50°
Partly cloudy
THU
 68°
 46°
FRI
 66°
 48°
SAT
 60°
 41°
SUN
 64°
 45°
MON
 66°
 42°

KRAUTHAMMER: Boston and the language of terror

  • A Watertown, Mass. resident is escorted to safety as police surround a home while searching for a suspect in the Boston Maraton bombings on Friday. (HARLES KRUPA / Associated Press)

Terrorism is speech — speech that gathers its audience by killing innocents as theatrically as possible. The 19th-century anarchist Paul Brousse called it “propaganda by deed.” Accordingly, the Boston Marathon attack, the first successful terror bombing in the United States since 9/11, was designed for maximum effect. At the finish line there would be not only news cameras but also hundreds of personal videos to amplify the message.

But what message? There was no claim of responsibility, no explanatory propaganda.

And even though we know who did it, at this writing there still is no definitive explanation. The Tsarnaev brothers are Chechens. The older one appears to have become radicalized. He is reported to have shared radical Islamic videos urging jihad.

One, for example, that showed bombs exploding was captioned “then Allah will rise an army from the non-Arabs ... their weapon will be the weapon of faith.” Uncharacteristically for Islamist terrorism, however, the Boston bombing produced no claim of responsibility.

What does this mean? There was much ado about President Barack Obama’s nonuse of the word “terrorism” in his first statement to the nation after the bombing. Indeed, the very next morning, he took to the White House briefing room for no other reason than to pronounce the event an “act of terrorism.” There was no need to be so sensitive about the omission, however. The president said that terrorism is any bombing aimed at civilians. Not quite. Terrorism is any attack on civilians for a political purpose. Until you know the purpose, you can’t know if it is terrorism.

Sometimes an attack can have no purpose. The Tucson shooter who nearly killed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was simply deranged, a certified paranoid schizophrenic. Or there might be some personal vendetta — a purpose, but not political.

In this case it’s extremely improbable. (Schizophrenics are too disorganized to set off simultaneous bombs, for example.) It’s overwhelmingly likely that the Tsarnaev brothers were politically motivated.

© The Press Democrat |  Terms of Service |  Privacy Policy |  Jobs With Us |  RSS |  Advertising |  Sonoma Media Investments |  Place an Ad
Switch to our Mobile View