(September 18, 2016 at 6:39 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 18, 2016 at 6:09 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political goals. The fact that someone blew up a bomb intentionally doesn't tell anything about their motives for doing so, so we cannot establish whether it was terrorism or not as of yet.

Two bombs within 83 miles of each other, and an undetonated third (pressure-cooker variety) four blocks from the first. Figure it out for yourself.

Maybe someone was doing it for shits and giggles, I guess. But I wouldn't lay money on it.

It does seem likely that it's terrorism, but reporters and their sources are correct in waiting for confirmation rather than officially declare it something it's not yet been conclusively determined to have been.

I just woke up to the news of the stabbing (I assume the OP meant this one) of 8 at a mall in St. Cloud, MN. 

http://kstp.com/news/st-cloud-police-cro...007/?cat=1

(September 18, 2016 at 6:09 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political goals. The fact that someone blew up a bomb intentionally doesn't tell anything about their motives for doing so, so we cannot establish whether it was terrorism or not as of yet.

Not necessarily. It depends upon the laws and how they are written in the country one resides in. Terrorism, whether foreign or domestic, is the act of causing terror or harm to a person or persons.

For example, the Pennsylvania Consolidated Code Of Statutes, Title 18 subsection 2706 defines it in the following way:
§ 2706. Terroristic threats.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of
terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly
or indirectly, a threat to:
(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to
terrorize another;
(2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or
facility of public transportation; or
(3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or
cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless
disregard of the risk of causing such terror or
inconvenience.

So you see, not all acts of terrorism are political in nature.

(September 18, 2016 at 6:09 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political goals. The fact that someone blew up a bomb intentionally doesn't tell anything about their motives for doing so, so we cannot establish whether it was terrorism or not as of yet.

Bullshit Pingu.

Well, okay, if the law defines it differently that a different thing altogether. I was just pointing out how terrorism is generally defined, though. You'll find my definition in the usual dictionaries and encyclopedias, including Wikipedia.

That's why I said "not necessarily". Because, technically, there is more than one definition. For the most part, yes, it can be politically motivated, but terrorism can also be religiously motivated, sexually motivated and motivated in other ways.

Essentially, anytime a person or group of persons terrorize others, it is considered terrorism.

(September 18, 2016 at 11:16 am)Nymphadora Wrote: That's why I said "not necessarily". Because, technically, there is more than one definition. For the most part, yes, it can be politically motivated, but terrorism can also be religiously motivated, sexually motivated and motivated in other ways.

Essentially, anytime a person or group of persons terrorize others, it is considered terrorism.

That's a bit far-fetched, though. Sexually motivated? No, in my mind it's either got something to do with involving a certain big number of people, a public area, significant damage to property or anything like that. And even then it wouldn't seem right to call it terrorism unless it involved some ideological motivation(like politics, religion and so on). Otherwise it would just be a normal crime/happening. I could instill fear in someone and "terrorize them", but that wouldn't be an act of terrorism, lol.

(September 18, 2016 at 6:50 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 18, 2016 at 6:39 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Two bombs within 83 miles of each other, and an undetonated third (pressure-cooker variety) four blocks from the first. Figure it out for yourself.

Maybe someone was doing it for shits and giggles, I guess. But I wouldn't lay money on it.

It does seem likely that it's terrorism, but reporters and their sources are correct in waiting for confirmation rather than officially declare it something it's not yet been conclusively determined to have been.

Thankfully, I'm neither, simply an online commentator giving my opinion. Reporters aren't the ones who make that determination, anyway. That will be made by law enforcement.

More opinion: This is domestic terrorism, and the two bombings were co-ordinated.

(September 18, 2016 at 11:54 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 18, 2016 at 6:50 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: It does seem likely that it's terrorism, but reporters and their sources are correct in waiting for confirmation rather than officially declare it something it's not yet been conclusively determined to have been.

Thankfully, I'm neither, simply an online commentator giving my opinion.

I know that. I find it funny you like to point obvious stuff like that out to me sometimes. Did I give the impression I thought otherwise or something? Did I upset you somehow? You have made a comment. I replied to it. What's the problem, if any?

(September 18, 2016 at 11:59 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 18, 2016 at 11:54 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Thankfully, I'm neither, simply an online commentator giving my opinion.

I know that. I find it funny you like to point obvious stuff like that out to me sometimes. Did I give the impression I thought otherwise or something? Did I upset you somehow? You have made a comment. I replied to it. What's the problem, if any?

Well, holding me to the standards of a journalist when I'm not, it seems you needed the obvious pointed out to you. No problem at all, though I was a bit surprised at the necessity.