's a WMD all of the sudden, to further ensure this remain a terrorist act???

It's all a play on words and even until this very night, I was one of the suckers, despite right from the beginning being sicken to my core over the suspension of the Constitution for Friday Payday on that day in Boston.

Originally posted by bekod
to me if one is found guilty of such an act, life with out parole. but them that's just me. convince me that if someone came in to my home and held me a gun point and raped my GF that would not an act of terrorism. for to me that is terror.

I feel you, but "Terrorism"is a politicized term for a certain (desperate) tactic of war. Just because something scares a given person, doesn't make it a proper act o terrorism. In your example, only if the perpetrator was to force you to do something, by beginning to engage in what you fear, in the goal of getting their desired effect, is that terrorism.

In comparison, its likely that you would fear any 'thing' that might hurt anyone you care about. Just because you surely fear such harm, doesn't make the harm 'terror'.

Another angle is, just because a target would be ideal soft target for a true terrorist attack, and attack on said same target isn't automatically terrorism (Google: fallacy list).

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The dirt-douchebag duo went home after the attacks, as if they wouldn't get caught. No responsibility was claimed. No political goals were specified. No pre-made Youtube videos were filmed. No manifesto written. No Al Qaeda Manual found under the pillow.

Lots casualties doesn't equal terrorism.

Weapons being used against crowds of people doesn't equal terrorism.

Building explosive devices isn't the practice of terrorists alone.

Explosive devices put into use, including against people, doesn't equal terrorism.

Well, as of right now it is alleged that the brothers did what they did. So lets take the alleged away, make it a hypothetical.

There is evidence they are Muslim, they were radicalized (whether it be a twisted Imam, or an FBI provocateur that radicalized them I don't care, so save your argument) the bottom line, is that they were radicalized Muslims and their actions were supporting an ideology that is the definition of terrorism.

So yea... Not really seeing your point here.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by bekod
to me if one is found guilty of such an act, life with out parole. but them that's just me. convince me that if someone came in to my home and held me a gun point and raped my GF that would not an act of terrorism. for to me that is terror.

I feel you, but "Terrorism"is a politicized term for a certain (desperate) tactic of war. Just because something scares a given person, doesn't make it a proper act o terrorism. In your example, only if the perpetrator was to force you to do something, by beginning to engage in what you fear, in the goal of getting their desired effect, is that terrorism.

In comparison, its likely that you would fear any 'thing' that might hurt anyone you care about. Just because you surely fear such harm, doesn't make the harm 'terror'.

Another angle is, just because a target would be ideal soft target for a true terrorist attack, and attack on said same target isn't automatically terrorism (Google: fallacy list).

I'm gonna say the decades long bombings the IRA carried out on the British is a damn good example of terrorism. Also, the suicide bombings of Western targets in the ME, yup, another good example.

I would say anything that jeopardizes the daily safety of the public and makes them fear normal, everyday activities, making them worry about blowing up while they pick up eggs & toast, or catch a public show/event/gathering, that is a realistic and reasonable definition of the word.

Heck, you can even throw in drone strikes to that definition. I'm cool with that as well.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Ok, so instead of claiming that the Boston incident didn't involve WMDs and wasn't terrorism, maybe you should instead state that you believe that USA uses terrorism and WMDs elsewhere in the world.

reply to post by boncho


An ideology isn't terrorism.

Terrorism isn't an ideology.

It's a tactic. A set within a set of strategies, of war. Nothing more. Typically performed out of desperation, I mean DESPERATION. Wars being fought, that hurt people, anywhere, I would hope they at least have a goal. If you can find an example of a war fought without goals, I want to hear it, out of curiously alone.