a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day.

[keannu]

I think only the context will tell if this happened in the past or will happen in the future. Does "[FONT=&#54620]a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day.[/FONT]" imply a future thing or a past one? This question may not have a definite answer.

go1mo-23
ex)Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats an hour before landing. The regulations are in response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day. Air Canada said that the rules limit on­board activities by passengers and crew in U.S. airspace. Advance Seat Selection Service depends on your booking class or membership level. The airline said that during the final hour of flight, passengers must remain seated. They won’t be allowed access to carry­on baggage or to have any items in their laps.

 

[SoothingDave]

The regulations are in response to​

The regulations are a response to something that happened.

 

[keannu]

Thanks, but I was confused because of the word "suspected terrorrism" that seems to mean a future thing, then even if it happend in the past, I think it was something that was just suspected, but didn't actually happen as suspected is suspected. Right?

 

[5jj]

It is suspected that the past incident was caused by terrorists.

 

[emsr2d2]

Thanks, but I was confused because of the word "suspected terrorrism" that seems to mean a future thing, then even if it happend in the past, I think it was something that was just suspected, but didn't actually happen as suspected is suspected. Right?

It is possible to suspect that something might happen in the future although "suspect" isn't usually the best word in that context.

The downing of the Twin Towers is a "suspected terrorism incident" (please note no political statement is being made here but it's a good example for the usage). It was an incident, that is certain. It was suspected then (and still is suspected) that it was caused by terrorists. Therefore, it is/was a suspected terrorism incident.

 

[Tdol]

Thanks, but I was confused because of the word "suspected terrorrism" that seems to mean a future thing, then even if it happend in the past, I think it was something that was just suspected, but didn't actually happen as suspected is suspected. Right?

Sometimes it can be unclear whether it's terrorism or simply criminal.

 

[SoothingDave]

And sometimes journalists are afraid to call a spade a spade for fear of being called "biased" or "prejudicial."

The police nab someone and believe him to be a bank robber, the newspapers are careful to say "alleged" bank robber. There is some sense to this. Presumption of innocence. Avoidance of libel suits.

But when a person tries to blow up an airliner with a bomb hidden in his underwear, it seems a willful blindness to call this "suspected" terrorism.

 

[Barb_D]

Except that he may have had a grudge against the airline and it was a personal attack of one individual against another specific entity, not an attack of an ideology against a nation.

When a disgruntled former employee returns to his former place of work, which happens to be a public place, and sprays bullets around, it's a criminal act. If a person quietly places a bomb, is it criminal or terrorism? One can suspect either one.

(However, I agree in this particular case, there is no "suspected" about it! The man said why did what he did, and it was an intended act of terrorism.)