What's the Difference Between a Terrorist Bombing And a Bombing?

Two things. The victims, and the perpetrators.

In Pakistan, for the past few weeks, there have been constant bombings of political rallies, party headquarters, and polling stations by the Pakistani Taliban. They say that elections are "UnIslamic" and thus it is not just their right, but their duty to use violence to try and stop them. Each bombing has killed one to two dozen people, and wounded more.

But in the U.S. media- broadcast and print, including the "premier" organs of propaganda like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, these bombings are never terrorist bombings. They're just "bombings." 

The Boston Marathon bombings were "terrorist" bombings from the first day, before the perpetrators were identified, before a motive was known. It could have been an insurance fraud, or a personal grudge, or an assassination attempt.

Why are obvious terrorist bombings that kill non-"white" people "terrorist" bombings? Why are the perpetrators never terrorists, but "militants"? They're the same type of jihadists allied with the Afghan Taliban and Al-Qaeda, with the same ideology.

If there is some reason other than racism, let the U.S. media explain the reason.

It certainly cannot be from any rational definition. By any reasonable definition, even by the definition of the U.S. Government, these ideologically motivated bombings targeting civilians that are designed to produce a desired political result are terrorist. They are certainly intended to terrorize, to terrorize people from voting. And these are fanatics that the U.S. media and Government calls "terrorist" when they're trying to kill them, such as with drone strikes AIMED AT PAKISTAN. So they only become"terrorists" when the U.S. decides to target them?

Other terrorist bombings aren't "terrorist" because the U.S. or its allies commits them, of course. And it's false to say the U.S. (and Israel, for example) DON'T deliberately target civilians. They do. There are numerous examples, both historical (World War II, where the U.S. deliberately razed German and Japanese cities. 60 Japanese cities were reduced to ash by firebombing before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and recent. (Like the Israeli attack on Gaza,  dropping white phosphorus on hospitals, etc. Or the attack on the Qana refugee camp in Lebanon, in which 100 civilians were shredded to death by U.S.-supplied munitions.)

Oh, that's "different"? That's "war"? So what's the "war on terror"? Not a war? That means the "terrorists" are at a war too. In fact, Western polemicists constantly tell us the Islamists are at war with "us." So what they're doing is no more- or less- terrorism than the practices of the hypocrites who cynically deny doing it on purpose. And I'm NOT saying one justifies the other. Both are criminal.

When the U.S. or its allies do the bombing, that's not terror. In fact, it's Freedom Bombing.

{You know, I couldn't help noticing that you're on this webpage and you're reading this. That gives me an idea. Why don't you subscribe to email alerts for new posts? That way, you'll get notices of new commentaries and you can check them out if you're interested. There are no commercial tie-ins whatsoever. And you can always unsubscribe if you decide you hate me.

All you have to do is go to the upper right side of the webpage, and add your email. It's so easy, you'd be a fool not to!}