If It Kills Like a “Terrorist Attack”, That’s What It Is!
I wrote earlier this week:
Firstly, let us dismiss the silly debate of whether this was a “terrorist” attack. “Terrorist attack” seems to be politically correct media code for “Islamic Jihad” attack. I do not abide the idea that “terrorist attack” equates “Islamic Jihad” attack. This was a “terrorist attack” regardless of what motivated the attacker(s)… Boston Marathon Attack- What Was the Motivation? OBS 4/16/13
Here’s what the Wall Street Journal had to say on this point:
Boston’s police commissioner, Ed Davis, wasn’t ready on Monday afternoon to label it an act of terror. President Obama didn’t use the word “terror” in his brief remarks. But no matter the perpetrator or the motive, no matter whether the bomber was foreign or domestic, this was and ought to be treated as an act of terrorism. The bombs were intended to maim as many runners and spectators as possible in Boston, and also to frighten an entire nation.
The Boston bombing is also a reminder of the continuing need for heightened defenses against terror threats. A kind of anti-antiterror media and legal industry has developed in recent years claiming that police tactics like pre-emptive surveillance are no longer necessary. Al Qaeda is all but defeated, they say, so we can relax. The reality is that the threat continues to be real, and the price of a peaceful marathon is constant vigilance. Terror in Boston WSJ 4/15/13
So, regardless of the motivation (social, political, religious…) behind this cowardly act it was an act of terror! If it walks like a duck, IT IS A DUCK!