not terrorism says the white house.
While this is certainly inducing "terror" or fear, isn't terrorism necessarily defined by an ideological motivation? If we don't know a motive, we can't call it terrorism.
That is correct. But liberals have a propensity to label lots of things "terrorism" - especially if it involves a white guy - because it dilutes the true meaning of terrorism. The minute some white dude does something nutso, the first question the media asks is "oooohh, will the WH call this "terrorism?!" It's extremely juvenile.
This could very well be terrorism, but we don't know that until we know more about his motivations. And the reason any of this matters, and is not just a matter of semantics, is that we rightly employ different resources to combat terrorism and all terrorism should not simply be viewed as a law enforcement matter.
Now, while we're on the subject of making idiotic facebook-esque arguments: I think it's very clear that we need to immediately identify what the suspect used to make his bombs and immediately ban those materials, or at least raise the age to 21 to purchase them.
