Again, don’t get how they can term it “terrorism” yet if they don’t know the motives. Isn’t Terrorism violence with a political motive? It definitely could have a been a terrorist- foreign or domestic- but it could have also been someone like Lanza- a sick, montrous psychopath (terrorists are the same just with some political motive.)
Good point. That's always been my definition of terrorism. However, multiple people today added that because there were multiple explosives - the first smaller explosive used to drive the people running towards the second big explosive that also defines terrorism.
The first time I've heard of it but that seems to be why they are calling it "terrorism".
Just happened to stumble on this (for what it's worth) It comes from an article from Vietnam on the Boston Terror attack:
The attack is being treated as a terrorist act because it involved multiple explosive devices, though investigators have not yet found any link to an organized terror group, foreign or domestic, said a White House official who asked for anonymity. Obama did not use the term terrorism in his televised remarks.
Federal law defines terrorism as violence to “intimidate or coerce” either the government or members of the public, according to the FBI website. The site chosen for the explosions, near the finish line of the race, provided maximum opportunity for television exposure.