The Boston Bombing Wasn't Terrorism.

reply to post by salainen


To say that a violent act against a mass of people, using weapons that each could hurt 100 people, that it to say that virtually every single act of war the US, every instance almost even, is an act of terrorism.

Please clarify this thread of thought for me, following these definitions that have been invented for these lowlife Tsarnaev bros.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The alleged dirt-douchebag duo went home after the attacks...

Fixed.

Everything is "terrorism" now. From protesting to selling drugs.

Reason being that it strips the accused of any rights. This in complete contrast to why the United States was founded.

Its word association/training for the masses: "terrorism", "lock down", "enemy combatant".

reply to post by boncho


Are you saying that those IRA combatants, their goal wasn't to enact political change, but rather just to scare the bejeezus out of everyone, nothing more?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
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.

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

Yes, a tactic to support an ideology.

You really going to argue that Muslim extremist bombings are not terrorism nor are the IRA bombings that went on for decades. Essentially the exact same thing. It's an ideology, that specifically has been pushed with one solution as the only solution.

You don't see Muslim extremist running protests like woman's lib groups. (Ironic comparison) and after 9/11, IRA actually hung up it's hat saying, "Jeez, no we see what terrorists look like we don't wanna be those guys anymore mommy."

So yeah... Your argument is weak sauce.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by boncho

 

Are you saying that those IRA combatants, their goal wasn't to enact political change, but rather just to scare the bejeezus out of everyone, nothing more?

First search of the word I do is:

Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism‎
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.

Coercion.

As in a goal to enact political change and we do these things, (terrorist acts) to get them to meet the demands of our political standards.

Muslims (radicals) make demands all the time, they declare jihad all the time. So did the IRA (not so much on the jihad thing but you get my point)

SSDD

Originally posted by bekod
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).

Okay, we're to go by the official version, invented to ensure the instituted PATRIOT ACT andits offspring? Hey if you trust the government wholeheartidly you should let them come search your house without a warrant, since surely you're a suspect if you live in the same population district that some punk fairy 19 year old, who most will ever read this could stomp into the ground, was spotted in 11 hours ago.

Or we can go back to my original list, that I intended to not be based on logical fallacies, in part to prevent absurd actions & policies to be based on.

We can go back and forth all day, citing all the definitions of all things billions of people have produced, but can you break apart my analysis by using a logical fallacy list?

reply to post by boncho


I'm not an expert on the history IRA terror. But since you clearly are, can you provide us a list of 'senseless' acts, the ultimate list of acts that didn't have tactical motivations? I'd imagine UK propaganda would have non-Irish (and Irish) believe such).

Now, assuming every current or former IRA operative might bomb a random crowd, just because, does every single Irishman who also sympathizes with perceived injustices, if they hurt some people, are they automatically terrorists? What about when they're called terrorists before any hope of their intentions are conjured up?

Another angle is, if a political group with specific intentions gets within their group, a person prone to killing others, that is a true psychopath, into their ranks, and that person happens to kill people who somehow apply to their possibly crazy worldview, does that make that entire group terrorist?

If not, does people who might subscribe to certain perceived injustices by actual 'radical' groups, does that make these potential hate crime murderous psychopaths into full blown violent political activists?

Originally posted by boncho
Coercion.

As in a goal to enact political change and we do these things, (terrorist acts) to get them to meet the demands of our political standards.

Muslims (radicals) make demands all the time, they declare jihad all the time. So did the IRA (not so much on the jihad thing but you get my point)

What demands did these lowlife brother list? What demands did Al Qaeda outline when they allegedly attack the US (while on CIA payroll up thru Sept. 11)? I was glued to the TV that day, the media was confused, nobody claimed responsibility. They all denied it. It was just senseless across the board. Of course that's a disaster of an issue to bring into this fold, for these very reasons.

Here's we have a hate crime committed against a crowd of easy targets, most convenient to the local criminals, or potentially pawns. The fact they were declared terrorists from the get go, and everybodies sticking to it all throughout, despite me conducting these talking points via logical fallacy lists, has this gamble maintaining full justification of beginning.

BOTTOM LINE:
You hurt people just because you hate them: Hate Crime.

You hurt people, especially open in the public sphere, to enact political change: Terrorism.

But just because you see people int eh public sphere hurt, even when by someone you'd stereotype as being a "terrorist", that doesn't make it an act bent on political 'justice'.

Originally posted by boncho
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.

Please use a logical fallacy list to dismantle my OP, and prop up your counterings, for assured victory. Being a Muslim, even so called "radical" doesnt make you a terrorist". There isn't an ideology in this world that is "TERRORIST". Terrorism, is merely a tactic of war almost exclusively perpetrated by desperate people,.

I google'd the bros, and the word Muslim, the articles I found mentioned they were supposedly pissed about how the US handled Afghanistan and Iraq. Aren't hose wars over? Shouldn't that be declared vengeance? Unless we have actual political goals as the 'or else', how is this terrorism?

Does the phrase "we dont negotiate with terrorists" ring any conceptual bells? To me that universal phrase implies terrorists dont merely want to hurt people, they have political goals.

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

OP, Never, ever, use a dictionary to define terrorism, what you have provided is not a definition of terrorism and I don’t give two flying pig poo’s what Google’s tells you, that definition is wrong. When having a intelligent discussion regarding the topic of terrorism one should recognise that terrorism is defined by the legislation of the state and not by some dictionary. I created this THREAD ages ago regarding the definition of terrorism because I found that so many people on ATS could not actually use the word correctly, you might find it useful.

Anyway like is said above terrorism is defined by the state and not by your online dictionary as we are talking about the United States of America it is therefore prudent to use their definition of terrorism which is as follows.

According to the US Code of Federal Regulations

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

Link

And according to the US Patriot Act domestic terrorism is defined as:

activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S

link

Now because in America there are quite a few definitions of terrorism this can make the rest of our discussion a little complicated but that only demonstrates the pitfalls of running to Google for your definitions.

If we go with what the US Code of Federal Regulations has to say then I suppose you have a point. This is actually something I have said on quite a few threads early on that the political motivation of these attacks was largely unknown and it was possible that there were just two guys looking to kill some people and it is no more terrorism than Sandy hook was terrorism. However the big problem with that argument is that we don’t have all the details, we don’t know what the FBI knows about the bombers. The guy they have in custody right now could be ranting and raving about death to the Kafir and screaming all the Jihadist rhetoric you can think of. Even if he has not then we don’t know the full extent of the evidence that the FBI has on this guy so for all we know they could have evidence that proves these attacks were politically motivated something that has been reported in the press

according to the Washington Post:

The 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack, according to U.S. officials familiar with the interviews.

link

so that gives them political motivation and therefore even under Federal Regulations we could say it was terrorism.


next if we look at the US Patriot Act then yes it was terrorism because it did break both state and federal laws and yes it does appear to have been an attack to intimidate the civilian population. As such under the Patriot Act it’s pretty clear cut that this was an act of domestic terrorism.

either way, there is not enough evidance in the public domain to say this was not a act of terrorism. I would say it was a act of domestic terrorism.

OP I think before you created this thread you really would have benefited from taking the time to educate yourself on the definition of terrorism.

Some people just want to watch the world burn. Is it terrorism? Yes, yes it is. Do you know why it's terrorism? Because it caused terror. It caused fear. There didn't need to be any political motivation behind it. Because the only motivation was to cause fear, panic, mayhem, and terror.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Okay, you win, everything and potentially anything a human being could ever do, that might scare another human being in the process, espeically any and all acts of violence, is TERRORism. Hell, a person standing on a roofs edge, contemplating their own suicide, that excitement, surely would scare some of the bystanders, via empathy no less, so therefore it is TERRORism? No, it isn't.

All you've done is bring in some over-described rehashes of the same thing. In effect, you're really saying 'Any event worth reporting that is sure to elicit fear amongst portions of the millions of viewers that will see it on the news, especially any that politicians might like to suspend peoples Constitution-enshrined rights with, in particular groups that fall within the Us Vs. Them zeitgeist currently subscribed to by most within that society (most likely as a result of the same indoctrinating media forces who will eventually report any upcoming news that might be associated with such)".

Vengeance isn't terrorism. It's vengeance. When the Holy Bible talks about "eye for an eye", however, surely that isn't TERRORism, though, right? No, it isn't..

A "senseless" violent act, even when motivated by some past social AKA political indiscretion, just because it might SCARE some people (the Empathy Entertainment obsessed folks especially) doesn't mean its an act performed to cause political change. Not unless its perpetrators express it as a warning to not do it again (after all the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are over with, eh?). Otherwise, when no intended results are expressed, is a crappy excuse at best.

according to the Washington Post:

The 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack, according to U.S. officials familiar with the interviews.

link

so that gives them political motivation and therefore even under Federal Regulations we could say it was terrorism.

That kid barely survived. If he hadn't, or was never even identified and pursued, then how would you be attempting to maintain your argument?

Terrorism is an old show.

It's been done for ages, How about catapulting plague ridden bodies over a city wall to infect the population inside with plague? That is terrorism. Is how present day Ukrainian city of Feodosia was fought over in the mideval times.

How about non police and non military people rising up against a ruling Authority, terrorism but is how our Country America was founded.

Terrorism has been a part of Human Behavior for a very very very long time, if not the beginning. It's not new, but our country's race to brand people as " Terrorist " is becoming out of hand and possibly how they arrest YOU next.

When Mankind feels so lost of hope, so bullied, beaten down and unable to rise up as is, people will loose all remorse and carry out what they feel is needed in order to win back their humanity. Sad part is, through such an act they loose their humanity in order to give others theirs.

Originally posted by HauntWok
Some people just want to watch the world burn. Is it terrorism? Yes, yes it is. Do you know why it's terrorism? Because it caused terror. It caused fear. There didn't need to be any political motivation behind it. Because the only motivation was to cause fear, panic, mayhem, and terror.

So these Boston scum, their motivation was to make the world burn? Or was it to "cause fear, panic, mayhem, and terror"? Which is it? How do you differentiate a mass murder killing spree motivated by the desire to harm others, from some senseless act meant to scare people? Where do you derive these 'facts' from?

And these days case after case seems to prove that the mass murders the media bombards us with ad nauseum, aren't senseless acts, but instead all to often motivated by 15 minutes of fame.

Proper mass murder is the lazy un-methodical mans version of serial killing. Serial killing isn't some big plot to scare the masses. It's a sociopath urge. I'm tempted to declare that you might watch too much TV, but I can't even think of an fiction media entertainment example where this was the case. Not Hannibal, not Dexter, not Natural Born Killers, not The Following,

Name one example, outside of the Modus Operandi of the US Media / US Federal Government, where the goal was merely to scare people, like 'just because' they wanted people to be scared. Name anything outside of politics that your description applies to.

We are talking about circumstances where criminals rights are to be suspended via military-tribune-lawlessness, and the military deployed domestically, and the constitution for entire cities to be suspended, and millions of people losing wages not being allowed to leave their homes to go to work. We had better get this right. Especially when the CRIME carries the name of an irrational fear. We better have definitions that arent completely subjective otherwise were all under obscene mob rule. This I fear more than any potential attack by little lone wolves.

Originally posted by boncho
Yes, a tactic to support an ideology.

You really going to argue that Muslim extremist bombings are not terrorism nor are the IRA bombings that went on for decades. Essentially the exact same thing. It's an ideology, that specifically has been pushed with one solution as the only solution.

You don't see Muslim extremist running protests like woman's lib groups. (Ironic comparison) and after 9/11, IRA actually hung up it's hat saying, "Jeez, no we see what terrorists look like we don't wanna be those guys anymore mommy."

So yeah... Your argument is weak sauce.

What is an ideology besides a political worldview? In this breadth of thought, none.

A political ideology with goals... here we go DESPERATE ideologues with no other dramatic means of achieving them than to attack the group responsible for their ills... sure.

But these are also acts of war? Right? So surely then all acts of war, by the underdog, are act of terrorism? Luke Skywalker = TERRORist. Han Solo = TERRORist. Chewbaca = TERRORist. The Ewoks = TERRORists.

Now we have a few too many definitions of TERRORism:
1. Acts of violence to cause desired political change.
2. Acts of violence to get attention to oneself or ones cause.
3. Acts of violence to get vengeance.
4. All acts of war (which is nothing more than politicized violence).
5. Acts of violence motivated by hate.
6. Any act that might scare some people, which violence always will.
7. Senseless acts meant to scare people, just because.
8. Acts of violence that affect multiple people at the same time.
9. Acts of violence that involve weapons, especially explosives.
10. Acts of violence meant to obtain ones freedom.

In short, any and all acts of violence and or hate are now terrorist acts, and the US Constitution is now completely null and void in favor of unbridled Mob Rule. Awesome. Even more motivation to expatriot this sick place everyone refers to as a "civilization".

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Yeah…. You really don’t understand terrorism, you think you do, I can tell that by your posts but in reality you know as much about terrorism as I know about 16th century agricultural policy in Argentina… not very much.

Your entire OP was built on the premise that terrorism is defined as being “the use of violence in pursuit of political aims”. Well that’s not actually the definition of terrorism under American law which the Boston bomber is subject to and as such your “definition” means nothing. Under American law this guy is a terrorist, now you might disagree with that and that’s absolutely fine but that is only a matter of your personal opinion. So by all means feel free to say that in your opinion the Boston bombers were not terrorists, just don’t mistake your personal opinion with fact because the fact is that under American law they are terrorists.

As such that whole bunch of drivel you wrote in your OP is totally irrelevant because legally they are terrorists.

Basically your OP is factually wrong.

And what is the essence of these "American Laws"? Subjective use of political terminology, titled an irrational fear no less, that can be and is twisted to suit the US Federal Government, which gives us the definition: Any threat to that institution, foreign or domestic, that involves the public sphere, and violence, especially involving Muslims, and especially involving explosive devices, in particular any such event that can be politicized by said institution to further its own power, and reported by the mass media ad nauseum in such pursuit, is by United Statian definition, terrorism.

Thanks for clearing that up. I already knew this coming into the argument, but hoped we could work our way up to this point. Good game.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


If you look at my thread that I linked you to in my first post and actually bother to read it you might understand thing a bit more.

Essentially yes, states developed their own definition of “terrorism” and can use this definition to suit the needs of the state. That however does not mean that they can just blanket everyone with the label “terrorist” they can only do so provided the individuals meet the state definition of a “terrorist”. Your lack of understanding of jurisprudence makes this debate quite difficult for example the law does not prejudice against Muslims or anyone who uses say a bomb as opposed to a gun.

The fact remains that under American law this dude is a terrorist and the events that took place at the Boston Marathon were acts of terrorism.

It is only your opinion that seems to refute these facts and that doesn’t really matter because what you think has no bearing on the facts.