Marathon Bombing and the Media

[GG]

No, I'm not implying it. I'm stating it.

 

And it's your post with the high bull **** content. Terrorism over the past 30 years hasn't been centered around any "nebulous concept of Jihad against western society and moires," it's been very specific within the context of very real and tangible geopolitical goals. Hamas, Hezbollah, and their predecessors, all the way back to the 60's, don't have some nebulous hatred of the west in pursuing an ambiguous concept of Jihad, they want to eliminate Israel. The Shi'ia Muslims have an apocalyptic vision which, in trying to fulfill, they want to establish the historical Persian hegemony over the Middle East and eliminate Western imperialism. Libyan terrorist attacks in the '80s were directly related to disputes over navigation rights in the Gulf of Sidra. Chechen terrorism is uniquely focused on Russia in the explicit pursuit of Chechen independence.

 

You can go on and on, with multiple examples (Tamil Tigers, Mau Mau, Shining Path, FARC, the Kurds in...every country they live in, the Taliban and Northern Alliance both, Abu Sayyaf, the Provos, the Basques, the UNC, the Viet Cong, etc. You can go all the way back to the Spanish in the Peninsular war or even earlier to the American Revolution, if you want). Terrorism is never pursued for ambiguous reasons. It's a practical application of violence in the pursuit of concrete purpose that is itself greater than any single application of violence.

 

Otherwise, you may as well argue that every bank robber is trying to collapse the American monetary system. Since all bank robbers are unified in their desire for wealth, even if they're not coordinated.

And your response could be considered a beatdown by someone who doesn't know history or the tying events that bind seemingly unrelated events into a unified act. Yes, it is far too simplistic to attribute the terrorist acts to the "crazed Muslims" But that is part of the core.

 

You cannot argue that each of your examples is a singular event that did not have its roots in Arab Nationalism, Qutb's radicalization of Islam, and mixing in the volatile Soviet cocktail of mass murder. It's not a coincidence that modern day terrorism took root at the peak of KGB's outreach.

 

Similarly, Manson's ragtag crew were certainly bent on committing a terrorist act (even though it wasn't called that), and funny why you didn't bring up Weather Underground as an example, because they would certainly be considered terrorists, as would McVeigh & Co. They have a lot more in common with their causes & instruments of destruction than random bank robbers.

 

So next time, please use those examples on conner and your new fanboys, instead of someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject than your average idiot.

[John in Jax]

So next time, please use those examples on conner and your new fanboys, instead of someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject than your average idiot.

 

Captain Hindsight and meazza, he's talking about YOU. lol

[meazza]

Captain Hindsight and meazza, he's talking about YOU. lol

 

So because I think you're an idiot, I'm a DCtom fanboy?

 

Are you really this bad at figuring **** out?

[We Come In Peace]

And your response could be considered a beatdown by someone who doesn't know history or the tying events that bind seemingly unrelated events into a unified act. Yes, it is far too simplistic to attribute the terrorist acts to the "crazed Muslims" But that is part of the core.

 

You cannot argue that each of your examples is a singular event that did not have its roots in Arab Nationalism, Qutb's radicalization of Islam, and mixing in the volatile Soviet cocktail of mass murder. It's not a coincidence that modern day terrorism took root at the peak of KGB's outreach.

 

Similarly, Manson's ragtag crew were certainly bent on committing a terrorist act (even though it wasn't called that), and funny why you didn't bring up Weather Underground as an example, because they would certainly be considered terrorists, as would McVeigh & Co. They have a lot more in common with their causes & instruments of destruction than random bank robbers.

 

So next time, please use those examples on conner and your new fanboys, instead of someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject than your average idiot.

Is this not the point you're trying to defend?

[GG]

Is this not the point you're trying to defend?

 

Combing through the fine points of an argument isn't your strong suit, is it?

[DC Tom]

And your response could be considered a beatdown by someone who doesn't know history or the tying events that bind seemingly unrelated events into a unified act. Yes, it is far too simplistic to attribute the terrorist acts to the "crazed Muslims" But that is part of the core.

 

You cannot argue that each of your examples is a singular event that did not have its roots in Arab Nationalism, Qutb's radicalization of Islam, and mixing in the volatile Soviet cocktail of mass murder. It's not a coincidence that modern day terrorism took root at the peak of KGB's outreach.

 

Similarly, Manson's ragtag crew were certainly bent on committing a terrorist act (even though it wasn't called that), and funny why you didn't bring up Weather Underground as an example, because they would certainly be considered terrorists, as would McVeigh & Co. They have a lot more in common with their causes & instruments of destruction than random bank robbers.

 

So next time, please use those examples on conner and your new fanboys, instead of someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject than your average idiot.

 

I didn't bring up WU or McVeigh because I wasn't making a comprehensive list, just giving an example. I easily could have (and ELF, and the KKK, and some others, I'm sure). Don't read more into it than: I picked only one.

 

As to the rest of your post: you're confusing "motivation" with "goals." Go back to my bank robber analogy. And I didn't argue that ANY of my examples were a singular event - they were groups perpetrating campaigns composed of a multitude of specific events intended to exert pressure to achieve something specific. They weren't in pursuit of a vague philosophy of pan-Arabism or Ba'athism (or Maoism, or Kikuyu land rights, or "taxation without representation" - note that not all examples I gave were Arab-Islam. I could have mentioned many more - Nicaraguan Contras, ). Terrorists may hold a specific philosophy - probably have to, in order to organize and share a common identity, why do you think certain idiots consider the Tea Party "terroristic"? - but they fight in pursuit of specific, tangible goals: governance of a useless (save for poppy cultivation) patch of dirt in the Hindu Kush, possession of equally useless mountaintops in the Himalayan foothills, the elimination of Nazi occupation (yes, the SOE- and OSS-supported Maquis, and Soviet-supported partisans, by any definition, were terrorsts.)

 

So what goal was Tamerlan fighting towards? What was his jihad? (Which, by the way, is the perfect word to illustrate the distinction - it's notable that "jihad," while it's almost universally interpreted as "violence" in the West, is also almost universally translated as "struggle," the difference being much longer-term and directed.)

 

It's notable, too, that every successful against any terrorist group has ultimately not come down to the superiority of any given vague philosophy over another (that's a peculiarity of American though, where we're taught that "freedom and democracy" overcame the dictatorial royalist oppression of the British Parliment. ) Victory has always been based on practical reality - the American defeat in Vietnam, for example, due to a gross misunderstanding of the society (for example: the whole "Strategic Hamlet" fiasco), or the success in Iraq based ultimately on the Surge demonstrating the US ability to satisfy the Sunni's basic needs for security and, ultimately, a measure of independence.

 

Captain Hindsight and meazza, he's talking about YOU. lol

 

You have no part in this discussion, given that 1) you think this whole topic is a government conspiracy, and thus can contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion, and 2) it's a discussion, which concept you've already demonstrated you're incapable of understanding..

 

But I'm more than willing to leave you beaten and bloody in the corner again.

[We Come In Peace]

Combing through the fine points of an argument isn't your strong suit, is it?

I'm asking you to clarify your position. Are you arguing that the root cause of this is the radicalization of Islam itself?

[3rdnlng]

I think it is too early to determine if the Boston Marathon bombings were terrorism by the many similiar definitions or just simple acts of terror.

 

 

http://www.terrorism-research.com/

 

 

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is 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 objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".

 

Outside the United States Government, there are greater variations in what features of terrorism are emphasized in definitions. The United Nations produced the following definition of terrorism in 1992; "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets." The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totaling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and "violence based communication processes". Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of terrorism from 1974 is "...the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear."

[DC Tom]

I think it is too early to determine if the Boston Marathon bombings were terrorism by the many similiar definitions or just simple acts of terror.

 

 

http://www.terrorism-research.com/

 

 

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is 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 objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".

 

Outside the United States Government, there are greater variations in what features of terrorism are emphasized in definitions. The United Nations produced the following definition of terrorism in 1992; "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets." The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totaling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and "violence based communication processes". Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of terrorism from 1974 is "...the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear."

 

FBI's definition is pretty good. DOD's is mediocre (point of note: DOD's current COIN is !@#$ed sideways, because they insist COIN is a war against "ideology". You're the military, your job is to blow **** up. You can't blow up an ideology.) State is, unsurprisingly, clueless.

 

And whatever clowns talk about "message generators" and "violence-based communication processes" need to have their fingers broken, be muted, and then be stripped of their tenure, so they can never express such nonsense again.. !@#$ing academics.

[Chef Jim]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/markets-plunge-briefly-fake-ap-175129454.html

[B-Man]

http://finance.yahoo...-175129454.html

 

Arrow above shows the time when investers started dumping stock after false information led them to believe Joe Biden might somehow end up in charge of the country

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Arrow above shows the time when investers started dumping stock after false information led them to believe Joe Biden might somehow end up in charge of the country

 

 

 

.

 

 

The worst kind of terrorism.

 

FBI's definition is pretty good. DOD's is mediocre (point of note: DOD's current COIN is !@#$ed sideways, because they insist COIN is a war against "ideology". You're the military, your job is to blow **** up. You can't blow up an ideology.) State is, unsurprisingly, clueless.

 

And whatever clowns talk about "message generators" and "violence-based communication processes" need to have their fingers broken, be muted, and then be stripped of their tenure, so they can never express such nonsense again.. !@#$ing academics.

Did you notice that State's definition was the only one that included "premeditated" as a condition? Made me think of Benghazi somehow.

[Just Jack]

In fact, I suspect many are starting to question why we called this terrorism in the first place. We'll probably charge them with what? Public nuisance? Resisting arrest? Littering?

 

The bombs were pretty loud, maybe a noise ordinance violation?

 

 

A terrorist event is a violent crime committed within the context of a greater strategic plan or goal (note that that goal doesn't have to make sense, it merely has to exist). There was no strategic plan or goal in this...just a couple of guys with a persecution complex who lashed out and committed a violent crime, not part of any plan or goal. Calling it "terrorism" gives both them and true terrorists more credit than they're due.

 

It may have not been a goal, but that evening of the bombings, the local news was asking runners if the event had them worried about running any races and what security would they like to see. So maybe their goal was to get rid of races?

[DC Tom]

Did you notice that State's definition was the only one that included "premeditated" as a condition? Made me think of Benghazi somehow.

 

It was implied in the other ones, i.e. "in pursuit of goals" or "in furtherance of an objective." I think State has to explicitly state "premeditated" because they never premeditate anything.

 

The funnier thing is that, reading them, they're pretty much all the same damn thing (e.g., again...what's the difference between "in pursuit of goals" and "in furtherance of an objective"? Precisely jack ****, that's the difference). But each agency has to have their own...just to be different, and prove they're independent of the others. And each time they create or change a definition, it's probably two months worth of paperwork and meetings that costs low six figures, minimum.

 

But if we don't spend that money creating multiple definitions of the same thing, the terrorists win.

[DC Tom]

The bombs were pretty loud, maybe a noise ordinance violation?

 

I'm sure they could tack on a lot of charges. Noise violations. Environmental violations (clean air act, recycling violations). Reckless endangerment. Harassment. Vandalism. Various thefts, including identity theft. Trespassing. Failure to report a crime to law enforcement. Resisting arrest. "Throwing or dropping objects at a sporting event" (that's an actual Massachusetts law - punishable by a year in jail. Dzokhar could theoretically serve 200 years on that charge alone). Probably could find something under the endangered species act.

 

About the only thing you couldn't charge them with at this point is sexual assault of a minor.

[IDBillzFan]

ThinkProgress knows why this happened.

 

http://thinkprogress...-cte/?mobile=nc

 

Well, actually, they don't know why it happened because their article immediately is rebuffed by the very doctors they quote, but I guess progressives can hope, right?

 

Could the amateur boxing career of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the deceased suspect in last week’s Boston Marathon bombings, have had a role in the massacre? That’s a question leading brain researchers at Boston University’s School of Medicine hope medical examiners look into when they perform an autopsy of the 26-year-old who was killed during a firefight with law enforcement officials early Friday morning.

 

Tsarnaev was a champion boxer who qualified for the national Golden Gloves competition and had once had dreams of qualifying for the U.S. Olympic team. That abbreviated career has led Drs. Robert Cantu and Robert Stern to urge examiners to study his brain for signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), the degenerative brain disease found in boxers since the 1920s that has received renewed attention because it was found in the brains of former football players. Though both doctors doubt that CTE caused the behavior that led to the bombings, researchers shouldn’t overlook the chance to study Tsarnaev’s brain, they told the Boston Globe:

“Is it possible that some changes might have gone on in his overall functioning due to his boxing and potentially related brain disease? Yes,’’ said Stern, a BU professor of neurology and neurosurgery. “Anything is possible. But to then jump to the disease leading to well-planned behavior like this, I couldn’t go there.’’ [...]

“We can’t think of their brains as being normal,’’ he said. “But there are too many people who do such bizarre and terrible acts that it’s unlikely it’s all due to one terrorist gene or disease.’’

 

 

Think about it. Who's to say Junior Seau didn't take his life to stop the voices telling him to build pressure cooker bombs.

Edited April 23, 2013 by LABillzFan

[birdog1960]

I think it is too early to determine if the Boston Marathon bombings were terrorism by the many similiar definitions or just simple acts of terror.

 

 

http://www.terrorism-research.com/

 

 

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is 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 objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".

 

Outside the United States Government, there are greater variations in what features of terrorism are emphasized in definitions. The United Nations produced the following definition of terrorism in 1992; "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets." The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totaling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and "violence based communication processes". Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of terrorism from 1974 is "...the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear."

the FBI and DOD definition seem most apt to me. I think this act meets the prerequisites for terrorism.

 

the supposition that this act is not being aggressively prosecuted is ridiculous and a straw man. the remaining suspect faces the death sentence. the other

is already dead.

 

do any of you actually believe that links of the brothers to larger terrorist organizations aren't being investigated? if they aren't found does that make you feel better? if they're found, does that? whether they're found or not, we have further evidence that 2 or even 1 crazed loser madmen can shut down a city. i truly despise that fact but know of no answer. the only solace is the effectiveness of law enforcement in limiting the damage and eliminating the immediate threat along with the heroism of regular Americans.

[meazza]

Just to spin-off a bit from the original intent of this thread, it's nice to hear that some concerned Muslim's were ready to tip off the police when they saw someone among them as being radicalized.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-22263325

 

Canada's Globe and Mail reported that the pair had been under investigation since last year following a tip-off by a concerned imam in the Toronto Muslim community.

The imam was worried that young people in his community were being corrupted by an extremist, the report said.

Edited April 24, 2013 by meazza

[GG]

FBI's definition is pretty good. DOD's is mediocre (point of note: DOD's current COIN is !@#$ed sideways, because they insist COIN is a war against "ideology". You're the military, your job is to blow **** up. You can't blow up an ideology.) State is, unsurprisingly, clueless.

 

And whatever clowns talk about "message generators" and "violence-based communication processes" need to have their fingers broken, be muted, and then be stripped of their tenure, so they can never express such nonsense again.. !@#$ing academics.

 

So you're arguing that they weren't terrorists because their actions didn't fit your definition of terrorism, and then gave examples of criminal acts that weren't conducted under the guise of an ideology as demonstrations of non-terrorist events? Never mind that the younger brother apparently admitted to waging a jihad (if you believe the press accounts). Good luck finding a bank robber justifying his actions as to destabilize the monetary system.

Because after all, you of all people should know that bank robbing was the wrong analogy to use, since cash represents less than 14% of monetary transactions in the US.

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

I'm sure they could tack on a lot of charges. Noise violations. Environmental violations (clean air act, recycling violations). Reckless endangerment. Harassment. Vandalism. Various thefts, including identity theft. Trespassing. Failure to report a crime to law enforcement. Resisting arrest. "Throwing or dropping objects at a sporting event" (that's an actual Massachusetts law - punishable by a year in jail. Dzokhar could theoretically serve 200 years on that charge alone). Probably could find something under the endangered species act.

 

About the only thing you couldn't charge them with at this point is sexual assault of a minor.

So if I'm at a Bruins game,and a player scores 3 goals, and I throw a hat on the ice I could get a year?