What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

I don't have a good definition of a terrorist outside of "I knows one when I sees one". I do fear the term is becomming more and more an amorphous definition that is being used by nations to incite emotional responses. Basically coming to define anyone a government doesn't like (I am in no way just including the US in this). I fear that it could become a blanket term for any individual or group that is unpopular.That being said, I have to make the point that who is being called a terrorist might share equal importance with who isn't. The attacks on our country on 9/11 were truly horrific. But I find it somewhat disturbing that domestic terrorism by our own citizens has stirred so much less emotion (I am not saying no one cared, I am talking relative scales). When I watched the Oklahoma City bombing on television I thought it spell the beginning of the end for the radical right (or left for that matter) in the US. While it was one of the largest criminal investigations in US history the overall result was to identify a few individuals as perpetrators and not place blame on the larger network of associations. I know personally one man (my brother) who cheers this on beause he believes it shows that the government is afraid to after the 'real' organizers. I don't think this is the case at all, but I do believe he is not alone which therefore makes the perception dangerous. McVeigh is idolized by many people in militant right groups (at least in the more extreme ones). Is it possible that at least a few of them might seek that kind of immortality? What about the KKK? Aren't they a huge terrorist organization in the US? Christian Identity? OSA?The war on terrorism would, IMO, be a lot less hypocritical and have a lot more popular support if they also went after "Christian" terrorists in the US. This includes tax patriots, neo nazis, the klan, violent pro-lifers, etc. All of these groups use violence against innocents and civilians to frighten people into following their wishes. Just my opinions!

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

I am not sure what you mean. So if al-Queda were to announce complete disbanding or cessation of violence we should stop searching for their leadership? The RATE of terrorist actions is what demands punishment? I for one feel that justice needs to be served. I personally cheer when I watch an 80 year old man being hauled away in handcuffs because he lobbed a pipebomb into a black church in the 60's. I think all of those American terrorists need to be hunted as vehemently as we hunt down al-Queda suspects. I think their financial backers and leaders need to be imprisoned or even tried for treason.We have in custody people who may have been bodyguards to bankers that handled suspected al-Queda finances. So I want to know why we are not hunting down those people who housed and fed Eric Rudolph. I want to know why the KKK is a legal organization (they have a cable channel in Louisiana for cryin in a bucket) when they have been strongly linked to terrorist acts and will continue doing so by their own admission. I think we need to be arresting them left and right and seizing their assets (including the banks that conduct their business). I suspect that sympathies may run too deep for this to ever happen.To illustrate: When we lived in Louisiana we went to a Mardi Gras parade in Youngsville. There we were horrified (as ignorant Alaskans) to see a Klan float with de-hooded klansmen in full regalia. There were some cheers and some boos from the crowd. The people we were with, educated fairly liberal people, made the comment that the klan were fairly harmless, misguided but generally good citizens. And commented that they did do a lot of good for the community like helping with fundraisers and such. Basically, they were treated like freakin' shriners. I was outraged. They are the KKK, they are a terrorist organization that should be completely undercover for fear they will be hauled away in chains. It showed me how tied those groups are to mainstream America.Since I am on a rant... I think that our current president squandered the chance to be remembered as one of the great world leaders of all time. When the attacks of 9/11 happened, he had the hearts of most of the world behind him. That opportunity should have been used to declare a War against Terror instead of a war against terror. I think all or most countries in the world have supported terrorism in some form. Typically this swept under the carpet and so is never resolved. This lack of resolution keeps the conflict open even after the initial cause is long gone. There are people dying today because of conflicts started in the 60's. Bush could have declared and end to it. He could have said it stops today. It was an opportunity for the US and other major powers to fess up to past mistakes and pledge to not repeat them. I think we would have had the world's support to punish regimes that violate human rights. Our military might (along with others) could have been used to back up a world declaration against terrorism in all forms. Instead we chose to make it a war against some Muslims that was conducted in such a way as to insure a perpetual war.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

What??!! The Reagan administration HATED the government of Nicaragua. Do you have any idea who the Contras were? They were warlords from the Samoza government. If you read the history of Nicaragua Samoza (1 & 2) were horrific dictators that make Hussein look good. Anastasio Somoza II believed that feudalism was the ultimate form of government, and his generals became the leaders of the contras because they believed the owned sections of the country and wanted it back. Under Samoza thousands were butchered. The popular party in Nicaragua was under Chammoro and were opposed to both the Sandanista and Contras. yet they recieved no US support at all (even after being elected HW Bush refused to recognize Violta Chammoro's government as legitmate).

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

I think you missed my point. I was not supporting the Sandanista government (although the link you supplied contains outright falsehoods. I worked in Nicaragua in 1988 and spent many long hours talking politics with friends who live there). I agree that the Ortega government was often brutal and was certainly guilty of horrible human rights violations. But that does not justify the Contras. They were a terrorist organization through and through. During their time it was commonly understood that their aim was not to overthrow the Sandanista government as much as it was to punish the Nicaraguan people for overthrowing Samoza. They never engaged the Nicaraguan military on purpose but instead targeted civilians. One town I went to that had been attacked resulted in 100 civilian deaths and countless losses of homes.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

I agree with you there. But I think the issue wasn't that the US is a terrorist state, it is that the US has supported terrorist organizations. We are absolutely not alone in this, and there have undoubtedly been legitimate political motivations to do so. But it needs to stop.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"