What is it that makes someone a "terrorist"?  I'm sure there is a dictionary definition for the term (to lazy to look it up).  I general don't use the term to describe a person so I don’t have a personal definition, but how do you personally define terrorist/ terrorism  

I define a 'terrorist' as ANY person who wishes to change a country or its peoples way of life or laws by violent means rather than through a ballot box.

Andy

The word has a meaning.  Many people misuse it, but the definition of a terrorist is someone who tries to use strikes against civilian targets to destabilize a society and create dissastisfaction among its populace with the government.

A terrorist is generally someone who commits a criminal act of violence or destruction for political or ideological purposes purposes.

Quoted: strikes against civilian targets

This is at the heart of the matter.

Quoted: I define a 'terrorist' as ANY person who wishes to change a country or its peoples way of life or laws by violent means rather than through a ballot box. Andy

So, Vito, y'all never got over the pesky colony revolt back in 1776?
YOUR definition covers our Founding Fathers, you know.

It's anyone THEY don't approve of.
M

Quoted: It's anyone THEY don't approve of. M

Quoted: The word has a meaning. Many people misuse it, but the definition of a terrorist is someone who tries to use strikes against civilian targets to destabilize a society and create dissastisfaction among its populace with the government.

I define Terrorist as a person or group who uses violence against civilians and civilian targets for a political purpose. Violence directed against government or military targets is never terrorism, whether or not you agree with it.

For example, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. are terrorists because they deliberately strike against civilians. The IDF troops are not terrorists because they strike against terrorists, not civilians.

Uh oh, did I just start another Israel flame war? ::dons flame suit::

Quoted: Quoted: I define a 'terrorist' as ANY person who wishes to change a country or its peoples way of life or laws by violent means rather than through a ballot box. Andy So, Vito, y'all never got over the pesky colony revolt back in 1776? YOUR definition covers our Founding Fathers, you know.

The Mexicans would also say it would cover Sam Houston and the guys at the Alamo. Anyway, King George was a Kraut as were his Hessian Mercenaries.

BTW I'm Irish…

Andy

Quoted: Quoted: I define a 'terrorist' as ANY person who wishes to change a country or its peoples way of life or laws by violent means rather than through a ballot box. So, Vito, y'all never got over the pesky colony revolt back in 1776? YOUR definition covers our Founding Fathers, you know.

Forget to plug in the brain this morning?

Operative word here: "ballot box". The colonies HAD no ballot box.

Remember that pesky little thing called "taxation with no representation"?


Oh what the hell, why do I even bother? You're willfully uneducable.

And you are willfully argumentative.
I was not addressing you, yet you chose to attack me.
What's wrong? The boys won't play with you because they are off honoring their Mothers today?
Go to your room.

Quoted: I define Terrorist as a person or group who uses violence against civilians and civilian targets for a political purpose. Violence directed against government or military targets is never terrorism, whether or not you agree with it. For example, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. are terrorists because they deliberately strike against civilians. The IDF troops are not terrorists because they strike against terrorists, not civilians. Uh oh, did I just start another Israel flame war? ::dons flame suit::

 It's a stretch, but would bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima be included?

Quoted: Quoted: I define Terrorist as a person or group who uses violence against civilians and civilian targets for a political purpose. Violence directed against government or military targets is never terrorism, whether or not you agree with it. For example, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. are terrorists because they deliberately strike against civilians. The IDF troops are not terrorists because they strike against terrorists, not civilians. Uh oh, did I just start another Israel flame war? ::dons flame suit::  It's a stretch, but would bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima be included?

No, The War against Japan was a properly defined war between two Established Nations.

Andy

Ok, I agree with ya. But under the definition Mace gave, could we agree that war is in fact one goverment trying to change anothers political views? And these incidents were in fact targeted at large numbers of civilians of said nation. I have a real problem with the word Terroroism. Seems we're always waging war against one "ism" or another. Imperialism, Expansionism, Communism, Terrorism. This one seems the worst, depending on who's defining it, seems like it could cover just about all of us.

Quoted: I define a 'terrorist' as ANY person who wishes to change a country or its peoples way of life or laws by violent means rather than through a ballot box. Andy

Our founding fathers were "terrorists" during the American revolution?

Websters 9th defines terrorism as:
    n(1795): the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion.

Pretty vaque eh? See what I mean.

Quoted: Quoted: I define a 'terrorist' as ANY person who wishes to change a country or its peoples way of life or laws by violent means rather than through a ballot box. Andy Our founding fathers were "terrorists" during the American revolution?

BALLOT BOX!!! …… BALLOT BOX!!!… Wasn't that the whole F**king point of 1776 - NO BALLOT BOX OPTION!!!

OK… lets rephrase this……

I define a 'terrorist' as ANY person who, rather than seek change through a BALLOT BOX, wishes to change a country or its peoples way of life or laws by violent means.

Clear enough now?

Andy

Quoted: And you are willfully argumentative. I was not addressing you, yet you chose to attack me. What's wrong? The boys won't play with you because they are off honoring their Mothers today? Go to your room.

Can't stand to be corrected eh? Oooh whatsa matter - did I hurt your over-inflated self-esteem? Awww... did I point out yet another glaring error in your rudimentary thought processes

You completely ignore commonly-known FACTS that refute your ill-conceived opinions (not to mention the condescending tone of YOUR initial post) that the FFs should be considered "terrorists" and instead focus on the "argumentative" tone of my post.

Willfully uneducable - fits you to a "T".

Quoted: It's anyone THEY don't approve of. M

+1

Quoted: Quoted: It's anyone THEY don't approve of. M +1

No, -1.  It was incorrect when he said it and it's incorrect now.

Just read the definition, Mac, and see if what I wrote is not applicable:

"Websters 9th defines terrorism as:
n(1795): the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion "
Fits a lot of times and places.

Your pitiful attempts to be rude are unfortunately typical of your style of debate.
Always an ad hominem attack to bolster your lack of intellect.

Quoted: Just read the definition, Mac, and see if what I wrote is not applicable: "Websters 9th defines terrorism as: n(1795): the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion " Fits a lot of times and places. Your pitiful attempts to be rude are unfortunately typical of your style of debate. Always an ad hominem attack to bolster your lack of intellect.

And you STILL avoid being learnt like the plague!

Notice the word "terror" is used operatively in the above definition of "terrorism".

There is NOTHING that the FFs did to invoke "terror" in the British civilians living on the other side of the continent.  THEY were the ones over here terrorizing American citizens, housing troops in private homes, confiscating arms, mandating authoritarian laws. THEY were the ones over here coercing taxation without representation.

If anything, it was the Redcoats who were the "terrorists" operating here in the colonies so you seem to have THAT backwards as well.

Quoted: I define a 'terrorist' as ANY person who wishes to change a country or its peoples way of life or laws by violent means rather than through a ballot box. Andy

Vito's post invited my statement. The colonists were indeed attempting to change a country, a people's way of life, and our laws by violent means. Period.
My original statement as posted to Vito, not you, is relevant.

Go bother someone else, Mac.

Quoted: Just read the definition, Mac, and see if what I wrote is not applicable: "Websters 9th defines terrorism as: n(1795): the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion " Fits a lot of times and places. Your pitiful attempts to be rude are unfortunately typical of your style of debate. Always an ad hominem attack to bolster your lack of intellect.

Affirmative.

Quoted: Quoted: I define a 'terrorist' as ANY person who wishes to change a country or its peoples way of life or laws by violent means rather than through a ballot box. Andy Vito's post invited my statement. The colonists were indeed attempting to change a country, a people's way of life, and our laws by violent means. Period. My original statement as posted to Vito, not you, is relevant. Go bother someone else, Mac.

They didn't do it by attacking the civilian population, they attacked the British military.

Big difference.

Quoted: Quoted: I define a 'terrorist' as ANY person who wishes to change a country or its peoples way of life or laws by violent means rather than through a ballot box. Andy Vito's post invited my statement. The colonists were indeed attempting to change a countryBECAUSE THEY HAD NO BALLOT BOX!, a people's way of life THEIR OWN, NOT ANYONE ELSE'S, and our laws by violent meansIT WAS THE REDCOATS WHO MARCHED ON LEXINGTON & CONCORD NOT THE COLONISTS. Period. My original statement as posted to Vito, not you, is relevant. Go bother someone else, Mac.

You just can't get it no matter what.

According to "Terrorism Awareness for Marines" MCI 02.10b:

"Terrorism is the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governmnets or societies in the persuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or idealogical."  


"A terrorist is one who advocates, creates, or pactices the use of terror for a means of coercion."

Quoted: According to "Terrorism Awareness for Marines" MCI 02.10b: "Terrorism is the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governmnets or societies in the persuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or idealogical."   "A terrorist is one who advocates, creates, or pactices the use of terror for a means of coercion."

Wow. Very far reaching definition. No where in either cited definitions does the word civilians enter . Then we have to define terror. To President Bush, english 101 is a terror. To Kerry, commitmet is a terror.

As regards to the issue of the American Revolution.

This was a popular revolt against Tyranny. Not a bunch of hotheads who decided that they didn't like the way things were run and decided they were right and used violence to impose change against the will of the people or its lawfully elected Government.  As the population had no ballot box to vote with, and was this THE issue, they were left with little option after they asked nicely. BTW As I recall the American Revolution was fought by one group of 'British' subjects against another group of 'British subjects. Sides were taken and the 'British' colonists squared off against each other. Remember, George Washington was an Officer in His Majesties Army.

Mad King George (a Kraut) refused to acccept that the wishes of the 'British' Colonists were reasonable and ignored Parliament who felt they were. When he found it hard to get the 'British' army to do his bidding or stop siding with the other 'British' colonists, he hired German Mercenaries from Germany to do his dirty work.

King George is still  sneered at as 'the Mad King who lost the Colonies'.

Having said that, If King George HAD listened to parliament, you would now own the 51st State of 'England', Parliament would sit in Washington, you would have a Queen as Head of State and be watching the Changing of the Guard at the White House Palace  instead of Buckingham Palace and we would not be having this argument.  .

Andy

Quoted: Affirmative.

You can't seem to make long posts without cutting and pasting the words of others, can you?