Why is Boston terrorism but not Aurora/Sandy Hook/Tucson/Columbine?

[Moonlight Graham]

Interesting article by Glen Greenwald of The Guardian that brings up an interesting question (note: The article was written on April 22).

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?

...

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...,; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes...,and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza. 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.

...Even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine. All we really know about them in this regard is that they identified as Muslim, and that the older brother allegedly watched extremist YouTube videos and was suspected by the Russian government of religious extremism.

...

Whether something is or is not "terrorism" has very substantial political implications, and very significant legal consequences as well...It's hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorism really means in American discourse - its operational meaning - is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies

Greenwald's argument in the last paragraph is also flawed: one of the distinguishing things between the Boston bombing & the other tragedies mentioned is that it was a bombing, which is a tactic often used by terrorists, so it was hard not to immediately suspect or jump to the conclusion that the Boston bombing was a terror attack right after it happened. Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim or Arab, but was deemed a terrorist because he bombed a government building to make a political point.

But Greenwald makes a good point in that attacks by Muslim's (especially against Americans/westerners, or against any civilians in general) are often called "terrorism" by media/governments, even when motives are unknown. ie: Just about any Muslim in the middle-east who blows himself up in a public place is immediately called a "terrorist" even though we don't know his/her motives...so what's the difference between blowing yourself up in a coffee shop versus shooting people in a Aurora movie theatre or elementary/high school when the motive is unknown? also, Omar Khadr is called a "terrorist" even though he targeted foreign military personnel during a time of war, so wouldn't he more aptly be called an insurgent or guerilla fighter?

Before calling a violent event "terrorism", one must know their motive, which is one of Greenwald's points. While no agreed definition of terrorism exists, a good definition is:

"Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are [often] meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."

So, if one doesn't know the motive (whether it is political and meant to induce fear, or whether it is just an act of rage because their spouse is cheating on them) somebody who commits an act of violence against civilians can't be called a terrorist. By the above definition, most of the tragedies mentioned in this post couldn't be called "terrorism", but i'd argue that the Boston bombing (and the Canada VIA Rail plot) will likely conclude to be terrorism, but the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner that killed 6 and wounded U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords among others should arguably also be called "terrorism" as it had political motives, similar to the McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[ReeferMadness]

It seems like all of the definitions of terrorism revolve around the motive rather than the act. The reasons nobody can agree on a good definition is that the right wing law-and-order types that play on defining terrorists as the enemy that we all must fear like to have the freedom to define the terrorists as it suits them. Thus, Adam Lanza was not a terrorist (defining gun nuts as terrorists hits way to close to home in the USA) but bombers are.

[Guest Kenneth]

It also raises the interesting question of why Greenwald isn't washing dishes for a living...

Edited April 28, 2013 by Kenneth

[WWWTT]

I believe that to find a definition of "terrorism",one must go back and find where the term was first used.

And off the top of my head without doing any research,I would guess the Israelis first used the term to describe Palestinians who used suicide bombings or just planted bombs.

Perhaps the British when reffering to Northern Ireland bombings?

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

I think we should be careful about calling all bombings terrorism. I don't think we should get into the habit of labelling all mass murderers as terrorists. The kids at Columbine tried to bomb the school and they weren't labelled terrorists. In my opinion, terrorism ought to be reserved for those who carry out these acts for some sort of political gain or motivations. That has traditionally been the definition from my understanding. This makes Anders Breivik a terrorist, due to his political motivations. It would also make the Ted Kaczynski a terrorist. However, mass murderers like James Holmes and the kids from Columbine would not be terrorists. I would need more time to articulate the reason for distinguishing between the two. Suffice it to say that there is a difference between someone going nuts and killing a bunch of people versus someone tactically targeting people for political reasons. The end result is the same, but the motivations and intentions are vastly different, which is why they need to be treated, prevented, and punished differently.

[eyeball]

The end result is the same, but the motivations and intentions are vastly different, which is why they need to be treated, prevented, and punished differently.

Sounds fair, so long as we treat, prevent and punish imperialism the same way as any terrorism it causes.

[cybercoma]

Sounds fair, so long as we treat, prevent and punish imperialism the same way as any terrorism it causes.

We have all the tools to treat, prevent, and punish imperialism.

To quote the band Bad Religion: We are the government.

[eyeball]

That's why targeting the civilian population of a democracy is not entirely inappropriate. It's really unfortunate, but brutally logical. OTOH targeting the civilian population of a dictatorship would just be downright mean.

[Guest American Woman]

That's why targeting the civilian population of a democracy is not entirely inappropriate. It's really unfortunate, but brutally logical. OTOH targeting the civilian population of a dictatorship would just be downright mean.

Yes, because children who were victims had so much say in government matters; and of course everyone on the plane and in the towers voted the same and supported everything the U.S. government has done. That goes for the victims who were not American citizens, too, of course. Same goes for all civilian victims of all terrorist attacks.

There's nothing "logical" about it. If that were logical, it would follow that it would be logical for Israeli citizens to go into Palestine and start shooting children, since Palestinians voted in Hamas. Somehow, though, I don't think you'd see the "logic" in that any more than I do.

Edited April 28, 2013 by American Woman

[Canuckistani]

I believe that to find a definition of "terrorism",one must go back and find where the term was first used.

And off the top of my head without doing any research,I would guess the Israelis first used the term to describe Palestinians who used suicide bombings or just planted bombs.

Perhaps the British when reffering to Northern Ireland bombings?

WWWTT

"Terrorism" comes from the French word [/size]terrorisme,[/size]^%5B12%5D and originally referred specifically to [/size]state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the [/size]Reign of terror. The French word [/size]terrorisme in turn derives from the [/size]Latin verb [/size]terreō meaning “I frighten”.[/size]^%5B13%5D The [/size]terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the [/size]Cimbri tribe in 105 BC. The [/size]Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a [/size]Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.[/size]^{%5B14%5D%5B15%5D} After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse.[/size]^%5B8%5D Although "terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people[/size]^%5B16%5D by a non-government group in such a way as to create a media spectacle.[/size]^%5B17%5D This meaning can be traced back to [/size]Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist".[/size]^%5B18%5D Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" (Народная расправа) in 1869.[/size]^%5B19%5D

Any hard definition of terrorism will include cases not normally seen as such. But the US mass shooters didn't seem to have a motive beyond a personal one, vs the Boston two. While the Boston two were likely acting for personal reasons of alienation, they at minimum cloaked it in political/religious reasons, and sounds like the older one was radicalized by somebody, or he likely would have just become an ordinary criminal. Edited April 28, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Moonlight Graham]

Suffice it to say that there is a difference between someone going nuts and killing a bunch of people versus someone tactically targeting people for political reasons. The end result is the same, but the motivations and intentions are vastly different, which is why they need to be treated, prevented, and punished differently.

I agree with this, and this was much of Greenwald's point, being that most people were quick to label the Boston bombings as "terrorism" shortly after the bombing occurred (whether international or domestic was to be determined) without even knowing who the suspects were or what their motivations were. Credit to Obama, as Greenwald pointed out, for not labeling the bombing as "terrorism" in his press conference only a couple hours after the Boston bombing occurred. However, Obama did label it terrorism the next day, which may have been too quick to judge the motives (although I don't know what info he had at the time). We still don't know a lot about the motives so maybe we shouldn't label these incidents so quickly.

[Moonlight Graham]

It seems like all of the definitions of terrorism revolve around the motive rather than the act. The reasons nobody can agree on a good definition is that the right wing law-and-order types that play on defining terrorists as the enemy that we all must fear like to have the freedom to define the terrorists as it suits them. Thus, Adam Lanza was not a terrorist (defining gun nuts as terrorists hits way to close to home in the USA) but bombers are.

That's an excellent point, something I never really thought of. Right-wingers who support gun rights may be resistant to calling gun massacres as "terrorism" even if they fit the definition because they would then be stuck in conflict of interest of fiercely supporting gun rights vs being "tough on terror".

[Guest Derek L]

That's an excellent point, something I never really thought of. Right-wingers who support gun rights may be resistant to calling gun massacres as "terrorism" even if they fit the definition because they would then be stuck in conflict of interest of fiercely supporting gun rights vs being "tough on terror".

Actually the point is failed logic, one can be “tough on terror” and not supportive of a ban on the publics ability to own croc-pots, fireworks, cellphones and RC toys.

[Moonlight Graham]

I believe that to find a definition of "terrorism",one must go back and find where the term was first used.

And off the top of my head without doing any research,I would guess the Israelis first used the term to describe Palestinians who used suicide bombings or just planted bombs.

Perhaps the British when reffering to Northern Ireland bombings?

WWWTT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism

[cybercoma]

Actually the point is failed logic

Your opinion on logic in these matters is utterly irrelevant. You've shown time and again that you will shelve logic for your pro-gun bias.

[Guest Derek L]

Your opinion on logic in these matters is utterly irrelevant. You've shown time and again that you will shelve logic for your pro-gun bias.

Quite the contrary, fore “your side” is devoid of logic in such debates…..Riddle me this, like your calls for controls, restrictions and bans of firearms, are you now going after kitchen appliances and children’s toys to “prevent” similar terror attacks like Boston?

Exactly.

[Sleipnir]

In my opinion, a terrorist/terrorism is when an individual(s) used violence that can cause either irreparable harm or death to further one's own social-political agenda.

[Moonlight Graham]

Quite the contrary, fore “your side” is devoid of logic in such debates…..Riddle me this, like your calls for controls, restrictions and bans of firearms, are you now going after kitchen appliances and children’s toys to “prevent” similar terror attacks like Boston?

Exactly.

The difference is that all the other items you have mentioned have primary purposes other than killing humans. Most automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines are specifically designed to kill other human beings and have little other use. The question then becomes: should people have restrictions on owning devices that are specifically designed to murder/kill other humans?

Maybe there should be restrictions on other non-weapon items that can be turned into weapons, like fireworks or certain chemicals, and sometimes there are.

[Guest Derek L]

The difference is that all the other items you have mentioned have primary purposes other than killing humans. Most automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines are specifically designed to kill other human beings and have little other use. The question then becomes: should people have restrictions on owning devices that are specifically designed to murder/kill other humans?

Maybe there should be restrictions on other non-weapon items that can be turned into weapons, like fireworks or certain chemicals, and sometimes there are.

Yet the hundreds of millions of personal firearms within the United States aren’t used to kill people. I think a more prudent framing of the two comparisons is that firearms are made to discharge a bullet, well explosives are a chemical combination that explode.

Understanding where, how, when and why a firearm used for plinking or hunting or bag of fireworks for New Years is overwhelmingly benign in the hands of the vast majority of people , fore the key of this discussion is understanding why a tiny fraction of society uses such objects to kill and injure others.

[eyeball]

Yes, because children who were victims had so much say in government matters; and of course everyone on the plane and in the towers voted the same and supported everything the U.S. government has done.

You're just being snarky and you're so pissed off you're saying things that make no sense. You know damn well it couldn't possibly be true that everyone in a plane, tower or crowd would support your government and you also know that kids don't vote.

As was pointed out in another related thread, there is as much as a 10:1 innocent to guilty kill ratio when targets surrounded by innocent people are attacked by the west. Assuming a crowd of people in any typically attacked democracy is more or less equally divided on whether it supports their governments, terrorists can expect a 5:5 kill ratio on average when they retaliate.

That goes for the victims who were not American citizens, too, of course. Same goes for all civilian victims of all terrorist attacks.

No it goes for those people in civilian populations that keep returning guilty governments to power and I suppose that also buy and own shares in companies that are complicit with those governments.

There's nothing "logical" about it.

There's nothing logical about the idea that people in democracies are ultimately responsible for their government's actions?

If that were logical, it would follow that it would be logical for Israeli citizens to go into Palestine and start shooting children, since Palestinians voted in Hamas.

The only thing that might suggest it would be logical for the people of a democracy to shoot another people's kids would be if the government they voted for was doing so too. The way you've worded your example is so illogical as to be either completely stupid or completely deceitful.

Somehow, though, I don't think you'd see the "logic" in that any more than I do.

I don't think you even understand your own logic.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yet the hundreds of millions of personal firearms within the United States aren’t used to kill people.

I'm not talking about single-shot hunting rifles etc. What reason would somebody have to own an automatic weapon? Some popular possibilities:

1. to shoot targets for fun/sport

2. to keep to shoot/threaten people in "self-defense",

3. to collect because they're "cool"

4. to collect as investments

5. to keep in case of civil uprising against government tyranny

6. to use to murder civilians quickly/efficiently and/or in large amounts

7. to threaten and/or use in order to commit crimes

that's all I can think of for now. Some of these uses above are outright stupid. Others are ok, but could be accomplished with non-automatic weapons and less devastating ammo. Besides maybe #5 (which is borderline paranoia anyways), I don't see any compelling reason for people to own guns like automatics than can be used to easily/quickly kill a mass amount of people, where the costs of allowing people to own such guns outweigh the benefits.

[eyeball]

That's an excellent point, something I never really thought of. Right-wingers who support gun rights may be resistant to calling gun massacres as "terrorism" even if they fit the definition because they would then be stuck in conflict of interest of fiercely supporting gun rights vs being "tough on terror".

What about the conflict of interest when people solemnly vote for their own governments while installing dictators in other's?

The sheer moral dissonance of such a conflicted action makes it seem beyond redemption. As I've said before I think it should be amongst the highest crimes against humanity a nation can commit, maybe the highest.

Edited April 29, 2013 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

I'm not talking about single-shot hunting rifles etc. What reason would somebody have to own an automatic weapon? Some popular possibilities:

1. to shoot targets for fun/sport

2. to keep to shoot/threaten people in "self-defense",

3. to collect because they're "cool"

4. to collect as investments

5. to keep in case of civil uprising against government tyranny

6. to use to murder civilians quickly/efficiently and/or in large amounts

7. to threaten and/or use in order to commit crimes

that's all I can think of for now. Some of these uses above are outright stupid. Others are ok, but could be accomplished with non-automatic weapons and less devastating ammo. Besides maybe #5 (which is borderline paranoia anyways), I don't see any compelling reason for people to own guns like automatics than can be used to easily/quickly kill a mass amount of people, where the costs of allowing people to own such guns outweigh the benefits.

Again you’re are getting into technical aspects of a topic that you quite obviously don’t understand…….

-Private automatic weapons are not commonplace within the United States due in part to cost

-Hunting ammo is both more powerful and devastating then the ammo used within the AR-15 .223 REM full metal jacket.

-Automatics and more pointedly Semi-Automatics (including the AR-15), are used in less than 4% of all homicides within the United States……For perspective, more people are killed with baseball bats and a hammers.

-And aside from the strawmen concocted by many anti-gun folk, semi-auto action firearms are popular hunting firearms based on numerous reasons such as quick follow-up shots, low recoil and ease of manufacture.

As I’ve said in the numerous “gun debate” threads, civilian ownership of semi-auto action firearms (and high capacity magazines) is not a new phenomena, what is, is their usage in the commission of occasional crimes committed by mentally disturbed individuals……….Just as many have reflected upon the likelihood of being killed by a “terrorist with a bomb” is lower then being killed by lightning, a bear or suffocating on ones pillow well sleeping, so to is the likelihood of one meeting their death at the hands of a crazy person armed with AR-15.

As I’ve alluded to above, the usage of a kitchen appliance coupled with fireworks and a child’s RC toy by several individuals is not a logical reason to ban such objects, fore the same thought process could be applied to booze, fast cars, cellphones and firearms….Ultimately you’re not addressing the underlying motivation behind such acts.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Derek L

[Pliny]

In order for terrorism to be called terrorism there must exist an agency that has committed acts of violence, has a motive and threatens future violence inducing "terror" in the populace.

Random, senseless, seemingly motiveless, acts of violence are just that, especially when the perpetrator kills himself. There is no threat of future violence from the perpetrator thus no real worry of future acts of violence. Now if you could tie all the random acts of senseless violence together and blame the NRA for the perpetrators behavior then you could say that the NRA is responsible for these acts of terror. But the NRA is about educating people on the proper use of guns so they are not responsible for bad behavior and gun use. Maybe it is drugs? Drug cartels do like to reign terror down on their rivals. Drugs do have a lot to do with bad behavior.

[WWWTT]

I'm going to have to agree with Moonlight Grahm on this one.

I don't see any diference between any typical numerous mass shootings that regularly occur in the US and the Boston Bombing.

The only difference would be the weapon of choice.

WWWTT