Staredit Network

I agree with this.

In some cases, yes they could be, then again in some cases no.

I mean some robber could threaten to kill you with a loaded gun... does that make him a terriost. According to the definition yes, but according to my opinion no.

It's kind of hard to label an opinion. For example my huge may be smaller than your huge... (if that makes any sence)

ter·ror·ist
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Terrorism can be a lot of different things, thats why bush's "war on terror" is so ing stupid.

Well, there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, the weapons of mass destruction exsists as long as bush occupies Iraq; they didn't arrive until Bush started to attack Iraq (and mess with gas prices here, gas almost reached a $1.5 per littre).

Sorry mate but there were never WMDs in iraq.

there was/is... but they are only there as long as the americans are there

i voted yes because a terrorist is anyone who uses terror or fear to get wat they want, if they threaten someone and they are obviously afraid of the threatener they they would be a terrorist like the Iraqi terrorists, they use fear from the 9/11 attack to try and negotiate and with soldier's lives

It depends. If someone uses the gun to scare innocent people just to decrase their moral and etc it would be considered. However if you do it to someone to scare them to give you something it would not. Actually I just read the definiton of terrorist...having second thought about what i said.

i disagree, the only reason i see that a person will use a gun and not be considered a terrorist is when he/she uses the gun to protect their family, like when a burgaler (burgalur UGH HOW U SPELL ITS ) breaks into your home

Oh dude im so totally sorry i read the first sentence in your post and decided to disregard the rest of it.

its okay, i paraphrase sometimes too no problem but dont u agree with my reasoning about those who cause terror are terrorists (more or less)

Yes, definately.

What if youre in the army and threatening a Terrorist that you will shoot, with your loaded gun of course, if he or she doesnt put down their loaded weapon?. Or what if you are a good samaritan stoping a burglary. I Voted no.

As in "the gang terrorized our neighborhood". But since terrorize and terrorism have been used such an infinite time by our adminstrations that we have a much more negative connonation of what terrorism is, and the for most people the first image will be the Middle East.

Any planned or unplanned act of violence or "TERRORIZING" should be considered "TERRORRISM"!!!

They call everyone a terrorist nowadays...

not everyone...I'm not a terrorist! Your not one (I hopE) lol

you are taking it too literally, he means that its used too frequently and has lost its meaning and influencivness (is that a word?)

I answered 'Yes' though I meant to say 'may be'...no way I can change my vote...