You can now read 5 articles in a month for free on BostonGlobe.com. Read as much as you want anywhere and anytime for just 99¢.

Red Sox Live

2

3

▼  5th Inning 2 outs

editorial

Debate over Marathon attacks as terrorism doesn’t help

The bomb explosions at the Boston Marathon were a form of terrorism, by most definitions of the term. The devices that went off near the finish line Monday were obviously designed to harm innocent people, and also to create chaos and fear among the broader public.

Yet simply denouncing the incidents as terrorism, or demanding that others do so, doesn’t help the investigation. Was the bombing the work of a single deranged plotter, domestic extremists, or an organized group overseas? Why did the perpetrator or perpetrators target Boston? Will they try to strike again, and when? These are the questions that matter, and the terms that news organizations or elected leaders use in describing the Marathon attack should not alter the response one iota.

Continue reading below

There’s been considerable discussion about whether President Obama, in his initial remarks Monday on the Marathon attack, was too reluctant to describe the incident as terrorism. The implication by Obama’s critics is that the president, whose administration bears responsibility for protecting Americans, is downplaying the importance of the Boston attack or is somehow failing to understand its enormity. Inevitably, Obama took care in remarks Tuesday to describe the incident as terrorism.

Yet there was never any reason to doubt Obama’s desire to catch those responsible. And given the risk that some might automatically equate “terrorism” with “organized overseas militants,” long before any firm evidence was in hand, there was good reason for rhetorical restraint.

It’s rarely helpful to let indignation guide the terms of public discussion. In the early 2000s, some commentators called for relabeling “suicide bombers” as “homicide bombers,” to redirect attention from the killers to to the victims. But clarity suffered; historically, most bombers have sought to take human life at a safe distance, while suicide bombers are a distinct phenomenon because of the perpetrators’ willingness to kill themselves in the process.

Political leaders, and the broader public, need not get drawn into hair-splitting about what to call the attacks in Boston. Such discussions only divide people against each other, when the real goal should be to pursue those responsible.

Loading comments...
Subscriber Log In

You have reached the limit of 5 free articles in a month

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Already a subscriber?
Your city. Your stories. Your Globe.
Yours FREE for two weeks.
Enjoy free unlimited access to Globe.com for the next two weeks.
Limited time only - No credit card required!
BostonGlobe.com complimentary digital access has been provided to you, without a subscription, for free starting today and ending in 14 days. After the free trial period, your free BostonGlobe.com digital access will stop immediately unless you sign up for BostonGlobe.com digital subscription. Current print and digital subscribers are not eligible for the free trial.
Thanks & Welcome to Globe.com
You now have unlimited access for the next two weeks.
BostonGlobe.com complimentary digital access has been provided to you, without a subscription, for free starting today and ending in 14 days. After the free trial period, your free BostonGlobe.com digital access will stop immediately unless you sign up for BostonGlobe.com digital subscription. Current print and digital subscribers are not eligible for the free trial.