Oh I agree we're saying the same things over with nothing new. But you still don't get floating definitions.
Look, I'm just going from the definition you provided.
You tried adding to it.
No, I pasted it verbatim. And it simply does not allow Boston to be described as "terrorism".
But feel free to illustrate how (anybody) bombing a frickin' city marathon makes a political statement.
The key word is (anybody); plug in a random unknown to the same crime. Because if it depends on what's unexpressed in somebody's private mind, then it's not a statement.
BTW, I didn't claim you edited it, you just added your own views, or that of your circle of friends' views, of what terrorism is.
According to you it has to be specific why the target is being attacked for it to be terrorism. That's hogwash. In this case all we need to know is who the attacker was. We knew within a short period of time who it was. I'm sure if they had gotten away with it they would have done it again and maybe even mailed a letter claiming responsibility.