General Discussion

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)

72. To merely attack furthers what? If there was no objective to further

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 04:21 PM

Apr 2013

then it was not a terrorist attack.

You need to take the definition as a whole not paring it to phrases to fit your prejudices.

in furtherance of political or social objectives

A social objective does not mean merely social. An objective is an intended goal.

Do you know what the goal was?

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