Wednesday, April 17, 2013

When is a terrorist not a terrorist?

I'm intrigued by the reporting of the Boston outrage, just about everywhere being called a terrorist attack.

That phrase isn't used when Americans go on a mass shooting spree, killing their fellow Americans. Like the regular school massacres or the recent cinema massacre, with many more innocent people killed than in Boston. I don't recall seeing or hearing one reference to terrorism in relation to those.

So what makes it a terrorist attack?  The use of a bomb rather than firearms? The perpetrator being foreign rather than American?

Surely killing and maiming innocent people, or attempting to do so, is a terrorist act, regardless of the weapons of choice or the nationality of the criminal involved. Isn't it?

The FBI are saying they "will go to the ends of the earth" to find those responsible for the Boston bombing, but it's looking more and more likely to me that they won't have to go that far.

No group has claimed responsibility, there's been no crowing about having dealt a blow to the Great Satan. In my mind it's all pointing to a domestic terrorist.


Duffy said...

I think this has more to do with political motivation. The shooters of late were mentally ill people with no political agenda they just wanted to murder a bunch of people. Both Eric Robert Rudolph and Tim McVeigh were (rightly IMNHO) labeled terrorists. The bombs used here appear to have been rather similar to IEDs used in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That may or may not point to a group from that area or it could be someone who served there with the US forces. I'd consider the odds long on that though. We don't know much now and much of the reporting is contradictory. I'm going to reserve judgment until we have more facts.

Seabee said...

It seems the surviving bomber is talking so maybe we will get the full facts evetually.