The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.[/definition]
The dirt-douchebag duo went home after the attacks, as if they wouldn't get caught. No responsibility was claimed. No political goals were specified.
No pre-made Youtube videos were filmed. No manifesto written. No Al Qaeda Manual found under the pillow.
Lots casualties doesn't equal terrorism.
Weapons being used against crowds of people doesn't equal terrorism.
Building explosive devices isn't the practice of terrorists alone.
Explosive devices put into use, including against people, doesn't equal terrorism.
Are all who light fireworks (typically explosive devices) to celebrate the 4th of July (Independence Day) terrorists?
Being motivated to hurt people in response to perceived injustices doesn't always equal terrorism. Otherwise, all hate crimes are an act of
A mass murder event, even when the perpetrator allegedly was influenced by a shadowy Muslim religious fundamentalist, isn't automatically
An attack on a soft target grouping of people isn't inherently meant to SCARE people (to terrorize). To state that as being the intent of others,
without a full statement by the perpetrators as being such, is a False Dichotomy.
Counter-attacking police who are in pursuit of you isn't terrorism.
Shooting guns and killing people, including police, isn't terrorism.
Just because something scares YOU, doesn't mean that was the true intent by those who did it.
Killing people just to kill people doesn't equal terrorism (mass murderers).
Being a violent Muslim doesn't make you a terrorist.
A Muslim violently attacking a non-Muslim doesn't inherently make it a terrorist act.
Terrorism IS a tactic of war (nothing more, it isn't a true philosophy by the standards herein). War is systematic violence. That doesn't mean all
acts of violence are an act of war or terrorism.
Military'esque troops forcing their way into your family's home with machine guns in your face, marching you out with your hands on your head with
Blackhawk helicopters overhead, while to you the well-trained subservient adult this might make you feel safe, as you might not be adult enough to
know whether or not a 'terrorist' is hiding under your bed or in your cupboards, to your little children this IS TERRORISM.
It seems with all of the most politicized "terrorist" events since the new millennium, responsibility nor political goals have been claimed or
specified. Now while The 9/11 Attacks were surely unprecedented on showmanship, regardless, the Boston Bombing was not. Only the police response was
unprecedented. Nothing more. The most unprecedented use of police / domestic-military force in US history, yet the nation would prefer a shadowy
cultist Muslim 'agent of influence' to be the big story?
Then of course, we also have that whole issue of "Weapon of Mass Destruction" being charged against this "terrorist".
NOTE: If we get a sworn, confirmed (in some way merit'able by public standards), statement that they were trying to end the wars (Iraq &
Afghanistan????) via scaring EVERYBODY then this could be true terrorism. But since all sources are so absolutely on enacting fallacies across the
board to trump this up as terrorism, I'm stating it isn't at this moment.
edit on 11-5-2013 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason