New York bombing

[drunkenshoe]

More "suspicious packages" have been found. One in Elizabeth, NJ and possibly more. This is getting really bad

I'll keep you guys updated, because this is where I live

Beware and take care of yourself. Try to stay out of rush hour routes. Don't go into crowded places. Concerts, conventions, squares anywhere people would gather.

Don't get in to the big supermarkets or malls. Use the small ones.

[drunkenshoe]

They got him.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/19/us/new-york-explosion-investigation/

[pr126]

Well, we are relieved to learn that none of these incidents had anything to do with Islam.

Neither has  this

[PickelledEggs]

We're NJ/NY. We'll be fine.

Sent from your mom.

[PickelledEggs]

But seriously. Hopefully they did catch the guy and there aren't other people that will continue this.  I have to go in to the city this week to deliver some artwork...

[pr126]

Meanwhile in France...

Prime Minister Manuel Valls repeated what he already said 18 months ago: “France is at war.” He named an enemy, “radical Islamism],” but he was quick to add that “radical Islamism” has “nothing to do with Islam.” He then repeated that the French will have to get used to living with “violence and attacks.”

source

By the way, radical = of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: as in Islam, following the book and the Man.  (Quran and Muhammad).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The very nature of bomb attacks are what make it a terrorist attack. I'm sorry, but you don't use a bomb if you aren't trying to indiscriminately kill, and you don't indiscriminately kill without a reason.

Again though, it's all semantics and perspective.

A bombing could have been on orders from God, revenge against the organization hosting the event, because the bomber liked loud noises, or because Kazhakstan doesn't allow refugees from Syria. Only the last one is a politically motivated, and therefore terrorist, action.

[SGOS]

A bombing could have been on orders from God, revenge against the organization hosting the event, because the bomber liked loud noises, or because Kazhakstan doesn't allow refugees from Syria. Only the last one is a politically motivated, and therefore terrorist, action.

One would think that the actual definition of terrorism would be something more like "acts which are meant to spread terror in the public at large."  But apparently that's just too simple, and not useable enough for making political agendas, where specific groups can be singled out.

[drunkenshoe]

One would think that the actual definition of terrorism would be something more like "acts which are meant to spread terror in the public at large."  But apparently that's just too simple, and not useable enough for making political agendas, where specific groups can be singled out.

Good one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One would think that the actual definition of terrorism would be something more like "acts which are meant to spread terror in the public at large."  But apparently that's just too simple, and not useable enough for making political agendas, where specific groups can be singled out.

You're right.

[Mr. Pibb]

I can't help but notice that the definition of terrorism is proving to be a tricky subject to grasp (and usually by the same people).  So, rather than endure this confusion in silence, I'll go ahead and post a rough outline of the term in the hopes that as many of us as possible get on the same page and the definition is no longer a point of contention on virtually every thread tangentially related to terrorism.
Source

Terrorism is essentially a mixture of two things:
1) deliberate targeting of civilians with indiscriminate violence
2) with the intent of terrorizing a civilian population and coercing/intimidating a government, usually in order to affect that government's policies in some way.
Source

So no, setting off a bomb is not necessarily terrorism any more than stabbing someone is necessarily a hate crime.  Determining the motive is crucial in identifying both types of crimes.

The FBI and Title 22 definitions are not without their own problems.  The Title 22 definition limits itself to "politically" motivated violence and is somewhat vague. The FBI definition is the better of the two in my opinion.  It still doesn't include the threat of violence though.  The best definition I have come across was created by the Department of Defense for the U.S. military:
terrorism â€" The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence, often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs, to instill fear and coerce governments or societies in  pursuit  of  goals  that  are  usually  political.
It is still focused primarily on political objectives but isn't limited to such.   
All of these definitions need to be updated somewhat in order to reflect the growing threat of cyber terrorism.  I don't think many people would classify a lot of eco terrorism as "violence" either.     

I agree with most of what you said and think the reason for your post is spot on.  That is the most important aspect of any discussion regarding terrorism.   Both sides of this spat are correct in my opinion and until we all agree on the meaning of the word these kinds of arguments will continue.  The biggest problem with a universal meaning is different government entities define terrorism to suit their needs. It would be almost impossible to create an internationally recognized definition for the same reason.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why don't we just agree that any word can have any meaning?

[Solomon Zorn]

It would be almost impossible to create an internationally recognized definition for the same reason.

Shit. We can't even agree on one for our little group!

Just use a qualifier, like revenge-terrorism, or religious-terrorism, or political-terrorism, or even-cyber terrorism, eco-terrorism if you need to. Then everyone knows what you mean. Especially if you go on to explain your position.

Arguing over definitions is irrelevant. The dictionary isn't even perfect. Oxford frequently differs from Webster's. And sometimes both fail to capture a meaning in all of it's nuance. Also, language is fluid. A word's meaning evolves through alternate use(misuse).

As long as the writer is clear about what they mean when they use the word, then no definition is "wrong."


I hate semantics.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Shit. We can't even agree on one for our little group!

Just use a qualifier, like revenge-terrorism, or religious-terrorism, or political-terrorism, or even-cyber terrorism, eco-terrorism if you need to. Then everyone knows what you mean. Especially if you go on to explain your position.

Arguing over definitions is irrelevant. The dictionary isn't even perfect. Oxford frequently differs from Webster's. And sometimes both fail to capture a meaning in all of it's nuance. Also, language is fluid. A word's meaning evolves through alternate use(misuse).

As long as the writer is clear about what they mean when they use the word, then no definition is "wrong."


I hate semantics.

You're right.

[SGOS]

Why don't we just agree that any word can have any meaning?

I have my preferred definition, but terrorism is subject to a wide variety of misuse, and as an emotionally charged word, has huge propaganda value.  Special interests like to hijack words like that.  They are used to lend credibility to bullshit ideas.  "War" is one of those words.  Consequently, we have a "war" on poverty, a "war" on drugs, and a "war" on the West (used by timber and mining interests to paint those who would take steps to protect the environment as evil), and furthermore, environmentalists who are supposedly declaring "war" on the West are sometimes referred to as eco "terrorists", even if they break no laws.  The above examples are not literally wars, but it gives the impression that the government is going all out to solve problems with great conviction [or in the case of the "war" on the West, intentionally causing harm to innocent corporate interests].  And as Mr. Pibb points out, much of what is called eco terrorism doesn't involve either violence or even property destruction.   Don't like a competing ideology?  Turn it into a "terrorism" of some sort and FOX News will try to permanently insert that notion into the viewer's emotional lexicon.