If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 543
    More: Interesting, shock and awe, Alan Dershowitz, Gitmo Detainees, domestic violence  
•       •       •

14991 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2013 at 1:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



543 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-23 11:27:45 AM
It's the NRA making sure that guns are not tied to 'terror', only bombs can cause terror it seems!

Nothing better then having a paid for Congress!!!
 
2013-04-23 11:29:53 AM
*cough*brownpeople*cough*
 
2013-04-23 11:31:18 AM
The National Homemade Bomb Association just doesn't have the same numbers and influence
 
2013-04-23 11:31:25 AM
Because Adam Lanza wasn't a muslim.
 
2013-04-23 11:37:07 AM
One good way to differentiate between terror and non-terror is to judge whether the perpetrator was trying to satisfy an internal urge or to bring about an external change. Presumably, that could change the minds of Adam Lanza or James Loughner on the way to commit their heinous acts of carnage. However, if theoretically, if the Tsarnaev brothers woke up on the morning of the attack, turned on the news and found out that the United States has declared itself an Islamic republic under Sharia Law, they might have called off their attacks.  The same could be said for Eric Rudolph and the outlawing of abortion.
 
2013-04-23 11:45:32 AM

United States Code (U.S.C.)Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:

"Definitions ... the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"[53]
Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:
"[T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum."[
The USA PATRIOT Act defines domestic terrorism activities 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."

JerseyTim: One good way to differentiate between terror and non-terror is to judge whether the perpetrator was trying to satisfy an internal urge or to bring about an external change. Presumably, that could change the minds of Adam Lanza or James Loughner on the way to commit their heinous acts of carnage. However, if theoretically, if the Tsarnaev brothers woke up on the morning of the attack, turned on the news and found out that the United States has declared itself an Islamic republic under Sharia Law, they might have called off their attacks.  The same could be said for Eric Rudolph and the outlawing of abortion.


^^also what he said
 
2013-04-23 11:49:00 AM
Because Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine killings were committed by either Baptist, Christian or Lutherans. They was Muricans!

They don't count as terr'ists. They just lost boys with 'emotional problems'.
 
2013-04-23 11:50:41 AM

JerseyTim: One good way to differentiate between terror and non-terror is to judge whether the perpetrator was trying to satisfy an internal urge or to bring about an external change. Presumably, that could change the minds of Adam Lanza or James Loughner on the way to commit their heinous acts of carnage. However, if theoretically, if the Tsarnaev brothers woke up on the morning of the attack, turned on the news and found out that the United States has declared itself an Islamic republic under Sharia Law, they might have called off their attacks.  The same could be said for Eric Rudolph and the outlawing of abortion.


Terrorists have objectives and they leverage terror in order to convince an opponent to give in to their objectives.

But no demands were made prior to or after the event.

I'd classify this as another mass casualty but not an incident of terrorism. The only difference between Lanza and these brothers were the tools and targets.

Neither should be classified as terrorism.
 
2013-04-23 11:55:25 AM
I think making the case that this was politically motivated has a way to go yet
 
2013-04-23 12:03:32 PM
Sometimes I feel like any outward act that promotes terror in one or more people is terrorism; however, I know that's not the standard legaleeze definition of it.
 
2013-04-23 12:05:32 PM
I'm not calling it terrorism because, as noted above, the act is missing half the criteria as of now.

I think people are just reacting to right wing faux-rage when Obama didn't call it that at his first press conference. The same people who cannot define "terrorism".
 
2013-04-23 12:06:30 PM

Bontesla: Terrorists have objectives and they leverage terror in order to convince an opponent to give in to their objectives.

But no demands were made prior to or after the event.

I'd classify this as another mass casualty but not an incident of terrorism. The only difference between Lanza and these brothers were the tools and targets.

Neither should be classified as terrorism.


Of course we don't know the facts and we're speculating, but it's entirely possible that they heeded one of Al Qaeda's calls to work independently. In that case, their demands are Al Qaeda's demands.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a person who just wants to kill people (Lanza, Columbine, etc...) is not a terrorist because the killing is the ends, not the means. If we find out that these two were just in it for the killing, then I'll agree that it is not terrorism.
 
2013-04-23 12:08:56 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Sometimes I feel like any outward act that promotes terror in one or more people is terrorism; however, I know that's not the standard legaleeze definition of it.


But that's fairly subjective, right? The existence of black people terrify some elderly white racists and clearly merely existing isn't an act of terror.

Even if we set forth a standard of reasonableness - many criminal actions could be classified as acts of terrorism. Further, perfectly legal actions could also be classified as acts of terrorism.
 
2013-04-23 12:11:25 PM
Also, terrorism doesn't even necessarily have to kill people. The IRA would frequently call in and report bombs they had planted. The point was to terrorize.
 
2013-04-23 12:18:38 PM
These two really seemed unorganized. They pulled the whole act off smooth, but they're actions afterward were idiotic.

I still say there is some program or online video these guys watch, go under some trance, then fall back into they're normal selves.
 
2013-04-23 12:23:21 PM
Because bombs, not guns?
 
2013-04-23 12:29:26 PM

Bontesla: CapeFearCadaver: Sometimes I feel like any outward act that promotes terror in one or more people is terrorism; however, I know that's not the standard legaleeze definition of it.

But that's fairly subjective, right? The existence of black people terrify some elderly white racists and clearly merely existing isn't an act of terror.

Even if we set forth a standard of reasonableness - many criminal actions could be classified as acts of terrorism. Further, perfectly legal actions could also be classified as acts of terrorism.


I'm speaking more on the 'many criminal actions'. If someone purposely and maliciously threatens another through use of force or captivity in order to specifically promote terror and fright onto that other person, I feel like it's a type of terrorism. The systematic control through terror that abusers use for example. The kidnapper who uses threats and terror to keep kids like Jaycee Lee Dugard from leaving at times when a situation is actually open for fleeing. The Gorilla Rebel Bands that hold P.O.W.'s and their subsequent actions regarding their prisoners.... The act of trying and succeeding to terrify another, Terror - not scare - not a haunted house - Terror. It's a strong word with strong emotion behind it.
 
2013-04-23 12:30:56 PM

JerseyTim: Bontesla: Terrorists have objectives and they leverage terror in order to convince an opponent to give in to their objectives.

But no demands were made prior to or after the event.

I'd classify this as another mass casualty but not an incident of terrorism. The only difference between Lanza and these brothers were the tools and targets.

Neither should be classified as terrorism.

Of course we don't know the facts and we're speculating, but it's entirely possible that they heeded one of Al Qaeda's calls to work independently. In that case, their demands are Al Qaeda's demands.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a person who just wants to kill people (Lanza, Columbine, etc...) is not a terrorist because the killing is the ends, not the means. If we find out that these two were just in it for the killing, then I'll agree that it is not terrorism.


No demands were made. They created terror and no one utilized it as leverage.

It's entirely likely/propable that they had reasons (or, in their minds, justification) for carrying out the attacks. In other words - motive. But having a motive doesn't classify this as terrorism.
 
2013-04-23 12:36:19 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Bontesla: CapeFearCadaver: Sometimes I feel like any outward act that promotes terror in one or more people is terrorism; however, I know that's not the standard legaleeze definition of it.

But that's fairly subjective, right? The existence of black people terrify some elderly white racists and clearly merely existing isn't an act of terror.

Even if we set forth a standard of reasonableness - many criminal actions could be classified as acts of terrorism. Further, perfectly legal actions could also be classified as acts of terrorism.

I'm speaking more on the 'many criminal actions'. If someone purposely and maliciously threatens another through use of force or captivity in order to specifically promote terror and fright onto that other person, I feel like it's a type of terrorism. The systematic control through terror that abusers use for example. The kidnapper who uses threats and terror to keep kids like Jaycee Lee Dugard from leaving at times when a situation is actually open for fleeing. The Gorilla Rebel Bands that hold P.O.W.'s and their subsequent actions regarding their prisoners.... The act of trying and succeeding to terrify another, Terror - not scare - not a haunted house - Terror. It's a strong word with strong emotion behind it.


While I definitely agree that terror was achieved and this was probably the goal or objective of the attack... I feel incredibly uncomfortable using the word "terrorism" to mean anything other than how it's defined (I know... I know... which definition). I rarely feel strongly about usage (because wtf do I care) but this is definitely one of my exceptions.

If we use it, in a colloquial sense, to mean something else... then make communicating about actual and true terrorism that much more difficult.
 
2013-04-23 12:39:06 PM
i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2013-04-23 12:54:03 PM
I'm guessing motivation.
 
2013-04-23 01:01:32 PM
Don't look at me, I think those all are examples of terrorism.
 
2013-04-23 01:05:00 PM
I don't think we know for certain yet that Boston was terrorism. As of now, it seems like one brother was made he didn't fit in in American society and didn't have friends. There does seem to be a change to him after his mom told him to find Islam. But we don't have a decent idea what his exact motives were other than to kill Americans

Tucson seems to fit in the terrorism definition from what I know of it

But yes, anyone with half a brain knows why Boston is terrorism without knowing why they did what they did
 
2013-04-23 01:05:11 PM
From the most likely nonsense rumors I've heard Big Bro was hoping to kick off a holy war.  If that's so I'd say terrorism.

It's just like Timothy McVeigh trying to kick off a race war.
 
2013-04-23 01:11:47 PM
Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Stated goal and youtube playlist of suspects.
 
2013-04-23 01:14:06 PM

Peter von Nostrand: I don't think we know for certain yet that Boston was terrorism


Peter von Nostrand: But yes, anyone with half a brain knows why Boston is terrorism


lol
 
2013-04-23 01:19:51 PM
Because in Boston people were terrified for the greater part of a week which culminated in dramatic gun battles, a manhunt, and citywide lock down? Because Boston was a team effort that was probably inspired by more than just mental illness?
 
2013-04-23 01:22:05 PM
Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Columbine had attackers who weren't trying to change the political order.

We don't know for certain yet that Boston is terrorism - it's not enough that the attackers are "anti-American", they have to be attempting to alter the political will to do something or not do something. If they were just killing Americans because they hate Americans, that's not terrorism, it's murder. If they were killing Americans to attempt to get the American government to pull its troops out of the Middle East, or stop supporting Israel, it's terrorism.
 
2013-04-23 01:22:59 PM
Because in Aurora, Sandy Hook and Tucson, they were crazy individuals who just snapped, and in Columbine they were psychopaths who just wanted to kill without any political reasoning, while in Boston it was done for a political reason and done not to kill but rather first and foremost in order to create fear and inflict retaliation for said political reason?

Why are we even having a thread about this stupid question that is so easily answered?
 
2013-04-23 01:23:49 PM
Actually, now that I think more about it, I wonder if there isn't a similarity between hate crime legislation and terrorism legislation: both take intent of the criminal into account.
 
2013-04-23 01:25:57 PM

Tatsuma: in Boston it was done for a political reason and done not to kill but rather first and foremost in order to create fear and inflict retaliation for said political reason


Oh, cool, I hadn't realized we already had the confession and the trial in the 12 hours since the dude woke up in his hospital bed.
 
2013-04-23 01:26:38 PM

Tatsuma: Why are we even having a thread about this stupid question that is so easily answered?


I think a better question would be why this guy:

img69.imageshack.us


Isn't labeled a terrorist
 
2013-04-23 01:27:33 PM

BunkoSquad: Oh, cool, I hadn't realized we already had the confession and the trial in the 12 hours since the dude woke up in his hospital bed.


Yes he already has written down that they did it in order to defend Islam.

So yeah keep up.

Lord Dimwit: Actually, now that I think more about it, I wonder if there isn't a similarity between hate crime legislation and terrorism legislation: both take intent of the criminal into account.


Yeah, this question is as stupid as 'Why aren't ALL crimes hate crimes??'
 
2013-04-23 01:28:56 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Tatsuma: Why are we even having a thread about this stupid question that is so easily answered?

I think a better question would be why this guy:

[img69.imageshack.us image 320x240]


Isn't labeled a terrorist


Yeah that one is still confusing me. Guy made a presentation about how terrorism was justified and you should convert to Islam or prepare to suffer wrath, entered a building yelling Allah Akbar and killed those in it because they were infidels fighting for the US government... but it's not terrorism?
 
2013-04-23 01:30:42 PM

Dixon Cider: It's the NRA making sure that guns are not tied to 'terror', only bombs can cause terror it seems!

Nothing better then having a paid for Congress!!!


www.bartcop.com
 
2013-04-23 01:31:46 PM
because TERROR

KEEP AMERICA SAFE

SUPPORT THE TROOPS

REMEMBER THE HEROES

FREEDOM ISN'T FREE
 
2013-04-23 01:31:52 PM

Tatsuma: Because in Aurora, Sandy Hook and Tucson, they were crazy individuals who just snapped, and in Columbine they were psychopaths who just wanted to kill without any political reasoning, while in Boston it was done for a political reason and done not to kill but rather first and foremost in order to create fear and inflict retaliation for said political reason?

Why are we even having a thread about this stupid question that is so easily answered?


Because Glenn Greenwald is a hack and a flunky who had to fill a column with enough drool to satisfy his editor that he deserves to not be fired this week.
 
2013-04-23 01:33:54 PM
Motivation.

The others were caused by mental illness.

And subby?

Why don't you include Ft Hood or the Times Square Bomber or the Muslims who killed three troops in Alabama a few years back or the Shoe Bomber or Underwear Bomber?

And those are only the ones I can recall off the top of my head.

And what do they have in common? All perpetrated by Muslims.
 
2013-04-23 01:35:25 PM
pretty sure explosions and "foreigners" make all the difference in how the government and media like to classify these things.
 
2013-04-23 01:35:44 PM

Flakeloaf: Because Glenn Greenwald is a hack and a flunky who had to fill a column with enough drool to satisfy his editor that he deserves to not be fired this week.


Oh Glenn Greenwald was the one who wrote this?

This is the same asshole who tweeted about the manhunt asking why people were obeying the police and staying indoor while they were searching, saying that he wasn't wetting his pants and quacking in his boots while he was in farking Brazil

What an asshole.
 
2013-04-23 01:35:54 PM
Or drive by shootings.  If you're going to expand it, expand it to all multi-killings via shooting
 
2013-04-23 01:36:01 PM
Because bombs.  Getting shot is as American as apple pie.
 
2013-04-23 01:36:05 PM
'Terrorism' is the buzzword used when the government wants a little extra mind-space leverage.  Just like 'WMD'.
 
2013-04-23 01:36:34 PM

coxdebate: pretty sure explosions and "foreigners" make all the difference in how the government and media like to classify these things.


See "takers" vs "looters"
 
2013-04-23 01:36:36 PM
Because Boston was done by what some will call "brown people" while the others were done by 'Muricans
 
2013-04-23 01:36:54 PM
Mass Murder, Terrorism two sides of the same coin.

however, some people get all stabby when someone doesn't use the "T" word to define some of these acts.
 
2013-04-23 01:37:20 PM
Who gives a shiat?  Everything is terrorism now, everything is a terroristic threat.

Terrorism won.

This is just perfect for America anyway, because you can't have an effective fascism without the fear and the laws in place to put down the masses.

The rich will be just fine.
 
2013-04-23 01:37:23 PM

BafflerMeal: 'Terrorism' is the buzzword used when the government wants a little extra mind-space leverage.  Just like 'WMD'.


I don't know what it says about human stupidity that I look at a post like that and I have absolutely no idea if its a troll or someone who genuinely believes that
 
2013-04-23 01:39:28 PM
oh, shiat

looks like that one went right off in subby's hand
 
2013-04-23 01:39:52 PM
Tucson possibly (assassination attempts terrorism?) The other three were not motivated by any overt political goals or causes
 
Displayed 50 of 543 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report