blastoff
Undocumented Reg. User
Um...let's see. Two bombs are detonated on a street busy with holiday revelers, marathon participants and fans, and as a result three people, including a little boy, are dead and scores are wounded, many horribly mutilated by loss of limbs or other serious injuries.
So regardless of who's responsible and what their twisted rationale might be, how could anyone NOT call it an act of terrorism? Or even hesitate over it. This isn't an instance where one has to first confirm how something walks and quacks in order to know what it is. Dead and wounded innocent people on the ground, their blood and limbs scattered about the street and sidewalk, is a quintessential act of terrorism in my book.
So regardless of who's responsible and what their twisted rationale might be, how could anyone NOT call it an act of terrorism? Or even hesitate over it. This isn't an instance where one has to first confirm how something walks and quacks in order to know what it is. Dead and wounded innocent people on the ground, their blood and limbs scattered about the street and sidewalk, is a quintessential act of terrorism in my book.
