jlee said:glad to hear Boston strutters appear to be okay.
Question though (and not trying to troll for political scraps here), why does there seem to be such a point on whether or not this is labeled by authorities (and specifically the President) as an "act of terrorism".
Aside from the obvious technical-definition of making sure the explosion was not the cause of a mechanical malfunction, gas leak, etc. -- once it is determined to be an explosion caused by a bomb or IUD, wouldn't that make it an act of terrorism regardless?
Obviously I realize what this country has been through over the past 10+ years, but is there a sound legal reason why there is such an issue of naming this an "act of terrorism". Meaning, if it was "an act of extreme violence" it would someone how be a weaker offence? Or is the recourse by authorities more specific when officially labeled as "terrorism".
Seriously, I don't know if this is just semantics or if there is a real issue here.
During the elections I know there was a big hullabaloo about when the President called the Benghazi affair an act of terrorism....is this Boston issue now just a play on that same debate?
I'd say yes, because:
jlee said:if it was "an act of extreme violence" it would somehow be a weaker offense?
It wouldn't be. The issue of whether or not it's an "act of terror" is strictly political and has more to do with chest-puffing demonstrations of one's supposed patriotism than anything else.
The cause of a deliberate incident (and intent hasn't been established here, obviously) does not change the horror of it, and the same number of people were harmed. Trying to shift the focus towards what the act should be called is a slap-worthy offense IMO.
B_Cooper said:
