Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am agreeing there is a slight difference in meaning and the exploitation of that difference is intentional. But I just don't see why it is surprising or problematic?
The media screws stuff like that up all the time, where have you been? LOL. I don't think it's any deeper than that. They heard the word "terror" and ran with it.
It's not surprising to me, but I do believe it's problematic. It's a misrepresentation of what was actually said. And furthermore, the phrase "act of terror" means something different than "terrorist attack" semantically.
Inaccuracies in reporting, and in "politispeech" bother me. I'm going to call them on it. It's not an uncommon response from alert citizens. Where have YOU been? LOL.
It's not surprising to me, but I do believe it's problematic. It's a misrepresentation of what was actually said. And furthermore, the phrase "act of terror" means something different than "terrorist attack" semantically.
Inaccuracies in reporting, and in "politispeech" bother me. I'm going to call them on it. It's not an uncommon response from alert citizens. Where have YOU been? LOL.
Well the "politispeech" in this instance is not innacurate. LOL. Sounds prudent when you don't actually know what happened.
Innacuracies in reporting during these kind of events is annoying and problematic, but not surprising in the least IMO. I mean you could spend days dwelling on how many details reporters get wrong during the aftermath of a major, still developing event. To me personally, that is folly. You don't have to be an "alert citizen" to know that the 24 hour news cycle encourages sloppiness. Trying to turn that into more than it is, is pretty much how crazy conspiracy theories are born. I'd rather dwell on more concrete examples of wrongdoing.
But hey to each his own! Who am I to tell you it's a waste of time. Do you I guess.
I haven't read through the thread and I'm not going to, but it is important under the law for the President as the highest law enforcement officer in the land to be precise in his/her language when describing an act such as the Boston bombing because federal law makes a definitive distinction between an attempt or act of mass murder and one that is an attempt or act of terrorism.
Under U.S. Code, terrorism is defined as an act
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
Remember, Timothy McVeigh was NOT convicted of terrorism but rather conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosive of government property and first degree murder of federal agents (eight counts).
I haven't read through the thread and I'm not going to, but it is important under the law for the President as the highest law enforcement officer in the land to be precise in his/her language when describing an act such as the Boston bombing because federal law makes a definitive distinction between an attempt or act of mass murder and one that is an attempt or act of terrorism.
Under U.S. Code, terrorism is defined as an act
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
Remember, Timothy McVeigh was NOT convicted of terrorism but rather conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosive of government property and first degree murder of federal agents (eight counts).
Good post. Thanks.
Here's my take on this though - and this is why it bothers me. I think I understand why he didn't use the "terror" word the first day. But here's what he said the second day:
Quote:
“Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror,”
OK. Bombs were used to target innocent civilians in Boston. So according to the President, this was an "act of terror." But according to your definition, it's not an act of TERRORISM.
What the hell is the difference between an "act of terror" and "an act of terrorism" or "a terrorist attack?" IS there a difference?
I haven't read through the thread and I'm not going to, but it is important under the law for the President as the highest law enforcement officer in the land to be precise in his/her language when describing an act such as the Boston bombing because federal law makes a definitive distinction between an attempt or act of mass murder and one that is an attempt or act of terrorism.
Under U.S. Code, terrorism is defined as an act
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
Remember, Timothy McVeigh was NOT convicted of terrorism but rather conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosive of government property and first degree murder of federal agents (eight counts).
The OP isn't arguing that there's a difference between mass murder and an act of terrorism. She's arguing that there's a difference between an "act of terror" and a "terrorist attack."
The OP isn't arguing that there's a difference between mass murder and an act of terrorism. She's arguing that there's a difference between an "act of terror" and a "terrorist attack."
Thanks.
I mean, if there ISN'T a difference, why the change in terminology over the years?
I just think it's odd. Inquiring minds want to know...
Like I said, the term "terrorist" points to a person or group - a perpetrator. The term "terror" takes the emphasis off the perpetrator and focuses on the (justified) reaction TO an event, errr, I mean, an ATTACK.
What the hell is the difference between an "act of terror" and "an act of terrorism" or "a terrorist attack?" IS there a difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow
The OP isn't arguing that there's a difference between mass murder and an act of terrorism. She's arguing that there's a difference between an "act of terror" and a "terrorist attack."
This is what the OP first wrote:
I could have missed this on the news, but so far I haven't heard Obama use any form of the word "terrorism" regarding the bombings in Boston yet (as of 4/16/13 at 12:23 pm).
Has he, to anyone's knowledge?
Do you believe this term is an important designation? Does it make any difference or not? Do you believe using the term, or choosing not to use that term, is significant?
To me this is just another replay of politics that were at play in the aftermath of the Benghazi consulate attack; when did the President call it terrorism and why did it take so long yada, yada, yada. It is a semantically argument of absolutely no import and I find it a similarly distasteful dissent in to political gamesmanship played on the back of the suffering of others.
Violent acts, mass killing, terrorist attack, act of terror, who the frack cares (he asks rhetorically) outside of the criminal process of charging the perpetrators with the appropriate crime? Colloquially speaking feel free to use any of the above, they are all appropriate. The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was all the above why do we not debate the appropriate appellation for a mass shootings or is the problem that terrorism is reserved for non-domestic actors?
I've been looking for a blog piece that I read the other day that pretty much summed up my feelings on this issue but I can't find it, knew I needed to save it... but in the process of searching for it I was struck by the number of links to stories about "Obama now calls it an act of terrorism" as opposed to his first statement "this was a heinous and cowardly act" which wasn't enough for Fox News in general and Bill O'Reilly in particular. So today, he calls it an act of terrorism... wonderful! Does that bring back the dead, heal the wounded, or bring anyone to justice, no! If it doesn't why is it such an important issue what the President calls it? Is terrorism not a heinous and cowardly act (suicide bombers excepted)?
I could have missed this on the news, but so far I haven't heard Obama use any form of the word "terrorism" regarding the bombings in Boston yet (as of 4/16/13 at 12:23 pm).
Has he, to anyone's knowledge?
Do you believe this term is an important designation? Does it make any difference or not? Do you believe using the term, or choosing not to use that term, is significant?
To me this is just another replay of politics that were at play in the aftermath of the Benghazi consulate attack; when did the President call it terrorism and why did it take so long yada, yada, yada. It is a semantically argument of absolutely no import and I find it a similarly distasteful dissent in to political gamesmanship played on the back of the suffering of others.
Violent acts, mass killing, terrorist attack, act of terror, who the frack cares (he asks rhetorically) outside of the criminal process of charging the perpetrators with the appropriate crime? Colloquially speaking feel free to use any of the above, they are all appropriate. The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was all the above why do we not debate the appropriate appellation for a mass shootings or is the problem that terrorism is reserved for non-domestic actors?
I expounded and clarified my questions. I think they are legitimate questions. I also made it clear several times that this phraseology is not confined to the current administration - it's usage began during the previous administration.
I'm not trying to slam the President, per se. I do, however, believe that words have meanings, sometimes quite subtle meanings. Sometimes the terms are jarring in their rephrasing - for instance, when the massacre on Fort Hood is defined as "workplace violence" rather than a "terrorist attack," or even the weenie version of that phrase, "an act of terror."
If you don't agree with me, that's fine - these are my personal observations over the years. I've seen the shift in phraseology and it makes me curious.
The FBI's definition of "terrorism" isn't quite the same as the definition in Title 22 in the US code:
Quote:
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Both definitions of terrorism share a common theme: the use of force intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal. In most cases, NIJ researchers adopt the FBI definition, which stresses methods over motivations and is generally accepted by law enforcement communities.
You see how these slight differences in terminology come to have great importance when faced, for example, with Major Hasad at Fort Hood. Because his targets were not technically "noncombatants," (they were soldiers who were definitely not engaged in combat - they were standing in line waiting for a medical exam, on US soil, unarmed), he is not designated as a "terrorist." However, he meets the criteria if you apply the FBI definition.
Words do matter. A lot. Pay attention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
