I think we need to take a step back and look at what the definition of Terrorism actually means. At the moment, I'm not sure that we agree. To me, Terrorism is when someone resorts to mass violence in order to affect political change. Does anyone dispute that? This is certainly a criminal act of mass violence of the worst kind, but is it terrorism? Can we honestly call this an act of terror without knowing who did it and why? It may very well be an act of terror, but should we be jumping to that conclusion?
Link He's a sharp one, that Glen Beck. In all seriousness, I didn't have a fucking clue what to call that attack yesterday when it happened. Needed more information.
Was this before or after Beck took the bombing as an opportunity to shill for the gold company that sponsors him? Beck has no credibility on this or anything. None. The OP is an interesting question, but I don't know that it matters in the long run. Nate Silver had a great tweet yesterday where he said basically that it matters who did it and why, not what we call it.
And yet like Beck says if we knew from the start this was a "Tea Party" thing you and Obama would automatically label it terrorism. With glee in doing it. This was a terrorist attack regardless of who actually did it.
I'm not sure I agree with your definition. "Mass violence to affect political change" would include virtually all warfare as well. To me, terrorism is innately connected with threatening or targetting civilians. This certainly was terrorism, and maybe Obama should have said so. But the failure to do so is not something that should make people apoplectic with rage, as appears to be the case with Glen Beck.
'What is terrorism'?! Why the fuck is this even a question? What is Catholicism? Wow, complex, right?! What is Statism? Ohhhhhh, mah fuckin' gawwwwwd, what a Gordian fuckin' knot! Terrorism -- wow... what do you figure it is? Can you overcome your PC-induced fucking cowardice and take a shot at answering that? Huh?
The definition would not apply to terrorism as retaliation. Such as the OKC Federal Building, which as the story goes was retaliation against a violent government raid. No change was sought. I'm sure there are other examples.
Pretty much. I'd add that it is still terrorism if the violence is only threatened (because you're still getting your way through terror), and that some terrorism can be purely aimed at a protest, rather than offer a specific vision for political change. As for henry's objection, war doesn't aim at political change in the strictest sense; changing rulers is not a change in politics, but only in power. So as for Boston, if this is a madman's work, I would hesitate to call it terrorism.
Close. Acts of violence by other than uniformed military against non-military targets to effect political change. In other words, irregulars hitting civilian targets in an attempt to change some policy of the government.
I have to agree. Without knowing who did it, or why, how can we say this is definitely an act of terrorism? It more than likely is, but what's the rush?
War doesn't always aim to change rulers either (although I would consider that a form of political change).
Terrorism is politically motivated violence designed to instill terror in the general populous in order to achieve political gains. So the Sandy Hook mass shooting was not a terrorist attack even though it was pretty horrific simply because the perpetrator didn't have political goals he was trying to affect with his attack. 9/11, the London Bombing, and all the IRA bombings are terrorist attacks because they were politically motivated and terror was their method to achieve those goals. So once again we see Glenn Beck and the whole American far right which is now using this talking point ("Obama didn't even call it terror in the first minutes after it happened!") is nothing more than their usual fake outrage designed to get ratings from stupid people. They do this literally every day (find something stupid to fake outrage about) and it is the commercial sole reason for existence.
Lanz has a better definition than I can put together right now. I'm too lazy to go through my books to see if I have a doctrinal definition and Dictionary.com's definition is utterly disappointing. The one thing I'll say almost definitively is that terrorists are non-state actors, behaving illegally. That is why nations like Libya and Iran are labeled as "state sponsors" of terrorism. Technically they're bankrolling people who aren't representing the government. Another thing I'll say is that terrorism is illegal behavior that is intended to create chaos and uncertainty. Is it terrorism if a major in the Chinese Army, in a government facility, hacks into computers in the US? I'm inclined to say no. But I'm not sure what I'd call it. Is it terrorism if Anonymous hacks into the banking system to get people to pull all their money out of banks and put it in mattresses? I'm inclined to say yes--even though there is no actual violence. What if a disgruntled vagrant gets a D.C. phone directory, a box of envelopes, a book of stamps, and a 5# bag of flour? Again, I'm inclined to say yes although the more I typed the less sure I was. The relevant thing is that no one is in any danger because of this but it only creates terror because a terrorist did this back in 2001 and killed quite a few people. Even though he is pretty small potatoes, the Unabomber is almost certainly a terrorist. He is a civilian using illegal means and killing people with the intention to spread fear and chaos in support of his political views.
The intentional targeting of civilians to instill a sense of terror in the population in the pursuit of a political objective.
John Castle agrees: Leave 'international' out and you've nailed it. International isn't in there. Are you referring to intentional?
It seems the the Obama administration asked the Pakistani Taliban and they said they didn't do it, so that rules them out
Who's still listening to Glen Beck? He lost all relevancy once Fox News decided they didn't want him anymore. As for Obama not immediately labeling it "terrorism".....whatever. Am I supposed to believe that even if he had, the Glen Beck's of the world wouldn't have still frothed at the mouth with fabricated outrage over something else?
You overlook the possibility that the Sandy Hook shooter was not acting alone, and was in fact a pawn in a much grander scheme to effect political change by our own government.
I don't have one. I just look at all possibilities and don't just accept whatever shit the government and media decide to shove down my throat.