h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The terror element is hardly missing when a couple of guys can terrorize the Boston Marathon. You never know who commits the next act, where and when. Every tube, train station and major sports event in the western world is under strict surveillance and has been for many years.

- - -

"...the many thousands of ordinary citizens who lined the route of the Boston Marathon last week hardly seem to have been interested in urging *anyone* to acts of violence."

In the eyes of these terrorists these thousands are responsible for the acts of your government, paulh.

- - -

It is impractical to use too narrow a definition of the words terror/terrorist/terrorism. And if you insist on doing so you must define your understanding of the words in great detail.

- - -

Anders Breivik commited his terror in order to spread the messages in his manifesto. Many have since appealed to the media not to spread those messages. "If you spread them Breivik will have won". I agree, but I also think we must learn and try to understand in order to stop the violence. It is a very fine line.

I would distiguish between Anders Breivik and Adam Lanza. One commited an act of terrorism the other went on a crazed killing spree.

Understanding the difference is a key point when it comes to understanding surely?


***

In terms of the media I think it one thing to have a discourse about causes, prevention etc but it is an another to add fuel to the fire which gives credibility to the people that perpertrate these crimes by hyping the stories and indulging in a media frenzy because by doing that it gives them something they crave. Publicity, notority in life or death, and adds to the fear level in the general population.

I see what you mean Pierce and to a large extent I agree with you.

However what terrorism requires, as we who lived through the 70s and 80s in Europe will well remember, is the element of not knowing when and where they will strike next. So while you have the Boston Marathon bomb quite clearly being something akin to terrorism, as someone looking from the outside I'd say that it's nature - as a one off, with no prior warning - isn't pure terrorism regardless of any political motive attached to it.

Brevik too, because although he did appear to have kept a blog nobody could really have anticipated that he would carry out the atrocity that he eventually did.

Tragic, horrendous - indescribably so for both cases. But I'd really quibble at calling it terrorism.

Not that my view is either here or there since both acts must be punished in the end.

A terrorist is anyone who terrifies others,
puts them or keeps them in a state of terror.

Not to be confused with Islamic Terrorists such as:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-passenger-train-attack-plot-suspect-set-court-134118525--finance.html


~jwf~

So is an Islamic Terrorist is different from any other terrorist that claims to be motivated by their religion?

re 183:

"However what terrorism requires, as we who lived through the 70s and 80s in Europe will well remember, is the element of not knowing when and where they will strike next. So while you have the Boston Marathon bomb quite clearly being something akin to terrorism, as someone looking from the outside I'd say that it's nature - as a one off, with no prior warning - isn't pure terrorism regardless of any political motive attached to it."

But we are in that state. We never know when and where. And what makes it worse is that many different groups practice terrorism without knowing of each other.

If I get blown up what do I care if it is by an "aryan" US'ian, a teen from Kyrgystan or a deranged Norwegian - and what their motives are?

They say 9/11 changed the world. Oh yes, who could have foreseen an attack like that? Sure, the WTC had been bombed before, but flying massive planes into two towers, the Pentagon and The White House all at the same time?

What's next?

You see, I don't see things from the terrorists point of view but from my own. Yes, the bombing in Boston was a one-off (it is unlikely that the surviving brother will ever bomb again and so far it doesn't look like others were involved) but there will be others. There is a mental tie between the brothers and others who have been "inspired".

well of course, which is why it's only the way I see it.

But there isn't a definite threat rather than a non-specific feeling.

"In the eyes of these terrorists these thousands are responsible for the acts of your government, paulh." [Pierce]

I understand that, but I disagree with it. During the Cold War, I loathed the government of the USSR, but held the Russian people themselves blameless. As for the two terrorists suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing, I seriously doubt they had all their marbles. Even the people at the Mosque they attended rejected their violent viewpoints.

'But in the actual definition of the English language, as used by the vast majority of those speaking it, a "terrorist" is "A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government)." '

I don't think this is a good definition because it's overly broad. It could well include any weaker power trying to take military action against a more powerful nation.

Consider the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. Argentina invaded a UK possession, and the UK was a more powerful government. The political goal was to resolve the dispute about possession of the islands. That's not terrorism. It may be agressive war, but it's not terrorism.

I think a better definition would be something like, "The unlawful use of violence to influence a government or civilian populace." There may need to be something about the actual damage caused by the attack is not the true objective of the attack.

The true victims of a terrorist attack are not the people who are killed or injured, but the people who see and hear about it. The goal is to influence them.

The overuse of the term to describe other crimes of violence or things like industrial accidents makes the term meaningless.

Adam Lanza didn't have any political objective. It was a mass murder. It had to do with his personal issues more than anything else he wanted to accomplish.

War isn't terrorism, because attacks would generally be lawful. The attacks while they may be to influence civilian populations or governments still need to be legitmate targets. If we think about the Doolittle Raid, the purpose of that was to let the Americans feel better about themselves and to show that Japanese that we could reach out and touch them. However, the targets were miltiary and industiral targets so the attack was lawful.

re 188:

"...I understand that, but I disagree with it. During the Cold War, I loathed the government of the USSR, but held the Russian people themselves blameless"

The people in the USSR didn't have democracy. The people in the USA had.

"The people in the USSR didn't have democracy. The people in the USA had."

And?

What does that mean, that every person that got a vote, is responsible for the governement policy, action or inaction?

Sorry, not too sure how that sounded after I posted

I don't quite know what you mean

Peanut, I was trying to explain how I *think* the Boston bombing brothers see the american public.

After WWII the entire German population was held responsible for everything the German nazi government did. Was that wrong? Many Germans risked life and limbs figthing the nazis.

Is the entire population of the Soviet Union responsible for what happened behind the iron curtain?

terrorist is a blanket name like cancer is. It doesn't single out pacific ones as such. History says about Guy Fawkes, but doesn't say he was a terrorist and HE tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament.

While "mankind" is on this planet, there'll always be those that will think and or use all and any forms of violence to achieve their ideals

Thanks I see what what you mean now

In the absense of any real information of what the two brothers were thinking, I just don't know how they viewed anything really, individually or as the two that they were when they did what they did

"The people in the USSR didn't have democracy. The people in the USA had." [Pierce]

As Benjamin Franklin explained as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention, the new government was "A republic, if you can keep it." More than two hundred years later, the post of president is still not directly elected; only the electoral college can do that. There are democratic aspects to our multi-tiered government, but a pure democracy it's not. But I would agree if you argued that it's more democratic than the USSR was before 1989. Right now, though, the Russians elect their president and probably a number of other positions as well.

For many years, the people of North Carolina were represented in the Senate by Jesse Helms, who seemed to me to represent everything that could be wrong. I also know some lovely people from North Carolina. I was not about to stop liking my friends just because their state sent someone I despised to the Senate.

I'm not into hate. I don't go around looking for reasons to despise other people. I recognize that there are people in the world who might want to see me dead because of some group that I belong to. I find that regrettable, but what can I do about it? I wish I were a better person. I wish I had some super powers that could melt other people's hatred. The reality is that I don't. Neither do any of the other people I know. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi seems to have been that rare individual who could bring people together in India, an otherwise severely divided society in which the lives of Hindus and Muslims did not come together in any meaningful way. But somehow, many Muslims did respect and trust him. He was probably the only Hindu that many of them did trust. That is why I think Gandhi was the greatest person of the 20th Century. And yet, as great a person as he was, he still got assassinated.

How can I live my life so as to make a difference? That's the question.

The father of the Marathon bombing suspects was the subject of a Boston Globe article today. Turns out he lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts for ten years. He supported his family as a garage mechanic. A year ago, he returned to Russia, only to find that all heck had broken loose back in Cambridge. I feel some sympathy for the guy. He thought he knew his family well, and it must have been a blow to find out that he had missed something. He was unable to grapple with the situation in the immediate aftermath of the bombing. he had four children, but might end up with only two. The younger son is likely to face either death or life imprisonment, and the cost of lawyers [not to mention the furious media scrutiny] will likely weigh on everyone in the family. Uncles and cousins have weighed in with opinions. Who knows what other shoes will drop as the surviving suspect is interrogated by government officials who want to get to the bottom of what was going on.

re 196:

Nice posting, paulh

The last two paragraphs in particular are to my liking

Let me mention Nelson Mandela who - at least in the eyes of some - used to be a terrorist, but ever since he was released from prison managed to heal the wounds of his country in the most admirable way - instead of letting revenge be his agenda

Proof that prison works.

I'm afraid I need more proof. Way more