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 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?
I just found out that Obama said this about an hour ago:
Quote:
“This was heinous and cowardly act, and given what we now know about what took place, the FBI is investigating it as an act of terrorism. Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror,” the president told reporters at the White House shortly after being briefed by his national security team.
So - he says it's being investigated as an act of terrorism. And actually, ABC - he STILL hasn't said directly that this IS A TERRORIST ATTACK. Remember - he's a lawyer. Pay very close attention to the exact phraseology.
To me, there is no QUESTION that it's terrorism. There was no question yesterday, as soon as the first bomb was found. Bomb - detonation - civilian targets - TERRORISM.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't understand how simply using a bomb makes it an act of terrorism. People can use bombs to kill civilians for non-political reasons. The Columbine Massacre used bombs, but it was not labeled terrorism because it was not politically motivated.
So either the FBI has evidence that this is politically motivated, or this is propaganda.
Well, it wasn't an accident and I don't see how it could be classified as workplace violence (like the Ft. Hood terror attacks were). Even if the perps were "home-grown", it would still be terrorism.
Well, it wasn't an accident and I don't see how it could be classified as workplace violence (like the Ft. Hood terror attacks were). Even if the perps were "home-grown", it would still be terrorism.
No. Not if it is a crazy person who just wants to kill random people for no political reason. Is that likely? No. The odds are that it is politically motivated, but you can't assume that without knowing the facts.
Quote:
United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
President Bill Clinton pledged Saturday morning that authorities will "spare no effort" to find and punish those responsible for the deadly bombing at Centennial Olympic Park.
"The bombing ... was an evil act of terror," the president said, eschewing his scheduled weekly radio address to respond to the explosion. "It was aimed at the innocent people who were participating in the Olympic Games, an act of cowardice that stands in sharp contrast to the courage of the Olympic athletes."
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.
