Originally Posted by Saul Good
How should I know? Probably, but we don't know who did it or why.
Let's say a store owner was going broke, so he blew up his building for insurance money. That wouldn't be terrorism. It would just be a greedy asshole with no respect for the lives of others.
Terrorism is easily the most likely explanation, but it isn't the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation.
Your example doesn't come close to the reality of Boston.
Multiple bombs set. Bomber(s) don't stick around to face the consequences. That isn't mass murder, the intent is to terrorize. Terrorize in the reality it all could happen again. You don't need a political motive to terrorize. Some sick **** just getting his jollies watching the explosion over and over on tv thinking it would be great to do again before he's caught is terrorism. Maybe not the form you think it is but he has already set in motion the alteration of how we do things in the future publicly. To me, by default, that fits the definition of terrorism.
Also, because the way it's worded in the Patriot Act, this is considered an act of terrorism thus allowing the authorities to proceed with the investigation the same as if it was assumed AQ did it.