I've got family in New England so I did know what it was, but evvvverybody up there knows that Holiday its statewide, schools are let out and everything...the youngest one for sure well knew what that day was since he's been there from age 9, this wasn't random or a fit of anger that bombing was planned out and timed...and regardless if that was only some sick "fun" for them or not, that's an attack on America, innocent Americans were killed and others have had their lives changed forever. If someone is drunk and stupid, punches one of your close relatives but did it randomly; would you not consider that an attack on your family? I don't think their motive matters, they did it and killed innocent people..thats an attack on the USA.
Nowhere did I say the motive doesn't matter for anything.....but the motive is not the distinguishing characteristic for whether it was an attack on America or not. What difference does it make whether their motive was al-queda related/sponsored or just them having resentment for America because they felt isolated? Please explain to me how that changes what happened? The motive is important but to say the motive is what will make you say this was an attack on America makes no sense. And where the hell are all these daily terrorist attacks happening in the USA? The fact that they pre-planned a bombing at a public event, and timed it to inflict the most damage they could with two small bombs is enough for me to consider it a terrorist attack on America...or would you rather we call it an act of terror that just so happened to occur in the USA

And I'm not saying or calling for this to prompt any kind of response against these people, their families, or their country of origin.
By your logic...prior to us actually discovering with 100% certainty the motive of the 9/11 hijackers, that was not officially an attack on America either...c'mon man
You said it there..."I don't think their motive matters..."
???
Was I supposed to understand that you meant motive does matter when you clealrly said said it doesn't?
"Attack on America" has certain connotations to it. Because an attack happened in America, that doesn't mean that it was an attack ON America. People didn't say the Sandy Hook shootings were an attack on America, why not? People didn't say the Aurora Shootings was an attack on America, why not? People didn't say the shooting at the Sikh Temple Shootings were an attack on America, why not?
Clearly, the motive does matter as to whether you can classify something as an "attack on America." All of the mentioned attacks were planned. None of them happened spontaneously. And if you were to call them these events terrorism, I would agree with you.
And yes, prior to knowing the motives behind 9/11, we could not have said it was an attack on America. But we could have assumed due to previous terrorist attacks on it. The first question that would come to mind is WHY would someone do something like this. Same situation with the Boston Marathon. People want to the WHY. People want to know the motives because it's important.
tl;dr: terrorist attack, but might not be attack on America[/quote] [/quote]
____
Nah you're absolutely right...that's my fault, I should have clarified what I meant with the motive thing in my first statement...I said it the way I intended the second quote you have: " the motive is not the distinguishing characteristic for whether it was an attack on America or not. What difference does it make whether their motive was al-queda related/sponsored or just them having resentment for America because they felt isolated?"
Thats what I meant...that the motive isn't what distinguishes it as an attack on America in my opinion...its important in understanding why, but the truth is that we may never even know the true reason "why". I actually consider Sandy Hook, Aurora, and the Sikh Temple shootings as terrorist attacks on America even though thats not what the general consensus may believe, thats just me...I completely get why you're saying they are terrorist attacks that happened here but in my opinion they are domestic acts of terror on American citizens.
The phrase "attack on America" does have certain connotations though, but I'm not even saying all that when I state that this and 9/11 and the mass shootings were attacks on America. I think you may think I'm automatically assuming off the top that they are related, inspired, and driven by outside or international terror groups, I'm not implying that. It boils down to me not requiring there to be outside influence for something to be considered an attack on America...born and raised Americans can commit acts on America without any exposure or influence by Al-queda or similar orgs.; most people when they say "attack on America" mean that it is a sponsored or orchestrated event by a terror group using these people as conduits to inflict suffering on our country.
We're arguing semantics now though. I see your point more clearly now, but I still disagree with your classification of it being dependent on the motive
