Pego wrote:jazzcyclist wrote:So 12 people answered "no" to the question in my original post. Out of curiosity, I would appreciate it if the no's stated their definitions of terrorism in concise and unambiguous language. Pego kinda sorta gave a definition but it has some wiggle room in it. Here's my definition so you get an idea of what I'm looking for:
Terrorism - violence against innocent civilians for the purpose of intimidating, coercing or breaking the will of a government; or for the purpose of disrupting or influencing a democratic process in order to promote or oppose a political agenda.
This is too narrow. For example, the white supremacist asshole that shot up the Sikh temple in Milwaukee just because he hated people wearing turbans was a terrorist in my book.
He's a terrorist in my book too, similar to the KKK, a group that also carried out racial, ethnic and religious motivated murders. The fact that he may have been ignorant about the religious affiliation of Sikhs is besides the point. The main point is that, like the KKK, he was opposed to racial, ethnic and religious tolerance in our society. That falls under the category of "promote or oppose a political agenda". Keep in mind that not only do hate groups hate minorities, they also hate the laws that protect them. Also, didn't that attack happen as a reaction to another terrorist attack that had recently taken place?