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

[PIK]

Caladonia

[Canuckistani]

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

Motivation. Terrorists have some larger political or religious agenda, even if they use that as an excuse for their own rage and feeling of exclusion. Mass killers just have the latter but not the former. And you can get to splitting hairs about all this, but I think mostly we understand the difference implicitly. And weapons used. You could, of course have snipers shooting people for terrorist reason, but bomb blasts are much more effective in instilling terror and causing mass casualties. OTOH, the ragers usually use guns, maybe in part because it's more personal for them.

[jbg]

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.

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.

To my mind mass murderers are listening to their own internal demons rather than furthering a political agenda. There is a major difference.

The typical terrorist to some extent is working with other people towards an end.

Mass murderers are generally people who would have no success at all with working with others.

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?

Khadr fits the mold as a terrorist since he fights out of uniform. To respond in part to at least some other posts, at least a certain portion of Islam, including those with whom Khadr is associated, are at war with the West. Since they cannot hope to successfully tackle the U.S. or Canadian forces, they fight asymetrically. This makes people like him hard to "fight" without involving civilians.

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.

I think Kaczynski falls much closer to the "mass murdered" definition than to terrorism. He was turned in by his own brother, who loved him. He fits the definition, to me, of a person who is obeying his own demons, and can't work with other people. Edited September 20, 2013 by jbg

[cybercoma]

Terrorism is supposed to be a political tactic, but as people's rights are eroded by "terrorism" legislation, the definition is going to get looser.

[Bonam]

Ummm... I thought it was obvious? It has nothing to do with bombs vs guns. Terrorism is committed for political reasons. Random shootings/bombings done by crazy people or for personal reasons don't fall into that category.

[sharkman]

Terrorism is done for more than just political reasons, but I get your point.

[Moonlight Graham]

Khadr fits the mold as a terrorist since he fights out of uniform. To respond in part to at least some other posts, at least a certain portion of Islam, including those with whom Khadr is associated, are at war with the West. Since they cannot hope to successfully tackle the U.S. or Canadian forces, they fight asymetrically. This makes people like him hard to "fight" without involving civilians.

So anyone who fights out of uniform is a "terrorist"? That's ridiculous. I don't recall Vietnamese civilians fighting US forces out of uniform during the Vietnam War being called "terrorists". Was Khadr trying to cause "terror"? Was he killing civilians in order to cause fear? Khadr was fighting an invading military, by definition that makes him an insurgent or guerilla fighter.

Khadr is called a terrorist because 1. he's Muslim, and 2. people want to smear his character for their own purposes.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest American Woman]

So anyone who fights out of uniform is a "terrorist"? That's ridiculous. I don't recall Vietnamese civilians fighting US forces out of uniform during the Vietnam War being called "terrorists". Was Khadr trying to cause "terror"? Was he killing civilians in order to cause fear? Khadr was fighting an invading military, by definition that makes him an insurgent or guerilla fighter.

Khadr is called a terrorist because 1. he's Muslim, and 2. people want to smear his character for their own purposes.

Khadr's country wasn't being invaded; he was not fighting a military that was invading his country. He was fighting against his country. If anything, it makes him a traitor.

The fact that he's Muslim has nothing to do with his being called a terrorist, and he smeared his own character by going against his country in time of 'war.'

Edited September 20, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Khadr is called a terrorist because 1. he's Muslim, and 2. people want to smear his character for their own purposes.

3. it allows the US government to ignore his human rights.

Edited September 20, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

3. it allows the US government to ignore his human rights.

So why did the Canadian government ignore his human rights?

[dre]

for their own purposes.

I don't recall Vietnamese civilians fighting US forces out of uniform during the Vietnam War being called "terrorists".

They would be now though.

The word "terrorism" doesnt even really have a meaning anymore. Its a word that is used by states to describe virtually any kind of non-state opposition they face.Its become a universal epithet for virtually any type of non-state actor that the person using the word finds undesirable.

people want to smear his character for their own purposes.

Yes this is essentially correct.

[Bonam]

The word "terrorism" doesnt even really have a meaning anymore. Its a word that is used by states to describe virtually any kind of non-state opposition they face.

Yes, that's happened with a lot of words over the last decade or two. Racism is another that immediately come to mind that people throw around endlessly.

[Topaz]

On the news today, they said that Greenpeace, who is trying to stop the Russian drilling for oil in the Arctic, can be charged with "terrorism" and therefore spend 10 years in jail. Seems like government have setup anyone who goes against the the government or government agency, can be called a terrorist.

[jbg]

On the news today, they said that Greenpeace, who is trying to stop the Russian drilling for oil in the Arctic, can be charged with "terrorism" and therefore spend 10 years in jail. Seems like government have setup anyone who goes against the the government or government agency, can be called a terrorist.

It depends on how they're trying to do the stopping. If by demonstrations it's not terrorism, if it's by forcible obstruction far closer to the line.

[Bonam]

It depends on how they're trying to do the stopping. If by demonstrations it's not terrorism, if it's by forcible obstruction far closer to the line.

I disagree. Unless they committed acts with the express purpose of killing other people to achieve political ends, then their actions are unambiguously not terrorism.

[The_Squid]

It depends on how they're trying to do the stopping. If by demonstrations it's not terrorism, if it's by forcible obstruction far closer to the line.

Civil disobedience is the new terrorism?

[Moonlight Graham]

Khadr's country wasn't being invaded; he was not fighting a military that was invading his country. He was fighting against his country. If anything, it makes him a traitor.

Well, Khadr and his family did live in Afghanistan (possibly for up to around 5-6 years but I'm not sure how long) and Pakistan. Actually I'd call him a child soldier too. He is very likely a traitor to Canada (though he never actually fought against Canadian forces), but Khadr also has multiple allegiances.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, Khadr and his family did live in Afghanistan (possibly for up to around 5-6 years but I'm not sure how long) and Pakistan. Actually I'd call him a child soldier too. He is very likely a traitor to Canada (though he never actually fought against Canadian forces), but Khadr also has multiple allegiances.

Multiple allegiances? He has one country of citizenship.

[dre]

Multiple allegiances? He has one country of citizenship.

So what?

[Moonlight Graham]

Multiple allegiances? He has one country of citizenship.

I was wrong, there's a chance Khadr might have been a terrorist, since he hung around people who had links to al-Qaeda. But I have to give him a bit of a break since he was only 15 (child soldier?), and his father was a radical and also was in contact with people who were linked to al Qaeda and likely brought up Omar with similar ideologies.

Also, many Muslims feel a sense of Islamic nationalism and travel to other Muslim countries than their own to fight foreign invaders (ie: the Mujahadeen)

Edited September 21, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest American Woman]

...many Muslims feel a sense of Islamic nationalism and travel to other Muslim countries than their own to fight foreign invaders (ie: the Mujahadeen)

So they travel to other countries to fight their own country and its allies? Again. That's called treason. Are you defending such actions?

And yes, he did have allegiance to al Qaeda.

Edited September 21, 2013 by American Woman

[Moonlight Graham]

So they travel to other countries to fight their own country and its allies? Again. That's called treason. Are you defending such actions?

No they aren't fighting their own country. If ie: Saudis and Egyptians and Pakistanis travelled to Afghanistan in the 80's to fight off the Soviet invasion, even if they aren't Afghans, they are fighting (often a jihad) to protect Muslim land, not any particular country per say.

If Khadr wants to fight against Canadian interests and fight against Canadian + allies invasion of Afghanistan that's his choice and he has every right to do that. It means he's a traitor to Canada so he has to live with the consequences. I don't defend his getting involved with terrorist groups that target civilians though. His dad was a scumbag and taught his son to be a scumbag.

[Guest American Woman]

No they aren't fighting their own country. If ie: Saudis and Egyptians and Pakistanis travelled to Afghanistan in the 80's to fight off the Soviet invasion, even if they aren't Afghans, they are fighting (often a jihad) to protect Muslim land, not any particular country per say.

Right. They're not fighting their own country. Khadr, however, was.

If Khadr wants to fight against Canadian interests and fight against Canadian + allies invasion of Afghanistan that's his choice and he has every right to do that.

He has the "right" to do that? How do you figure that that's a right?

It means he's a traitor to Canada so he has to live with the consequences.

Yes, it does.

I don't defend his getting involved with terrorist groups that target civilians though.

But you defend his fighting against his country and its allies?

[kimmy]

Did anybody catch the Jon Stewart bit this week in which he contrasted the rights' views of the 2nd amendment vs their views of the others?

The theme could be summed up with his line: "So, with guns the Constitution is iron-clad. But with terrorism, it's a list of suggestions."

It featured right-wing pundits, plus politicians like John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham explaining why that the 2nd amendment is an unchangeable absolute, yet essentially arguing that the 1st and 4th amendments are negotiable BECAUSE TERRORISM. And concludes with Monica Crowley saying "look, the Constitution is not a suicide pact!" ...in essence, saying that yes, she thinks the government ought to infringe on the 4th amendment to protect Americans. If you applied the same logic to the 2nd amendment...

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

He has the "right" to do that? How do you figure that that's a right?

But you defend his fighting against his country and its allies?

Khadr can do whatever he wants. If he wants to be a traitor to Canada I'm not going to like that, but I can't stop him. You can't force somebody to be loyal to a country if they don't want to be. So he can go do his thing and we'll gladly stick him jail for it.