Two explosions reported at the Boston Marathon (Updated: 6:50PM EST April 16 2013)

[Lieju]

I hope people I know from the area are ok.

Conservatives think Liberals are wrong. Liberals think Conservatives are evil.

Yes, because no conservatives ever try to paint their opposition as godless baby-killers who only choose to be gay for the evulz.

I'm not saying those nutjobs represent all right-wingers, but I've been accused for working for Satan more than once for being left-leaning, just saying.

 

[rasputin0009]

It was the Nazis! Hitler's distant cousin, Arnold Schwarzenegger is their leader! He said, and I quote, "I'll be back!". He's back, and Nazier than ever!

Too soon? Probably. But I'm not waiting 22.3 years.

 

[Dangit2019]

It was the Nazis! Hitler's distant cousin, Arnold Schwarzenegger is their leader! He said, and I quote, "I'll be back!". He's back, and Nazier than ever!

Too soon? Probably. But I'm not waiting 22.3 years.

You know, at least the jokes on 4chan are jokes. You just spouted some random gibberish.

 

[Lionsfan]

Probably just some sociopath looking to kill people.

I see absolutely no reason yet to suspect it to be terrorism related.

(Remember, of course, that terrorism requires the intent to instill fear in others). I expect it to end up being some jaded guy that finally realized that you can kill far more people with explosives than with firearms, if you're competent.

Edit: Oh, yeah, it's tax day. This would certainly be the day for someone that has nowhere left to turn to pull something like this off.

How was this not an attempt to instill fear in others? Terrorism doesn't necessarily have to be for any particular political cause, but this is basically textbook terrorism

How WOULD it be? Wanting to kill people is not necessarily tied to wanting to cause fear. An example would be the vast majority of mass (esp. school) shootings, which had no goal other than "get known/let others know my pain" and/or "just kill as many as possible/kill the people that caused me to do this."

As Owyn_Merrilin pointed out, just wanting to kill people without intent to coerce* is not terrorism. I further argue that there's no evidence (yet) that the dude wanted to make a statement with this act, with no reason (yet) to assume so, but that's a lesser point.

*Ill-defined, I know, but I lack a vocabulary wide enough to explain what I mean here.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. With the school shooters, I do think they're trying to cause fear, they're trying to have others fear them.

As for not making a statement, I think that just by doing it, he's making a statement. Especially since this person used a bomb to target people.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Why? It IS terrorism?

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You're forgetting the possibility that this was not done in order to make a statement. There are people out there that are f***ed up enough to do this kind of thing for kicks, among other things. The term terrorism only applies when one's objective involves creating and using fear to get one's way.

But since the perpetrator not having some kind of social/political agenda is unlikely, they are more likely trying to avoid the term because the public these days automatically associate terrorism with certain extreme groups of Middle Eastern origin, forgetting in the process that the term would apply just as well if this had been done by a radically violent splinter group that hates marathon runners for some random reason.

I think you're forgetting that it was an act of terror... in that it terrorized people... it doesn't have to be a political act or assigned to some overarching group. If the man who did this was an American woman who likes to look at "pretty lights in the sky" and didn't even consider the deaths of innocents as a byproduct/consequence of her actions, it would still be an act of terror.

Sound like anything could be an act of terror? Your right. The legal and dictionary definitions are very broad, and it is usually up to the discretion of the prosecutors whether or not to claim it as such. But the legality of it is inconsequential, it was a terrorizing act. IE, terrorism.

EDIT: and yes, I am saying that the definition of terrorism is NOT the act of doing something to coerce and influence the world nad get ones way. It is one definition, but it isn't even the legal/official definition, nevermind how most people think of terrorism.

EDIT 2: FBI definition: "The unlawful use of force or 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."

"social objectives" ie~ if someone did it for "kicks"

EDIT 3: further elaboration: "We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," etc.). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence."

EDIT 4: statement from Obama: "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror,"

Actually, no. Social in this case means social issues -- things like abortion and gay marriage, or whether women should be allowed out of the house without being covered head to toe. It doesn't mean you're trying to socialize with someone. So it turns out I've been paraphrasing the legal definition all along, while you've been going with something completely different.

And I saw Obama's statement. Poor choice of words.

 

[Edl01]

I'm just happy only three died, it is a miracle with how many people where in that area. Still my heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones due to a couple of extremist psycho's.
I hope the people who done this are caught and brought to justice.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Why? It IS terrorism?

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You're forgetting the possibility that this was not done in order to make a statement. There are people out there that are f***ed up enough to do this kind of thing for kicks, among other things. The term terrorism only applies when one's objective involves creating and using fear to get one's way.

But since the perpetrator not having some kind of social/political agenda is unlikely, they are more likely trying to avoid the term because the public these days automatically associate terrorism with certain extreme groups of Middle Eastern origin, forgetting in the process that the term would apply just as well if this had been done by a radically violent splinter group that hates marathon runners for some random reason.

I think you're forgetting that it was an act of terror... in that it terrorized people... it doesn't have to be a political act or assigned to some overarching group. If the man who did this was an American woman who likes to look at "pretty lights in the sky" and didn't even consider the deaths of innocents as a byproduct/consequence of her actions, it would still be an act of terror.

Sound like anything could be an act of terror? Your right. The legal and dictionary definitions are very broad, and it is usually up to the discretion of the prosecutors whether or not to claim it as such. But the legality of it is inconsequential, it was a terrorizing act. IE, terrorism.

EDIT: and yes, I am saying that the definition of terrorism is NOT the act of doing something to coerce and influence the world nad get ones way. It is one definition, but it isn't even the legal/official definition, nevermind how most people think of terrorism.

EDIT 2: FBI definition: "The unlawful use of force or 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."

"social objectives" ie~ if someone did it for "kicks"

EDIT 3: further elaboration: "We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," etc.). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence."

EDIT 4: statement from Obama: "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror,"

Actually, no. Social in this case means social issues -- things like abortion and gay marriage, or whether women should be allowed out of the house without being covered head to toe. It doesn't mean you're trying to socialize with someone. So it turns out I've been paraphrasing the legal definition all along, while you've been going with something completely different.

And I saw Obama's statement. Poor choice of words.

That's up to interpretation.

And it wasn't a poor choice of words.

What I don't get is WHY there's a backlash against terrorism? What do progressive elements possibly have against labaling something as terrorism? Are they afraid of sparking outrage against "muslims"? Do they think that terrorism for political purposes is somehow worse than terrorism by the acts of a mad man? Does downplaying the idea that something was an "act of terror" help society in some way by helping to prevent prejudice? Or do they simply find the term distasteful, as though it's a poor man's colloquial term for an otherwise nondescript bombing? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Terrorism is an act of violence that terrorizes people. It's self explanatory in the word!

EDIT: excuse my poor spelling and any grammatical errors. I've been working on term papers all week - editing forum posts is on the lower end of important things to do.

The answer is in the definition you're refusing to accept. Without knowing the motive, you can't know for sure if it's really terrorism, or if it's just some nutjob who decided to kill people that day. Most of the mass killings in recent US history have been the latter case.

 

[Black Reaper]

Personally,i have an aunt who is a pretty hardcore runner,along with her husband,thank fucking god they're ok

I just hope this doesn't cause any more violence

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

It will be interesting to see who's behind it, but in any case, I wouldn't be putting this on my resumé. Two explosions, three deaths? Very well done indeed. slowclap.gif

No but really, it's horrific. If it turns out to be Islamic extremists again, I anticipate violence.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Personally,i have an aunt who is a pretty hardcore runner,along with her husband,thank fucking god they're ok

I just hope this doesn't cause any more violence

I've got a friend whose family is Muslim (although he's not) and who is of middle eastern descent. He's already received threatening letters from racist asswipes, even though there's absolutely no evidence pointing to this being the work of Islamic extremists, and even though, again, he's not even a Muslim. This is what happens when we spend an entire decade demonizing a religion and the skin color most commonly associated with it.

Why? It IS terrorism?

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You're forgetting the possibility that this was not done in order to make a statement. There are people out there that are f***ed up enough to do this kind of thing for kicks, among other things. The term terrorism only applies when one's objective involves creating and using fear to get one's way.

But since the perpetrator not having some kind of social/political agenda is unlikely, they are more likely trying to avoid the term because the public these days automatically associate terrorism with certain extreme groups of Middle Eastern origin, forgetting in the process that the term would apply just as well if this had been done by a radically violent splinter group that hates marathon runners for some random reason.

I think you're forgetting that it was an act of terror... in that it terrorized people... it doesn't have to be a political act or assigned to some overarching group. If the man who did this was an American woman who likes to look at "pretty lights in the sky" and didn't even consider the deaths of innocents as a byproduct/consequence of her actions, it would still be an act of terror.

Sound like anything could be an act of terror? Your right. The legal and dictionary definitions are very broad, and it is usually up to the discretion of the prosecutors whether or not to claim it as such. But the legality of it is inconsequential, it was a terrorizing act. IE, terrorism.

EDIT: and yes, I am saying that the definition of terrorism is NOT the act of doing something to coerce and influence the world nad get ones way. It is one definition, but it isn't even the legal/official definition, nevermind how most people think of terrorism.

EDIT 2: FBI definition: "The unlawful use of force or 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."

"social objectives" ie~ if someone did it for "kicks"

EDIT 3: further elaboration: "We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," etc.). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence."

EDIT 4: statement from Obama: "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror,"

Actually, no. Social in this case means social issues -- things like abortion and gay marriage, or whether women should be allowed out of the house without being covered head to toe. It doesn't mean you're trying to socialize with someone. So it turns out I've been paraphrasing the legal definition all along, while you've been going with something completely different.

And I saw Obama's statement. Poor choice of words.

That's up to interpretation.

And it wasn't a poor choice of words.

What I don't get is WHY there's a backlash against terrorism? What do progressive elements possibly have against labaling something as terrorism? Are they afraid of sparking outrage against "muslims"? Do they think that terrorism for political purposes is somehow worse than terrorism by the acts of a mad man? Does downplaying the idea that something was an "act of terror" help society in some way by helping to prevent prejudice? Or do they simply find the term distasteful, as though it's a poor man's colloquial term for an otherwise nondescript bombing? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Terrorism is an act of violence that terrorizes people. It's self explanatory in the word!

EDIT: excuse my poor spelling and any grammatical errors. I've been working on term papers all week - editing forum posts is on the lower end of important things to do.

The answer is in the definition you're refusing to accept. Without knowing the motive, you can't know for sure if it's really terrorism, or if it's just some nutjob who decided to kill people that day. Most of the mass killings in recent US history have been the latter case.

This is taken from Wikipedia. It is a well sourced article, so it has more weight than a run of the mill wikipedia page, and I could look for others, but it would belabor the point.

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. The writer Heinrich Böll and scholars Raj Desai and Harry Eckstein have suggested that attempts to protect against terrorism may lead to a kind of social oppression."

There isn't a simple, overarching definition of terrorism. Some governmental bodies define it as a political statement, others (including scholars) claim it is any "unlawful act of violence" that creates wanton fear.

The real issue at its core for people like me, I believe, is that to not call it terrorism deprives the situation of gravity, minimizing its importance. It's as thought we're saying an action by someone who has a political statement to make is more important than the action of a nutjob. It isn't. They both took lives. And if you asked those people on the ground if they were terrified, they'd say yes. It's simply an injustice to call it anything but terrorism, hence why Obama said what he said.

I hope that Obama's words are taken further to expand the definition of terrorism so that people are not robbed of the urgency of the situation and the justice due to them.

Wikipedia is a terrible place to go for definitions like that. It's great at a lot of things, but it makes a terrible dictionary.[footnote]If you don't believe me, look at the way they insist on the gibibyte/gigabyte distinction, something which otherwise only exists in hard drive advertising statements. That's just a quick and easy example, by the way. The site is full of crap like that.[/footnote] Especially because it doesn't matter what the legal definition or lack thereof is in some other country, since we're talking about the United States, which has a very clear one on the books. President Obama said what he said today in part to appease people like you, who were upset that he hadn't used the term in his initial statement on the matter, which he gave something like three hours after hearing about it, at a point when we really had no information about what had happened beyond "something exploded and a lot of people were injured." Even now, we don't know for sure why it was done, but terrorism is the most likely explanation.

Edit: Also, the thing you quoted mostly agrees with me, not with you. It's got a little bit of hemming and hawing about how maybe possibly under certain circumstances and in certain places your definition might be okay, but it skews closer to what I'm saying than to what you're saying.