"Terrorism" by any other name ...

Not surprisingly, the wetting of pants started almost immediately:

Perpetrators of Calgary LRT bombs should be charged with terrorism

The comment I left on the CBC story about the IDE [sic] bombs that were found on Calgary’s LRT route rapidly became the second most recommended comment, so I figured I might as well bring it over to the blog to see if it generates any discussion here.

What I stated was simple - that everyone involved in the making and planting of these bombs should be charged with terrorism. Everyone else involved in other way should be charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Depressingly predictable, of course, but here's where it gets entertaining:

And why not? Let’s look at the definition of terrorism:

terrorism –noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Sorry ... what was that first one again?

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

You mean like, maybe, threatening to out an anonymous political blogger if he doesn't shut up? That kind of "threat?" That kind of "coercion?" For "political purposes?" You mean, for example, like this?

Beatings are fickle. Bruises and broken bones heal. Let's face it, Cynic, it isn't a beating you're afraid of. It's having to face your loved ones, with them knowing everything you've spouted from that trash heap you facetiously refer to as your blog, that you should really be afraid of. It's the toll this could all take upon your personal life that you need fear.

Those kinds of threats and unmistakable references to physical violence? Sure, that works for me. Couldn't agree with you more.

Patrick Ross: terrorist. I like the sound of that.

P.S. Yo, Google! Over here! Patrick Ross. Terrorist. Feel free to start a new file.

DEEP AFTERTHOUGHTS: Not surprisingly (again), Blogging Tory A Step to the Right's logic falls apart entirely upon cursory examination, since it's not at all clear what politically-motivated coercion was involved in the pipe bomb incidents.

What message was the bomber trying to send? What political effect was he/she hoping to accomplish? What change in public behaviour was he/she hoping for? Since there was no note, it's impossible to say. Even the Calgary police admitted they were unaware of any motivation:

"If you're thinking of a targeted event, I think it's just a place where it's concealed ... so I don't think it's targetting any infrastructure like the LRT line, if that's what you're wondering."

And without any further evidence, yes, I'd say that's a fair conclusion. Dangerous, irresponsible and potentially life threatening? Sure. Terrorism? Nothing to indicate that, given the definition supplied above. Nice try, though. And I'd change that underwear.

P.P.S. Patrick Ross: Terrorist. Yeah, that's catchy, isn't it? Expect to see it here on a regular basis.