General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

51. "Federal authorities charged Tsarnaev with using a weapon of mass destruction"

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:55 PM

Apr 2013

"Federal authorities charged Tsarnaev with using a weapon of mass destruction"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022735913

FYI

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

112 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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

You know something the president doesn't? whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #5

The last two years of their activities, there is no suspect about it. The older one was thrown out still_one Apr 2013 #16

But it's not at all clear . . . markpkessinger Apr 2013 #82

I think they became extremely antiAmerican and that is the point. The driver still_one Apr 2013 #84

Jared Loughner had reasons for his attack as well. antigone382 Apr 2013 #90

"Terrorism is a violent means of coercion perpetrated for a religious political or ideological goal" Douglas Carpenter Apr 2013 #103

Can you cite the radical islamists who influenced these murderers? Jeremy Almond Apr 2013 #8

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

Is it still terrorism if there is no coherent worldview or stated aim? CJCRANE Apr 2013 #18

I always defined it as political =terrorism Mojorabbit Apr 2013 #25

The dictionary tends to agree with you Dragonfli Apr 2013 #45

The difference is that these guys expressed political/religious/social consciousness geek tragedy Apr 2013 #3

I agree. That is the difference for me. nt stevenleser Apr 2013 #6

Exactly, and that is what most people define as terrorism still_one Apr 2013 #20

Especially when they targetted a high profile event--their bombs were designed to draw attention geek tragedy Apr 2013 #22

I'm not sure that they've expressed anything CJCRANE Apr 2013 #21

They had AQ videos on their youtube page. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #24

and you've verified that the Youtube pages are really theirs, huh? Myrina Apr 2013 #27

They attacked the Boston Marathon. It doesn't take a spectacularly high IQ geek tragedy Apr 2013 #34

This isn't rocket science still_one Apr 2013 #71

pretty elementary. Just another rather obvious thing that this author doesn't get. grantcart Apr 2013 #46

But, Glenn Greenwald nt geek tragedy Apr 2013 #47

That seems to be the underlying issue here.... TwilightZone Apr 2013 #59

Well, to the extent he always fails to consider facts that geek tragedy Apr 2013 #62

I always found it amusing... TwilightZone Apr 2013 #68

Sainthood has its perks. grantcart Apr 2013 #107

Jared Loughner did express political reasons before his actions. antigone382 Apr 2013 #91

How about the beltway snipers? They certainly instilled terror (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #4

Certainly the term could have been fairly applied to them. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #9

Because it happened during Bush's administration. Common Sense Party Apr 2013 #39

Did the fact that they used bombs have anything to do with it? n/t Raven Apr 2013 #7

So everyone who uses a bomb to murder is a terrorist? Jeremy Almond Apr 2013 #10

I was merely asking the question, not expressing an opinion one way Raven Apr 2013 #14

That was my reaction to the question. Lindsay Apr 2013 #11

Can bombs be considered "arms"? n/t Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2013 #64

I would hope so. They are stored in an armory, are they not? DeadEyeDyck Apr 2013 #102

Yes, why the charge of WMD use nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #89

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 no known evidence" TwilightZone Apr 2013 #13

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

The social agenda was to attack a very public event, the Boston Marathon. TwilightZone Apr 2013 #58

To merely attack furthers what? If there was no objective to further Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #72

Creating mayhem for its own sake . . . markpkessinger Apr 2013 #85

What men? truedelphi Apr 2013 #75

Intent would be primary ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #15

Its a great question. apnu Apr 2013 #17

Why would Oklahoma City have been terrorism but Boston marathon bombing not terrorism? geek tragedy Apr 2013 #23

We don't know yet if or what group or ideology influenced them. CJCRANE Apr 2013 #26

I tend to agree, but that poster was claiming that describing this as terrorism is racist. nt geek tragedy Apr 2013 #29

No that's not totally right. apnu Apr 2013 #38

A lot of people called it terrorism assuming it was white supremacists or not knowing at all who did geek tragedy Apr 2013 #40

Agreed. TwilightZone Apr 2013 #44

How do you know the "... point was to ... grab the public's attention" ? apnu Apr 2013 #50

Well, you can pretend there is zero information from which to infer a motive. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #56

infering anything before all the facts are in is dangerious apnu Apr 2013 #111

People getting blown to bits by bombs is bad, but Arugula Latte Apr 2013 #19

So all types of violence could be terrorism? Bad Thoughts Apr 2013 #28

Didn't you know? Only brown people that kill white people are terrorists! n/t backscatter712 Apr 2013 #30

But these guys were not "brown" (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #33

They had funny foreign sounding names, and were Muslim. For the redneck right, close enough. n/t backscatter712 Apr 2013 #36

The redneck right... dems_rightnow Apr 2013 #106

Terrorists: ProSense Apr 2013 #31

Maybe it's nothing more than bombs instead of guns?...nt SidDithers Apr 2013 #32

Harris & Klebold tried to use bombs at Columbine. James Holmes made bombs in Aurora. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #37

and Columbine killers clearly expressed DeadEyeDyck Apr 2013 #55

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

The only witness says that did not happen... Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #110

Simple sarisataka Apr 2013 #42

There's a colloquial definition adieu Apr 2013 #43

It isn't ideas Brainstormy Apr 2013 #48

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

Easy... They used explosives nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #53

Do you mean the "explosives" part of the definition if sufficcient? Jeremy Almond Apr 2013 #57

The legal definition needs expanding IMHO. nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #60

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

So there was no terror involved? nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #79

I am sure that those exposed to their actions felt terror but that does not mean Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #87

I know the legal definition nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #88

Why? Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #92

Because they do cause terror nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #93

Being held at gun point while being mugged causes terror. Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #95

We're not talking of a mugging and you know it nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #96

The FBI doesn't seem to agree. TwilightZone Apr 2013 #67

Re-read the definition you just posted nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #69

Explosives are not automatically a weapon of mass destruction. TwilightZone Apr 2013 #73

No, not always nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #74

Then, it would seem that you're confusing terrorism with the legal charge of use of a WMD. TwilightZone Apr 2013 #98

Yeah right... nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #99

If there's someone left over to do it again, it's terrorism muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #54

Another salient argument from Greenwald. Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2013 #61

An excellent point. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #66

Mooooooslims. Iggo Apr 2013 #78

Pretty obvious to me.. SoCalDem Apr 2013 #80

Maybe it's because Sandy Hook wasn't terrorism? Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #81

They have to have a special category for Muslims so they don't have to treat them fairly harun Apr 2013 #83

3 dead vs who? PatrynXX Apr 2013 #86

If you create terror among the masses are you a terrorist? Rex Apr 2013 #94

Because the NRA hasn't received permission yet to call themselves the NR&BA... Tikki Apr 2013 #97

In the end, Boston may not end up being classified as an act of terrorism. Xithras Apr 2013 #100

Because of the motive? AnnieBW Apr 2013 #104

what was the stated or implied political motive in the Boston Marathon bombing? Douglas Carpenter Apr 2013 #108

political motivation arely staircase Apr 2013 #105

Loughner was terrorism by any reasonable definition dsc Apr 2013 #109

Loughner was terrorism as defined by United States Code!!! 18 U.S.C. 2332b El Fuego Apr 2013 #112