Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama statement on Boston Marathon bombing (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But Newtown was an act of terrorism (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gffish, mayim

    as well, yet the news media (including Fox) didn't call it that.

    Terrorism for many people implies foreign involvement. The media didn't universally call Okla City terrorism.

    The push to call it terrorism comes mainly from those who want to blame Muslims, and Obama's refusal to immediately do so falls into their gameplan.

    •  I don't think Newtown or Colorado (0+ / 0-)

      were terrorism.  They were just acts of assholery with no deeper meaning than the pathetic and misbegotten acting out of the perpetrators.  

      "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

      by Publius2008 on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:24:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wouldn't call Newtown terrorism (0+ / 0-)

      The shooter had no known political or social motive as far as I know. His intent was not to terrorize. It was to kill.

      •  But then (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        merrywidow, mmacdDE, mayim

        Boston may not be terrorism.

        We are assuming a political motive.

        It almost certainly was.

        But what if this was a deranged person with some grudge or desire to wreak havoc for sick non-political reasons?

        That is unlikely - why do we assume that crazed people like the Newtown killer would only use guns?

        •  I don't (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Batya the Toon, essjay

          I don't think we should call anything terrorism until we know who did it and why. If Joe Blow puts a pipe bomb under his ex-wife's car because she got it in a nasty divorce and kills 5 people standing nearby, was that terrorism just because it was a bomb? No. If the EFL burns down a new housing complex is that terrorism? Yes. If a pyromaniac does the same thing, is it terrorism? Probably not, it's most likely pathology.

        •  Nothing is Certain (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Batya the Toon

          Terrorism requires the perpetrators to directly take credit or be so well known that everyone assumes they are responsible. Since no one is trying to take credit - which in itself is odd - it is less likely that was done by someone with a cohesive political aim. A single nut job with no rational motive seems possible. It is also entirely possible that this race was not a random target but was chosen because the attacker was angry about it. The first thing that popped into my mind was a crazy runner who qualified but still wasn't able to register decided to take revenge.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site