Originally Posted by mlyonsd
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.
I think you do need a political\ideological motive to consider it terrorism because without it is just mass murder.