But I like to be spanked.....

I know more about terrorism than you could ever hope to. As a matter of fact I will be travelling to SE Turkey this spring and will be meeting with people on both sides of the issue. Of all the people I least need you to teach me about terrorism.

PS: I have been condecensioning for 4000+ years, and I am a nomdic Arab who is also a Persian so I guess I have a right to point out how full of bs you are.

I would only be the BIGGEST expert if YOU were the second biggest buddy. I am not claiming to know the ins and outs of AQ, or ETA, or IRA or other groups. I am stating the fact that I am partaking in research on PKK, which also is a terrorist organization. That is why I can in all honesty, and with full confidence state that terrorism is ultimately a political activity. Of course to understand how and why terrorism is ultimately political you would have to do some research which I really doubt you will have the inclanation to. As you have proven time and time again you probably are more comfartable presenting bs.

Do tell us more..
.. you simply don't have the experience yet son, keep working on it and good luck!  

Look here hillbilly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

These are working definitions of terrorism, see any common thread among all the alternative definitions offerred? That's right they somehow all include in their definition that terrorism is ultimately aimed at coercing a people or government to do something or change an action, oh that by the way is called policy.

You've changed the wording twice so far to attempt to make it yours (nice try at a 180). It ain't so kid. 

Just passing by, but, hopefully to make a small and bit more rational contribution to the thread that appears to have wandered a bit from the original intent of the poster who began it.

I found this article from Reuters discussing the language related to terrorism quite interesting related to the topic. While this is
only an excerpt from the final paragraphs, perhaps it will alter the discussion on some level for those who choose to read.

"Raphael Perl, head of the Action against Terrorism Unit at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, said the failure to agree on a shared terminology in the wake of the September 11 attacks was "a major mistake on our part".

"One of the first things that we should have done is decide on the terminology and been consistent with it," he told Reuters. "Use of the wrong terms can be a major factor contributing to the radicalisation process."

Arguably the hardest linguistic challenge of all is to agree on a definition of terrorism -- a hurdle which has prevented the United Nations from agreeing a global convention against it.

"It is time for the world to get its act together," said Gijs de Vries, former European Union counter-terrorism coordinator.

"It is time once and for all to do away with the hypocrisy that killing men, women and children can be acceptable if done in the framework of a liberation struggle. Killing men, women and children is wrong. One shall not target non-combatants, that's a basic rule of humanity that ties us together across religious and national divides."

Is it time to scrap the term “jihadist”?
February 21st, 2008, filed by Tom Heneghan

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/02/21/is-it-time-to-scrap-the-term-jihadist/

Thanks Cass that was a really good contribution.

Terry & Yimaz: No biggy guys Im not wagging the finger at either of you, and I certainly can get "charged" during debate myself so it not like I haven't been there. It's just as a 3rd party is seem like you guys are arguing eggshell white and off white.