- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,251
- Reaction score
- 10,566
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Looks narrowly defined to me, and if it falls outside of said definition, any 2 bit lawyer ought to be able to convince a judge otherwise.I know the government has a very liberal definition of terrorism, it's so they can evoke more of their power more often to keep people under thumb.
So instead of relying on simplistic, stupid argument, show how this case falls outside of the definition.
Um, this is a circular argument .....AND.....that is exactly what the intent of these 3 was.....they admitted as much.That has nothing to do with the point. Terrorism is an act that inherently seeks to use terror and fear to elicit political change.
Again with the circular logic....and a non-sequitur to boot!Revolution is not that, revolution is revolt.
Sure....these Georgian militia members....have a right to acquire bombs....and destroy govt property.Revolution, BTW, is a proper and reserved right of The People.
Terrorist acts are a right!