Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Boston Marathon bombing claimed to be Terrorist act by President: Is Definition of Terrorism changing?

WARNING:   Do not read if you are easily offended: All comments requested to be civil, but have at it if you want to rant in the comment section - moderation may be utilized if necessary.

For six years President OBAMA can barely pronounce the word terrorists or terrorism when it comes to the war on America. (Think back to the Benghazi attack) AND YET TODAY, I have heard from Obama's lips that whenever a bomb explodes it is an act of terrorism. Even IBTIMES immediately questioned the definition of the word terrorist, when the president broached it hours after Monday's tax day explosions in Boston.

Really? Terrorist - Really? Usually the act of terrorism is tied to political motivations,and some group will make demands and/or claim responsibility.

Definitions -- while the world negotiates for years the definition of terrorism (wanting to define it as an act rather than using motives to add to definitions)  

The world generally accepts that true terrorism is motivated .   (Maybe they just have to cover the gaffe of stating this was terrorist related yesterday before they knew anything.)

Worst yet, yesterday I was chilled to the bone to hear an expert say that terrorism is defined as a group or EVEN JUST ONE individual intent on shattering lives.  SORRY, but the act of terrorism according to most of the people I talk to -- is POLITICALLY Tied. This could be a political act, but at this point nothing is being stated that confirms anything politically motivated.  

This chills me to the bone given this administration's willingness to indefinitely detain American Citizens with nothing more than suspicion of terrorism.

Is it possible this is a political ploy to now monitor everything we do = at all times?  All videos are being confiscated by the Boston Police (to gather evidence). Will censorship come into play, now that it has been mentioned that bomb plans are too accessible in libraries and on Internet – will the government now want censorship?  The answer to everything has always been more laws rather than enforcing what we have.
"Local police confiscated mobile phones from people in the area of the explosion, said Representative Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Insurgents in Iraq sometimes use mobile phone signals to detonate bombs." source: Bloomberg Businessweek 4-15-2013

Don't get me wrong, I do have sympathy for Boston Marathon victims and what they are going through should not be endured for a simple act of watching or participating in the race. 

The city SHOULD NOT have been LAZY and checked the waste receptacles and monitored the cameras that captured the bomb planter -- before such before the event. (According to news the receptacles were not checked because of complacency and send of safety built over the years.)

I personally fear for the reactions of the leaders that will be coming soon.  I fear that President Obama has no clue what real terrorism is and is unwilling to deal with real terrorism  – despite his eloquent words. It could be even wore - President Obama does not seem to prioritize reactions. Finally thank you IBTIMES for this quote from the FBI:

 “A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives,” according to the FBI report Terrorism 2002-2005.
UPDATE:  CNN has confirmed that there is NO LINK between the Boston Marathon Bomging and the President Obama and Sentor's RICEN poisen letters delivered on 4/17/13 

One last thought.... There have been many threats by countries that they will take down America. For years many have predicted that there will not be another Twin Towers attack, but that the small things will terrorize America and bring her down. No country or group is laying claim to yesterday's Boston Marahon Bombing - but could this be an act of war instead of terrorism?  I find it doubtful but find the question rising to the forefront of local conversations. Some rate the possibility of this being an act of war as likely 7-8 (on scale of 1-10)  Some have said it the government itself warring on the American people - and rating war as a 5-6 possibility.  Other rate it a possibility of about 2.  So what do you think -   WAr or Terrorism ? 

No comments: