Explosive Devices found in New York City.

[mister dog]

My thoughts on the matter are this: This guy is a sympathizer. No more, no less. ISIS isn't claiming it, even if it wasn't theirs, because it's essentially a foiled attempt. Four bombs and only 28 injuries? Doesn't sound like it's on ISIS' radar. The Minnesota attack incited terror. The New York/Jersey attempt, as much as I count them as terror incidents, sparked more outrage it seems.

Luckily. If it weren't that this was such an amateur and all of the bombs he placed set off properly, he could have caused tons of casualties these past days.

Sympathizer of IS or not, there's a good chance that Islamic extremism is the motive again and i don't know which is the lesser of the two evils.

 

[Ken]

Sympathizer of IS or not, there's a good chance that Islamic extremism is the motive again and i don't know which is the lesser of the two evils.

Your probably right. But either evil is just as bad as the other.

 

[Jawehawk]

From where I stand, once you start claiming that every act by a lone madman is a terrorist act, you give the terrorist organizations more power. If the attack isn't carried out by someone directly affiliated with an organization, then it can't be called a terrorist attack.

 

[Johnnypenso]

From where I stand, once you start claiming that every act by a lone madman is a terrorist act, you give the terrorist organizations more power. If the attack isn't carried out by someone directly affiliated with an organization, then it can't be called a terrorist attack.

Terrorism is defined by the intent of the perpetrator, not who he or she is affiliated with or inspired by.

 

[Jawehawk]

Terrorism is defined by the intent of the perpetrator, not who he or she is affiliated with or inspired by.

And I disagree. If it's not part of a larger organisation, then it's just one person being insane or, to simplify things, being evil.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And I disagree. If it's not part of a larger organisation, then it's just one person being insane or, to simplify things, being evil.

Disagree all you want, you're still wrong.

 

[Tornado]

From where I stand, once you start claiming that every act by a lone madman is a terrorist act, you give the terrorist organizations more power. If the attack isn't carried out by someone directly affiliated with an organization, then it can't be called a terrorist attack.

And I disagree. If it's not part of a larger organisation, then it's just one person being insane or, to simplify things, being evil.

So what was Oklahoma City? Or Kaczynski?

 

[lancia delta hf]

Exactly. Bombs go off 'but it's not terror related'. I even read on the Belgian news that they say the unexploded device probably isn't related to the one that did explode

I guess they are desperate to mark this as an individual incident by a lonesome loon, just like all the stabbings in the past months in Europe. If IS claims responsibility in the next days all of that goes down the garbage though.

you could trip over and crack your head open and ìsis would claim responsibility.

 

[Touring Mars]

you could trip over and crack your head open and ìsis would claim responsibility.

In that regard ISIS are the complete opposite of Glasgow City Council.

 

[lancia delta hf]

In that regard ISIS are the complete opposite of Glasgow City Council.

Haha, that's typical. When I worked at the local race course, some parts such as pathways belonged to the council, and often would let us know that. Then suddenly one storm and plenty of fallen trees on the pathways later the pathways were suddenly the race courses responsibility when they needed clearing.

 

[Jawehawk]

Disagree all you want, you're still wrong.

Not at all. There's no such thing as right and wrong when it comes to definitions of words, as it is a matter of personal interpretation. You might find it tempting to look at a dictionary and use it as the de facto meaning of a word, but the problems with doing so are that A, sometimes, the meaning of a word will change depending on what dictionary you use, and B, those dictionaries are written by people, they're not some kind of natural law that can be proven.

While the meaning of the word terrorist is consistent across various online dictionaries including Oxfords, what actually constitutes a terrorist, and by extension what constitutes a terrorist attack, is very much up for debate.

So what was Oklahoma City? Or Kaczynski?

I wouldn't know, as I don't know the details of either case.

 

[mister dog]

you could trip over and crack your head open and ìsis would claim responsibility.

Yes especially since i'm an infidel!

 

[PeterJB]

Not at all. There's no such thing as right and wrong when it comes to definitions of words, as it is a matter of personal interpretation. You might find it tempting to look at a dictionary and use it as the de facto meaning of a word, but the problems with doing so are that A, sometimes, the meaning of a word will change depending on what dictionary you use, and B, those dictionaries are written by people, they're not some kind of natural law that can be proven.

While the meaning of the word terrorist is consistent across various online dictionaries including Oxfords, what actually constitutes a terrorist, and by extension what constitutes a terrorist attack, is very much up for debate.

If there was no right and wrong for word definitions then language wouldn't exist. In the case of terrorism, it involves a single or multiple perpetrators doing act that may or may not be treasonous that involves either killing or injuring people in what is believed to be a safe location with the intent of instilling fear in the population. It's working exceptionally well at the moment because security has gone through the roof at airports, train stations, stadiums, museums and other public places because we're scared of it happening again.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I was going to address @Ken's OP since I feel he had a point. News organizations don't like to call terror because they seem to hold this monopoly on the word, and also because there is a bit of PC to the use. If they call terror, the image that is painted is a bunch of guys wearing keffiyeh and passing out bombs. What is easily forgotten is there is various forms of terrorism and not some hallmark form. But to make sure condemnation isn't brought down on a certain group of people/religion they hold the word until they feel its appropriate to use. And then claim it can be used because the FBI said so or whatever. In reality it's as you've put it, terror is terror doesn't matter what your religious, ethnic or regional background is.

Not at all. There's no such thing as right and wrong when it comes to definitions of words, as it is a matter of personal interpretation. You might find it tempting to look at a dictionary and use it as the de facto meaning of a word, but the problems with doing so are that A, sometimes, the meaning of a word will change depending on what dictionary you use, and B, those dictionaries are written by people, they're not some kind of natural law that can be proven.

While the meaning of the word terrorist is consistent across various online dictionaries including Oxfords, what actually constitutes a terrorist, and by extension what constitutes a terrorist attack, is very much up for debate.

Yes there is...

People have this conflated notion that since it's of their opinion they can't be wrong cause, it's opinion. However, there is such thing as conjecture, which you seem to be influenced by here. Which allows someone to say with good reason that yes, you are wrong. Also the only issue is the modern western use of the word and tagging it to a central group to the point that people forget original context of the word. Doesn't matter how much time changes there are origins from where these words come.

I wouldn't know, as I don't know the details of either case.

Two of the most high profile forms of domestic terrorism probably anywhere, but obviously for the U.S.

You could easily do a google search. There is also the Atlanta bombings during the 96 Olympics if I remember right. I'd even say cases like the Beltway snipers is a form of terror.

 

[Ken]

In my opinion, anything that causes terror by means of either hurting people or there idea of safety in the world is terrorism. I even consider a serial killer a terrorists under that definition.

There was recently a person shooting random people along the highway here in northern Colorado. This act had me scared, as I used the same highway to pick up my daughter from her mother's house. I used alternate routes. I saw that as an act of terror. Here is a person that has me scared enough to deviate from a rather common practice in life in fear for the life of my daughter and myself.

With that sense, the Oklahoma city bombings, the '96 Olympics were an act of terrorism. This act in New York City and New Jersey is as well. We, in the 21st century, have forgotten that terror can be more than from ISIS or Boko Harem or Al-qaeda. It doesn't have to be from the Middle East. It didn't have to be with a bomb. It didn't have to mass deaths involved, or any. An act of terror just needs to cause terror.

 

[Jawehawk]

Okay, I'll concede two things. First off, some words do indeed have only one meaning. You would for example be hard pressed to argue that "yes" can mean anything other than consent/agreement etc.. However, if you we were to debate the meaning of the word sport, then suddenly the line blurs, especially as the traditional meaning of the word doesn't necessarily cover the modern world. The obvious activities where their definition as a sport is heavily contended would be Chess or Video Games. In that case, it does become a matter of personal opinion, regardless of what a dictionary says sport is.

I'll also concede that I was too fast to say that a lone person cannot be a terrorist. With that said, I strongly feel that the word is used far too often and freely. One of the main factors for something to be considered terrorism (according to dictionaries) is that the motive is to promote a certain political agenda or to raise awareness of a political situation. At the moment, people are very quick to label any attack done by a muslim in the western world as a terrorist act, completely ignoring if there was in fact any political motives behind it. Theories are automatically passed on as facts, as is also shown in this very thread. Some members are very quick to label the attackers before even knowing anything about their motives.

And again I need to stress that the definition of terrorism is not as clear cut as some of you make it out to be. It's a contentious issue that depends both on the eyes of the beholder as well as knowing all the facts. From where I stand, the definition of terrorism is so broad and spawns so many conflicting or partial ideas of what terrorism is, that the dictionaries definition of the word becomes imprecise at best, or outright useless at worst.

http://blog.oup.com/2015/11/meaning-of-terrorism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/terrorism/


As for Tornado's examples. Aside from making a point that a single individual can be a terrorist (which I concede is true), they're not relevant to this attack, and as such, I won't bother reading up on them.

 

[PeterJB]

All Islamic terrorist attacks have a political motivation; the spread of the Caliphate, Sharia Law, Jihad and/or the suppression of the Christian/Secular West.

 

[mister dog]

Update on the case:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ahmad-r...g-suspect-family-may-have-pro-jihadist-views/