Don`t read if in one of those moods where their insanity will push you past the breaking point.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022735555
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:39 PM
xocet (1,088 posts)
Greenwald: Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?
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
Response to xocet (Original post)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:48 PM
still_one (30,906 posts)
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
Wrong answer.
Response to still_one (Reply #2)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:51 PM
whatchamacallit (7,726 posts)
5. You know something the president doesn't?
Your projection is suspect.
Response to still_one (Reply #16)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 04:55 PM
markpkessinger (2,989 posts)
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.
Response to still_one (Reply #2)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:11 PM
CJCRANE (13,167 posts)
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
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #3)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:13 PM
CJCRANE (13,167 posts)
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?
Gosh,wonder if such ever happened what you assholes would say?
geek tragedy (24,444 posts)
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 (8,689 posts)
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?
Response to TwilightZone (Reply #13)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:28 PM
Luminous Animal (17,078 posts)
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 objectivesâ€
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
Luminous Animal (17,078 posts)
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?
Did last week at the DUmp never happen?
Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #35)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 04:38 PM
truedelphi (25,777 posts)
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.
At least you are surrounded by other lunatics.
Response to xocet (Original post)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:10 PM
apnu (4,991 posts)
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.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #29)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:31 PM
apnu (4,991 posts)
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?
Response to xocet (Original post)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:22 PM
backscatter712 (19,489 posts)
30. Didn't you know? Only brown people that kill white people are terrorists! n/t
Response to backscatter712 (Reply #30)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:27 PM
Nye Bevan (10,439 posts)
33. But these guys were not "brown" (nt)
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #33)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:30 PM
backscatter712 (19,489 posts)
36. They had funny foreign sounding names, and were Muslim. For the redneck right, close enough. n/t
Ahh,the typical DUmbass...caught in a stupid lie so just make up shit.
These people make one puke.
