Marathon Bombing and the Media

[DC Tom]

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?

 

Uh...no. What the hell are you reading? I'm arguing they're not terrorists because they don't fit any definition of terrorism (at least, not any rational one..."He's Muslim!" is not a rational definition). And I gave analogies of criminal acts that weren't conducted under the guise of ideology to demonstrate the unsoundness of your rationale: you're using the EVENT to define terrorism, thereby inferring the ideology. By that backwards logic of deriving a greater context from a single action and thereby defining it, and by analogy, all bank robbers would be terrorists trying to destabilize the monetary system. It's a reducto ad absurdum argument.

 

Because, again, you're missing the idea of context...or, if I can quote the FBI, "furtherance of [...] objectives." You still haven't managed to demonstrate their act satisfies that very specific criterion - worse, you keep confusing "ideology" wiith "objective", and they are NOT THE SAME THING. Ideology does not make a terrorist, any more than a belief in a market economy makes a day trader.

 

Never mind that the younger brother apparently admitted to waging a jihad (if you believe the press accounts).

 

Big deal. I can declare a jihad myself. That doesn't make me a terrorist. I can declare jihad and shoot up the local Jewish center. STILL doesn't make me a terrorist - makes me a criminal. But if I declare jihad and shoot up the local Jewish center with the goal of, say, easing traffic congestion around Rosh Hashanah (which congestion is a true pain in the ass, believe me)...hey, look, there's an objective! Crazy, stupid, and ill-advised an objective though it may be...objective! Terrorism!

 

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.

 

Welcome to point of my reducto ad absurdum argument.

 

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?

 

Yes.

 

And if Charra trips over it and breaks his neck, you get a year and a !@#$ing medal.

[3rdnlng]

Uh...no. What the hell are you reading? I'm arguing they're not terrorists because they don't fit any definition of terrorism (at least, not any rational one..."He's Muslim!" is not a rational definition). And I gave analogies of criminal acts that weren't conducted under the guise of ideology to demonstrate the unsoundness of your rationale: you're using the EVENT to define terrorism, thereby inferring the ideology. By that backwards logic of deriving a greater context from a single action and thereby defining it, and by analogy, all bank robbers would be terrorists trying to destabilize the monetary system. It's a reducto ad absurdum argument.

 

Because, again, you're missing the idea of context...or, if I can quote the FBI, "furtherance of [...] objectives." You still haven't managed to demonstrate their act satisfies that very specific criterion - worse, you keep confusing "ideology" wiith "objective", and they are NOT THE SAME THING. Ideology does not make a terrorist, any more than a belief in a market economy makes a day trader.

 

 

 

Big deal. I can declare a jihad myself. That doesn't make me a terrorist. I can declare jihad and shoot up the local Jewish center. STILL doesn't make me a terrorist - makes me a criminal. But if I declare jihad and shoot up the local Jewish center with the goal of, say, easing traffic congestion around Rosh Hashanah (which congestion is a true pain in the ass, believe me)...hey, look, there's an objective! Crazy, stupid, and ill-advised an objective though it may be...objective! Terrorism!

 

 

 

Welcome to point of my reducto ad absurdum argument.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

And if Charra trips over it and breaks his neck, you get a year and a !@#$ing medal.

 

What if your objective is to simply kill as many people as possible?

[We Come In Peace]

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

[DC Tom]

What if your objective is to simply kill as many people as possible?

 

"...to intimidate or coerce..."

[GG]

Uh...no. What the hell are you reading? I'm arguing they're not terrorists because they don't fit any definition of terrorism (at least, not any rational one..."He's Muslim!" is not a rational definition). And I gave analogies of criminal acts that weren't conducted under the guise of ideology to demonstrate the unsoundness of your rationale: you're using the EVENT to define terrorism, thereby inferring the ideology. By that backwards logic of deriving a greater context from a single action and thereby defining it, and by analogy, all bank robbers would be terrorists trying to destabilize the monetary system. It's a reducto ad absurdum argument.

 

Because, again, you're missing the idea of context...or, if I can quote the FBI, "furtherance of [...] objectives." You still haven't managed to demonstrate their act satisfies that very specific criterion - worse, you keep confusing "ideology" wiith "objective", and they are NOT THE SAME THING. Ideology does not make a terrorist, any more than a belief in a market economy makes a day trader.

 

 

 

Big deal. I can declare a jihad myself. That doesn't make me a terrorist. I can declare jihad and shoot up the local Jewish center. STILL doesn't make me a terrorist - makes me a criminal. But if I declare jihad and shoot up the local Jewish center with the goal of, say, easing traffic congestion around Rosh Hashanah (which congestion is a true pain in the ass, believe me)...hey, look, there's an objective! Crazy, stupid, and ill-advised an objective though it may be...objective! Terrorism!

 

 

And where have I argued that they're terrorists because they're Muslim? As opposed to being Muslims who engaged in terrorist acts? Sorry that you don't like any of the definitions of terrorism, but let's take the DoD definition:

"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."

 

So tell me exactly how does the brothers' act not fit the definition? The brother is admitting that they were acting on a jihad against the US. The only hook you will have is that they were lone wolves who did not act on behalf of an organization. But all it would take would be for Zawahiri or anyone else in Queda leadership to acknowledge the link and you wouldn't be arguing this. It's also a case where the ideology is married to the objective.

 

The objective of Islamists is to defeat the Western influence on their society, and part of that goal is to win the battle of attrition against the complacent West. Just because it was two guys doing this, doesn't mean it's not part of a new wave of attacks that strike at everyday life. The surprising part is that it hasn't been carried out more often given the vast amount of soft targets. Maybe it's because many such plots were foiled well before they were carried out. In others, we got lucky that the Times Square bomber was incompetent.

 

But a ragtag collection of dopes acting out on a common ideology does not preclude them from being terrorists, because there's an underlying theme to their acts, which is certainly aligned with the above definition of terrorism. And it's nothing like the reasons Willy Sutton gave for robbing banks, or the Sandy Hook massacre.

 

 

And for the questioning moron, radical Islam is A root cause, not THE root cause. Learn to read, buddy.

Edited April 24, 2013 by GG

[meazza]

 

And for the questioning moron, radical Islam is A root cause, not THE root cause. Learn to read, buddy.

 

So do the judges rule this as a smack down?

[birdog1960]

So do the judges rule this as a smack down?

business as usual. actually, a bit better, excepting the lover stuff. disagreement with the argument rather than the personality.

[Chef Jim]

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

 

 

 

 

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?

 

So you're saying they were racists?? I kill myself sometimes.

[3rdnlng]

So you're saying they were racists?? I kill myself sometimes.

 

I was wondering who was going to be the first to play the race card. I gotta admit it, I almost did myself, but waited for a bigger fool.

[We Come In Peace]

And for the questioning moron, radical Islam is A root cause, not THE root cause. Learn to read, buddy.

I don't quite understand where the vitriol is coming from, GG. If it offended you that I asked a question about your post, my bad. All I asked for was a clarification because I was curious to hear your thoughts, not because I was attacking you.

[DC Tom]

And where have I argued that they're terrorists because they're Muslim?

 

When you argued they fight for ideology.

 

As opposed to being Muslims who engaged in terrorist acts? Sorry that you don't like any of the definitions of terrorism, but let's take the DoD definition:

"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."

 

So tell me exactly how does the brothers' act not fit the definition? The brother is admitting that they were acting on a jihad against the US. The only hook you will have is that they were lone wolves who did not act on behalf of an organization. But all it would take would be for Zawahiri or anyone else in Queda leadership to acknowledge the link and you wouldn't be arguing this. It's also a case where the ideology is married to the objective.

 

"GOALS". It's right there in the definition you quoted. "GOALS." "Ideology" isn't a goal. "Jihad" isn't a goal. Jihad is part of an ideology. Declare jihad all you want, it's still not a goal.

 

The objective of Islamists is to defeat the Western influence on their society, and part of that goal is to win the battle of attrition against the complacent West. Just because it was two guys doing this, doesn't mean it's not part of a new wave of attacks that strike at everyday life.

 

Presumption on your part: these guys are Islamists? Are they actually part of some Islamist movement, or merely influenced by it. Again, you're confusing ideology with goals.

 

But a ragtag collection of dopes acting out on a common ideology does not preclude them from being terrorists, because there's an underlying theme to their acts, which is certainly aligned with the above definition of terrorism. And it's nothing like the reasons Willy Sutton gave for robbing banks, or the Sandy Hook massacre.

 

Refer back to my reducto ad absurdum argument again, how I used those examples not as examples of terrorism, but to demonstrate the fallacy in YOUR backwards idea of terrorism in defining the ideology by the nature of the violence.

 

I don't quite understand where the vitriol is coming from, GG. If it offended you that I asked a question about your post, my bad. All I asked for was a clarification because I was curious to hear your thoughts, not because I was attacking you.

 

You've got to remember that he was in lower Manhattan on 9/11. This is more personal to him, not an abstraction.

 

(Which is not a criticism, GG.)

[B-Man]

HEY.................it worked once.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

One of these things..........is not like the other.................

 

Globe: Russia warned FBI “repeatedly” about Tsarnaev before bombing

 

Family members: Older Tsarnaev brother was influenced by “mysterious radical”

 

Biden: The Tsarnaevs are “knock-off jihadis”

 

Now....................who do suppose knows more in this case.

.

[BringBackFergy]

One of these things..........is not like the other.................

 

Globe: Russia warned FBI “repeatedly” about Tsarnaev before bombing

 

Family members: Older Tsarnaev brother was influenced by “mysterious radical”

 

Biden: The Tsarnaevs are “knock-off jihadis”

 

 

Now....................who do suppose knows more in this case.

 

 

 

 

.

Mind-bending exit quotation about Tamerlan Tsarnaev from his former brother-in-law: “[H]e was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion."

 

My God, that about sums it all up right there.

[IDBillzFan]

Biden: The Tsarnaevs are “knock-off jihadis”

 

Hey Biden, haven't you been tasked with getting a gun law passed?

 

Oh, wait.

 

Nevermind.

[DC Tom]

Hey Biden, haven't you been tasked with getting a gun law passed?

 

Oh, wait.

 

Nevermind.

 

He's too busy today attending the MIT security guard's memorial service.

 

Which kind-of shows you where England lies in the administration's priorities.

[Chef Jim]

Hey Biden, haven't you been tasked with getting a gun law passed?

 

Oh, wait.

 

Nevermind.

 

I want to know how that question he asked ended. I swear it was probably something to do with it being our fault.

[B-Man]

Former brother-in-law Elmirza Khozhugov explains Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s grievances to The New York Times:

 

He was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.

 

So he blew up an eight-year old boy and a couple of hundred other Americans.

 

 

And now the media are full of stories about how the Tsarnaevs were all-American kids and “beautiful, beautiful boys” and maybe it was the boxing or the Ben Affleck movies or the classical music but, whatever it was, it was nothing to do with Islam.

 

 

 

So I guess it worked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited April 24, 2013 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

Which kind-of shows you where England lies in the administration's priorities.

 

As if we didn't already know.

 

Former brother-in-law Elmirza Khozhugov explains Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s grievances to The New York Times:

He was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.

 

So he blew up an eight-year old boy and a couple of hundred other Americans.

 

 

And now the media are full of stories about how the Tsarnaevs were all-American kids and “beautiful, beautiful boys” and maybe it was the boxing or the Ben Affleck movies or the classical music but, whatever it was, it was nothing to do with Islam.

 

 

 

So I guess it worked.

 

Former brother-in-law Elmirza Khozhugov explains Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s grievances to The New York Times:

He was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion

.

 

 

So he blew up an eight-year old boy and a couple of hundred other Americans.

 

 

And now the media are full of stories about how the Tsarnaevs were all-American kids and “beautiful, beautiful boys” and maybe it was the boxing or the Ben Affleck movies or the classical music but, whatever it was, it was nothing to do with Islam.

 

 

 

So I guess it worked.

 

 

.

 

I keep waiting for them to tell us how the younger brother was really at the marathon to pick up some Skittles.

Edited April 24, 2013 by LABillzFan

[DC Tom]

Former brother-in-law Elmirza Khozhugov explains Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s grievances to The New York Times:

 

He was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.

 

So he blew up an eight-year old boy and a couple of hundred other Americans.

 

 

And now the media are full of stories about how the Tsarnaevs were all-American kids and “beautiful, beautiful boys” and maybe it was the boxing or the Ben Affleck movies or the classical music but, whatever it was, it was nothing to do with Islam.

 

 

 

So I guess it worked.

 

 

Not the first time I've heard this connected to Ben Affleck (Iranian press was trumpeting the bombing as revenge for Argo).

 

And that article is one of the most unbelievably racist I've read in a long while.