Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Were the Boston bombings really terrorism?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Were the Boston bombings really terrorism?

    Clearly the media and the government have decided that the Boston attacks were an act of terrorism, but do the bombings really fit the definition of terrorism or were they simply a horrible crime?

    I've always thought that there had to be some kind of goal at play, political or otherwise, before an act could be identified as terrorism.  The dictionary agrees:

      

    ter

    I hope we're not too messianic or a trifle too Satanic.

    **************** art, buy junk.

  • #2
    I think you're engaging in casuistry - it was an act if terrorism, plain and simple.
    Keep the company of those who seek the truth, and run from those who have found it.

    -- Vaclav Havel

    The Universe is unimaginably vast. For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.

    -- Carl Sagan


    Life - the way it really is - is a battle not between Bad and Good but between Bad and Worse.

    -- Joseph Brodsky

    Comment


    • Fred Fartboski
      Fred Fartboski commented
      Editing a comment

      Red Ant wrote:
        casuistry 

      Good word!

      A new one for me.


    • Invisible Hand
      Invisible Hand commented
      Editing a comment

      Red Ant wrote:
      I think you're engaging in casuistry - it was an act if terrorism, plain and simple.

      You may be right.  I'm really torn on this.  

      The police are currently investigating the possibility that the older brother may have been responsible for other murders that could be tied to drug debts.  If this is verified, doesn't it begin to look more like the bombings were the act of a criminal, rather than calculated attacks designed to achieve some kind of political goal?

      Terrorism may be horrible, but it is rational.  This dude might not have been.


    • Sloppy Santa
      Sloppy Santa commented
      Editing a comment

      Red Ant wrote:
      I think you're engaging in casuistry - it was an act if terrorism, plain and simple.

       

      And how is him engaging in casuistry relevant?

       

      Your response isn't as much a factual refutation of his argument as it is a pseudo-intellectual quasi-attack on him instead (how's that for pseudo-intellectualism?)...


  • #3

    Invisible Hand wrote:

    Clearly the media and the government have decided that the Boston attacks were an act of terrorism, but do the bombings really fit the definition of terrorism or were they simply a horrible crime?

    I've always thought that there had to be some kind of goal at play, political or otherwise, before an act could be identified as terrorism.  The dictionary agrees:

      

    ter

    Comment


    • Invisible Hand
      Invisible Hand commented
      Editing a comment

      snebarekim wrote:

      Invisible Hand wrote:

      Clearly the media and the government have decided that the Boston attacks were an act of terrorism, but do the bombings really fit the definition of terrorism or were they simply a horrible crime?

      I've always thought that there had to be some kind of goal at play, political or otherwise, before an act could be identified as terrorism.  The dictionary agrees:

        

      ter


    • Sloppy Santa
      Sloppy Santa commented
      Editing a comment

      snebarekim wrote:

      Invisible Hand wrote:

      Clearly the media and the government have decided that the Boston attacks were an act of terrorism, but do the bombings really fit the definition of terrorism or were they simply a horrible crime?

      I've always thought that there had to be some kind of goal at play, political or otherwise, before an act could be identified as terrorism.  The dictionary agrees:

        

      ter


    • McLovin
      McLovin commented
      Editing a comment

      snebarekim wrote:

      Invisible Hand wrote:

      Clearly the media and the government have decided that the Boston attacks were an act of terrorism, but do the bombings really fit the definition of terrorism or were they simply a horrible crime?

      I've always thought that there had to be some kind of goal at play, political or otherwise, before an act could be identified as terrorism.  The dictionary agrees:

        

      ter


  • #4
    Obama says they were terrorism, and he's always correct.

    Comment


    • #5
      What's the bet welching thing? From the old forum I take it?

      Comment


      • #6

        Empathy is an alien concept. 

        Comment


        • #7
          "So you think that what a state does can be called terrorism? It's not limited to non-state actors?"

          Kristallnacht...

          Comment


          • Just Me
            Just Me commented
            Editing a comment

            Obama should have droned the backyard boat, just so we could watch Rand paul have a conniption fit.


        • #8

          Invisible Hand wrote:

          Clearly the media and the government have decided that the Boston attacks were an act of terrorism, but do the bombings really fit the definition of terrorism or were they simply a horrible crime?

          I've always thought that there had to be some kind of goal at play, political or otherwise, before an act could be identified as terrorism.  The dictionary agrees:

            

          ter

          Comment


          • Sloppy Santa
            Sloppy Santa commented
            Editing a comment

            McLovin wrote:

            Invisible Hand wrote:

            Clearly the media and the government have decided that the Boston attacks were an act of terrorism, but do the bombings really fit the definition of terrorism or were they simply a horrible crime?

            I've always thought that there had to be some kind of goal at play, political or otherwise, before an act could be identified as terrorism.  The dictionary agrees:

              

            ter


        • #9
          "Nobody ever lies. ESPECIALLY Muslim terrorists."

          So you admit that Muslim terrorists exist?

          Comment


          • Sloppy Santa
            Sloppy Santa commented
            Editing a comment

            prolurkerguy wrote:
            "Nobody ever lies. ESPECIALLY Muslim terrorists."

            So you admit that Muslim terrorists exist?

             

            That you ask that question says something about you.

             

            (the answer, in case you're serious, is "yes")


        • #10

          Invisible Hand wrote:

          Clearly the media and the government have decided that the Boston attacks were an act of terrorism, but do the bombings really fit the definition of terrorism or were they simply a horrible crime?

          I've always thought that there had to be some kind of goal at play, political or otherwise, before an act could be identified as terrorism.  The dictionary agrees:

            

          ter

          __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
          How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

          Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

          Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

          And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

          Comment


          • Invisible Hand
            Invisible Hand commented
            Editing a comment

            The Badger wrote:



            It might help if you waited until you heard some more facts before asking that question. But yes, any act of random violence aimed at killing people in order to "make a point" can be considered terrorism. Even when it's two young hot-heads lighting off bombs because one of them is mad at America for delaying his application for citizenship. 

             

             


            Not according to the dictionary.  Every act of violence is an attempt to make some kind of point.  Considering the implications of labeling an act as terrorism, in terms of the response by government and the legal system, we must be very specific about the definition of the term.  


        • #11

          We have to remember that the word "terrorism" should only be used to support whatever political agenda is at play.

          Muslim extremists that shoot up soldiers or bombs the public on the orders or teachings of redical clerics abroad are just cirminals responding to some sort of victimization by the U.S., and white male Christian conservatives that on their own, kill abortion doctors are terrorists that need to be droned.

           

           

           

           

          Comment


          • Sloppy Santa
            Sloppy Santa commented
            Editing a comment

            nedezero1 wrote:

            We have to remember that the word "terrorism" should only be used to support whatever political agenda is at play.

            Muslim extremists that shoot up soldiers or bombs the public on the orders or teachings of redical clerics abroad are just cirminals responding to some sort of victimization by the U.S., and white male Christian conservatives that on their own, kill abortion doctors are terrorists that need to be droned.


             

            Nice strawmen. Your trolling gets an A+.


          • Zooey
            Zooey commented
            Editing a comment

            It's an interesting question.  The over-eagerness to classify every criminal act as terrorism will lead to a permanent expansion of the federal government's law enforcement powers.  It has probably already happened. 


        • #12

          Invisible Hand wrote:

          Clearly the media and the government have decided that the Boston attacks were an act of terrorism, but do the bombings really fit the definition of terrorism or were they simply a horrible crime?

          I've always thought that there had to be some kind of goal at play, political or otherwise, before an act could be identified as terrorism.  The dictionary agrees:

            

          ter

          Comment


          • Ed
            Ed commented
            Editing a comment

            Grumpy_Polecat wrote:

            I find few words that adequately describe indiscriminate murder better than 'terrorism'.


            Sounds like you choose the word "terror" because of the negative connotations. Not because the definition fits.

            Terrorism is not "indiscriminate". Civilians are explicitly targetted to affect political change. If actual combatants, such as military, are killed along with the civilians, then they are the collateral damage.

             

             

             


          • Sloppy Santa
            Sloppy Santa commented
            Editing a comment

            Grumpy_Polecat wrote:

            Invisible Hand wrote:

            Clearly the media and the government have decided that the Boston attacks were an act of terrorism, but do the bombings really fit the definition of terrorism or were they simply a horrible crime?

            I've always thought that there had to be some kind of goal at play, political or otherwise, before an act could be identified as terrorism.  The dictionary agrees:

              

            ter



        Working...
        X