Amazon.com Widgets

Were the Boston bombings a legitimate act of terrorism?

  • Terrorism well defined

    If terrorism is defined as an act creating terror then the Boston Bombings surely fall into that catagory. When watching the replays of this tragedy you must see the terror that was painted on the faces of the victims. Add to the fact that there were no intended victims except the general public and you have terrorism well defined.

  • Yes the Boston bombing were an act of terrorism.

    As defined on Wikipedia, Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). We do not yet know the true motives of the bombings, but I strongly believe that no matter how you look at it, it is an act of terror.

  • Yes, I believe they were

    These two men did act in the way of terrorists. Didn't they cause a lot of terror to a large group of people, meaning to cause as much harm and damage as possible? They were not simply just murderers, they used weapons of mass destruction to target a specific group of people.

  • Yes, the Boston bombings was an act of terrorism.

    Two men planted bombs though out the area of the race. They meant to kill and maim, and they didnt care if they were men, women, or children. They were vicious and barbaric. There was no motive that can be seen, and they went on a robbing spree after. They didn't care if they lived or died. To me, that is terrorism.

  • YES, the Boston Bombings were a legitimate act of terrorism.

    There have been those trying to place the term "terrorism" on only acts committed by foreigners or organized groups, yet this would discount the deaths attributed to Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City. Others claim that large volumes must be killed or maimed, or it is simply murder.

    Ultimately, we must define acts of terrorism as any act meant to inflict terror; an act so heinous to be reprehensible by an overwhelming majority of a population, regardless of the damages inflicted, and that causes fear in a large number of people. Intentional murder is terrorism, as is defacing public or private property with hate speech, if the intent or target of the action isn't just those that were physically or mentally harmed by the immediate act.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.