A bomb goes of in a mall in Manila, a country that’s been the subject of devastating terrorist attacks from Islamist groups. The news story starts by describing the bomb, having a government official announce that it’s a terrorist attack, and then acknowledges that such attacks do happen in Manila, albeit rarely:
A blast in an upscale Manila shopping center killed at least eight people and wounded about 130 Friday in what the country’s national security chief said was a militant attack.
“This is definitely an act of terrorism, although we have not yet pinpointed what group is responsible for it,” National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales said.
Muslim insurgents in the southern Philippines frequently bomb civilian targets, but such attacks are rare in Manila. Authorities citing intelligence reports recently had warned that terrorists were plotting attacks in the capital.
And how does the SF Chron’s headline writer (or, maybe, the LA Times headline writer, since that publication is the story’s source) headline the story:
Terrorism suspected as bomb kills 8 at Manila mall. (Emphasis mine.)
What kind of evidentiary hurdles do you have to cross before the terrorism goes from merely suspect to actually real?