Diluting Terrorist name

[Jersay]

I think people are diluting a terrorist.

A terrorist to me, is when you use a device or airplane or anything to inflict damage that will cause the willful destructioon of innocent human life. Therefore 9/11.

However, just hijacking a plane, that is a hijacking not terrorism.

Putting up a blockade, that's not terrorism, that is a protest.

Jesus people is calling someone else a terrorist the fun thing to do today or in this century.

 

[Jersay]

So what is a terrorist attack and what gives the naming of a terrorist because more frequently then not that anyone that opposes he government through anything is classified a terrorist??

Now with terrorism, attacking civilians willfully is a given, but what about the military, what about a lawful protest?

So what should a terrorist be called.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Diluting the Definition of Terrorism

I don't think that the laws in Canada should recognize terrorism, period; I think that the provisions exist, as it stood before the consideration of terrorism, to charge and prosecute terrorists given the particular circumstances of whatever their attacks, or attempted attacks, may have been. For example, if the suspected terrorists from the Province of Ontario are thought to have conspired to assassinate The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, and launching an attack on the Parliament of Canada and indeed attempting to disrupt the authority of the Crown of Canada, then these persons should be charged and tried for treason — a charge of terrorism is unnecessary.

 

[I think not]

So what should a terrorist be called.

He should be called a terrorist, beacuse that's exactly what he/she is:

A radical who employs terror as a political weapon. One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions. The use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal.

And if this isn't good enough for you I sincerely hope Shilo will change your mind.

 

[Jersay]

Its an okay start. However, that can apply to alot of people still, from all different groups.