This forum can be a scary place, 'cause we got lax rules: let's see your war face. Take a breath, and roll the dice, you might find out we're really nice.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:55 am
And when the Colonists were rebelling against Great Britian, the secret group of American Patriots known as the "Sons of Liberty" threatened use of violence to anyone willing to sell stamps at the time the Stamp Act was imposed and they were freedom fighters, not terrorists.
Sorry, like EM said, they were victorious terrorists, but terrorists none the less.
Getting back on track, this was an act of terror. There's no way this was anything else. This act was orchestrated to cause fear, to what purpose it's not yet known.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:44 am
It was just the definition of terror that irked me a bit Tuor, and then probably too much. This bombing is obviously a terrorist act. Speaking of bombs, I forgot about bombing being a part of terrorism aside from violence.
EagleMan wrote:Uh... they were freedom fighters because they won They were actually still terrorists, but because they won history paints them nicely.
Of course history is written by the victor. Now we have textbooks with biased bullshit surrounding how wonderful and awesome this country is, leaving students uneducated and stupid and with nothing learned. What else is new?
"good" terrorists? Excuse me for saying this, but what the fuck? What the hell are "good" terrorists anyway, and what "good" ever came out for everyone else aside from the colonists after that?
I'm going to get back on track here and say that I don't give a damn who the heroes in this marathon bombing are. This is going to be another sloppy investigation followed by sloppy decisions conducted by our own government.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:46 am
I feel like you've contradicted yourself and agreed with me, but I'm not sure. Is anyone else able to read it that way?
Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:51 am
Ya. Also kinda weird how originally he was all for talking about how one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, but then insisting the patriots were freedom fighters, and then now he's against "good" terrorists, which are what "freedom" fighters would be.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:29 am
I'm REALLY confused about all of this. You guy's views are at least helping me a little bit, but distinguishing the freedom fighters and terrorists is hard. They don't feel any different.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:17 am
That's because they aren't, you said so yourself on the last page. Whether an agent (used here in sense of "a person who takes an active role or produces a specified affect") who commits acts of terrorism is "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" is coloured by the ideology of the person talking about said agent.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:25 am
I have some insight, although I know it's not really an expert analysis. So take it as you will.
This bombing, at least from what I've read about the subject in the past (mind you, I'm not an expert, and it's more of a critical observation), doesn't quite fit the MO of a terrorist organization such as Al Qaeda. First, bombs had been planted at the scene in various locations. Al Qaeda is a big fan of either pressure-sensitive, motion-sensitive or remote detonation bombs, mines or suicide bombs. Those types of bombs are both used for different reasons; usually to cause the highest number of casualties possible. If the point was simply to kill a lot of Americans, they would probably not have had multiple bombs scattered around the area, they would have likely had a bomber position himself in the most congested area and blow himself up. Also, evidence suggests that the bombs were probably on a timer, each bomb set to go off shortly after the others.
The fact that it was not a suicide bomber or remote detonation bombing does not in and of itself disprove that it was not a foreign terrorist, or even Al Qaeda. However, the type
of bomb used might. Al Qaeda (and other such "experienced" groups) usually construct high grade, compact bombs. The bombs used here were built out of preconstructed metal containers (one of the bombs was made out of a pressure cooker) and common explosive components, with added shrapnel such as ball barrings and nails, and some black powder and blasting caps. They were the kind of bombs you could make in your kitchen or garage, if so inclined. It does not seem like a lot of thought was put into the placement of the bombs; the situation could have been a lot worse if there had.
All of this leads me to the assumption (or rather, educated guess) that this more likely to be a domestic terrorist, probably not too bright, probably his first time making bombs. Of course, as I said, I'm no expert, so I could be wrong.
Last edited by Rough Giraffe
on Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:30 am
You mean to tell me that the Sons of Liberty aren't just from Metal Gear Solid 2?
Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:32 am
Terrorism is a premeditated, usually politically motivated, use, or threatened use, of violence, in order to induce a state of terror in its immediate victims, usually for the purpose of influencing another, less reachable audience, such as a government.
to induce a state of terror in its immediate victims
So... It's not a terrorist attack until somebody surveys all the immediate victims and asks them whether they felt "intense, sharp, overmastering fear", which is how "Terror" is defined, I believe.
Also the words seem to be making it inclusive of all the immediate victims. So technically, if there is at least one immediate victim who didn't feel the aforementioned fear then this could not be described as a terrorist attack, but rather as an attempt of terrorism.
Allow me to put the silly discussion to rest.
A metre is a unit of measurement, with an absolute objective value defined specifically.
Terror is a subjective state of being, with no scale or set objective reference point. Thus, just like defining anything that pertains to subjective feelings of specific people, the definition will never be specific and discrete. So any definition of "terror" or "terrorism" you will ever come up with will always ultimately be bullshit.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:21 am
thank you tuor and eagle for helping me explain this to rosso
i feel like i was fighting a wall
Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:44 am
So the next question is.... what were was(were) the terrorist(s) trying to accomplish?
Will some group claim that it was their doing and why?
Or was it some skilled craftsman's way of intensely spicing up a regular event with some explosive irregularity?
I haven't the slightest idea but I do like Rough's insight on the situation.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:40 am
Speculation has been that it may have been a right-wing extremist due to the bomb occurring on tax day, but that's only speculation and it could just as easily be somebody else who just picked the Marathon for its exposure and it being tax day had nothing to do with it.
No group has yet claimed responsibility, heavily implying that it was the effort of a lone wolf.
However it was probably just someone bored who wanted to liven up the news a little bit, spicing up the news cycle.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:18 pm
Probably, to be honest.
If I had to guess, I'd say this is more the work of someone who wanted revenge.
The bombs are crude, with makeshift supplies like BBs, ball bearings, nails. Pressure cooker, backpacks, bags. This is stuff anyone could buy, and because the bombs were placed at the end of the marathon, it seems like it was an attempt to make it seem like it was a bigger attack than it was, at least what I think. No motive, no one taking action, the person was probably taking revenge on an individual or set of individuals, and collateral damage was irrelevant to him/her. Collateral damage could probably be the best way to disguise a personal motive.
I dunno, just me thinking out loud, but that's my guess, right there.
EDIT: Also, if the man on top of the building IS the bomber, it might be that he was watching for his target before blowing the bomb near that location. Afterwards, he set off the other bombs in order to cover his motive. Again, all just speculation, of course.
Last edited by Yog
on Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:20 pm
I'd say they should investigate the victims closest to the detonation areas.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:00 pm
That's a pretty ineffective way to assassinate someone, especially since they were designed to wound and not neccesarily to kill.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:13 pm
I wonder if any of this is somehow related to the mysterious letters
that have been sent to some senators and the President?
Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:50 pm
EagleMan wrote:That's a pretty ineffective way to assassinate someone, especially since they were designed to wound and not neccesarily to kill.
Yeah, you're probably right, but for me, this just screams revenge.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:00 pm
I doubt it's specific, targeted, revenge
Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:37 pm
This probably sounds extremely weird but were I wishing to assassinate someone I would like to use a silenced sniper rifle of a sort. That's one of my most favorite weapons with most my favorite role in most shooters.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:38 pm
Of course killing someone in real life is entirely different and has intense repercussions and is generally morally wrong as written by many.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:39 pm
That would be one of the most effective ways.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:40 pm
A lot of people think that sniper rifles are just point and shoot.
You DO know that it's more complicated than that, right?
Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:44 pm
Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:20 pm
Tuor wrote:That's because they aren't, you said so yourself on the last page. Whether an agent (used here in sense of "a person who takes an active role or produces a specified affect") who commits acts of terrorism is "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" is coloured by the ideology of the person talking about said agent.
My teacher would expect this from me and my classmates.
Warbear wrote:You mean to tell me that the Sons of Liberty aren't just from Metal Gear Solid 2?
So that's why they sounded familiar!
Grey wrote:thank you tuor and eagle for helping me explain this to rosso
i feel like i was fighting a wall
I feel I should apologize for this. I'm not good with words myself, and I know I've been acting like a fucktard during my time here. I have my flaws.
any definition of "terror" or "terrorism" you will ever come up with will always ultimately be bullshit.
My response to this is reciprocal, but not to a point of crossing any boundaries. However, I forgot to say that I'm in agreement with terrorism as a premeditated act. But I'm also glad that I got a little bit of insight on what you guys think terrorism is. I just hope I wasn't so rude throughout this learning experience.
Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:20 pm
Now that this is put aside completely, I also believe that the letter and the bombing may be two different events done by individuals unaffiliated with each other. My reason that the bombing had happened was not because of hatred or revenge, but because of the dissatisfaction with the government. I think so in terms of economic progress and politics. Al Qaeda wouldn't commit a terrorist act like this; they would target something significant to the US such as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon rather than a Marathon. Growing up, I also only know them for destroying buildings, not taking people's lives.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.