"Bombing in New York Prompts Debate Over Terrorism - Leah Nowell - 8th Period

9/19/16

Summary: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo described the bombing in Manhattan as "obviously an act of terrorism" even without any evidence. The city's mayor, Bill de Blasio, first hesitated to use that label. On Sunday, he called the bombing "an intentional act" and "a very bad incident" but there was no evidence or connection to a terrorist group. His reluctance to use the word "terrorism" quickly became fodder for Donald Trump supporters to criticize Democrats for political correctness and weakness in taking on the country's enemies. He has criticized President Barack Obama for avoiding the term "radical Islamic terrorism," arguing that acknowledging the problem is the first step to combating it. Determining whether an attack is terrorism can be far from simple. But for an attack to qualify as terrorism, it has to be more than terrifying. It requires a broader political motive. By that definition, de Blasio had a point. In the clearest examples of terrorism, an attacker leaves little doubt about motive.

Analysis: I believe you can't just assume that an attack is automatically a terrorist act. There has ro be some sort of evidence or connection. But an attacker always leave little doubt about motive, such as the attacker who killed 84 people with a truck in the French city of Nice in July, had developed fascination with Islamic State. But they haven't found any evidence that he pledged allegiance to the group.