I remember A SCOTUS Justice, when deciding a pornography case, said, I can’t tell you what pornography is, but I know it when I see it.”
The same idea applies here. More Austin political correctness.
Law Enforcement is exactly right in this instance.
What this had to do with 9/11, I have no idea!
The guy was a mad bomber.
He bombed because he was crazed.
A narrow definition of terror is as the police stated, i.e., there is some intended political or social objective that is being pursued. A broader definition is that terror is random violence which induces terror in the citizenry, but which has no specific objective in mind.
He was a lib. Its social protest, man.
Which is why Austin police weren’t more proactive in stopping him.
He did it for a goof.
If you just want to kill some people you shoot or stab them. If you plant bombs around the city you are getting off on inflicting terror.
He was a terrorist, just not an ideologically driven one.
I for one am glad they are sticking to the precise definition of “terrorism”. Now we just have to wait for the department to be accused of racism.
It was certainly terror for the victims.
They haven’t released the bombers confession or text of the confession, so I’m going with a cover up of a failed FBI operation to start a race war or a Travis County wannabee FBI operation.
Terrorism is a “shock word”, so we can’t use it anymore. How about we call it a boo-boo?
Ergo, no one in Austin was terrified. Whew.
“They want to know if there’s other people who motivated him to do this,” he said. “The fact that people were killed is what’s important not so much as what the motivations are.”
First time I've heard motive isn't relevant to a homicide investigation--huh. So they don't know what the motive was or if other people motivated him, and from this they can conclude it's not terrorism? Good to know the Federal Bureau of Incompetence is on the case.