What if not by this definition by the United States Government is OWS?
Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism
"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])
Further defined examples:
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory
- Anonymous9 years agoFavorite Answer
the current goverment labels almost everyone a terrroist and under the pariot act they are watching you, me and everyone else even people who just post on Y! all protesters are terrroist
- Anonymous9 years ago
Good job on asking this question. We need to continue calling names and making things up. It takes attention away from the actual issues that OWS brings up. As you might know, OWS talks about the fact that the rich have almost tripled their income in the last 30 years while the 99% haven't even kept up with inflation. They talk about how the middle class is declining, how with unregulated capitalism the big banks caused the recession we're in now, and how both parties have been bought out by big corporations. We need to avoid debating these issues. It's a debate we can't win in the court of public opinion. In fact, if the mainstream public figures out what the OWS protesters are actually protesting, their blood will boil with anger at the system and they'll go out and join those protesters. That's why we have to avoid discussing the actual issues. Thanks for following this strategy. We need to continue calling them names and asking questions like this one to distract away from the actual issues they're discussing. Keep up the good work.
- Anonymous9 years ago
They are exactly that definition.
The problem IS the definition, it's broad and can be interpreted in many ways.
Not even I agree that they are terrorists; A Conservative
- JacobLv 59 years ago
Because not all the OWS people do that. Some do.