hi, it might be terrorist, might not be, but at least no one(as far as we know) was killed or hurt. right?

We may not be able to predict when next a terrorist will strike, but one thing is horribly predictable: the government announcing ten minutes afterwards (before anything can be determined) that "it wasn't terrorism."
No WONDER we haven't had an attack since 911!

Of course this was a terrorist act. Quite probably carried out by one of those "tolerant" peace activists. You know, those same "peace makers" who caused the deaths of well over 2 million innocent people in Southeast Asia after forcing the U.S. to pull out of Vietnam, 20 million plus in the Soviet Union, and unimaginable poverty and degredation to countless others? Who will probably vote for a candidate who hangs pictures of a man who personally slaughtered women and children (in the name of "revolution" of course) in his campaign offices? Or the one who is hell bent on destroying every institution in the U.S. because it's not fair some people succeed, and others fail? God forbid we question their patriotism. After all, isn't it "patriotic dissent" to actively support and protect terrorists, ensure that law enforcement has no means to monitor or detect those who want to murder innocents, wrap the desecration of a national monument in "freedom of expression", and to portray those who serve as nothing more than ignorant, murdering, rapist savages? Oh no, no, no. We mustn't question them at all.

"It's a little bit TOO early..." Nice one.

I CANT BELIEVE WHAT IM HEARING!!!......
Mrs.Perino stated that the time square bombing "doesnt appear to be a terrorist act"
is she out of her mind?
The time square bombing
is a blatent act of terrorisim!!!! Now im not the smartest guy around but it apears that time square
is a victim of FRIENDLY FIRE???
COME ON PEOPLE PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE GROUND!! and see it for what it is...
TERRORISIM!

Yes but thats not the problem, the problem is the intent of the attack. Its not a matter of who was hurt, more like a matter of what the "bomber" intended to do, whether it was to kill or to cause even more fear in the hearts of americans, who seem to be afraid of terrorism more than anything else.

"Yes but thats not the problem, the problem is the intent of the attack."

I think the intent is very clear; to instill a sense of fear in ordinary Americans as a means of interfering with government activities. Why else use a bomb and place it in a public thoroughfare, a sidewalk in front of a military recruiting station? The person or persons who did this wanted to scare people away from visiting certain governmental offices (and, yes, a recruiting station is a governmental office). It's an act of violence used as a means to interfere with the legal operations of government. That's Terrorism by my definition.

Patrick., I couldn't agrre more. And furthermore, it's disgusting, weak, lame, and UN-American the way these lib-RINO bozos refuse to recognise terrorist acts as terrorism just because the acts in question were committed by the left.

Bah!!

It was an act of vandalism. It may have been terrorism, although the time of day and the manner of the attack seem to argue against it (the perp was not interested in hurting people, just saying something out loud). However, he COULD have hurt people, and it was definitely annoying.