Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
What is the reasoning (other than the legal uses to provide a not very useful civil action for terrorist victims, and a more useful prosecution tool against material supporters of "terrorists") for defining "terrorism" ? In short, are there non-legal reasons for using the term ?

Regards

Mike
Hey Mike,
This makes the most sense to me. So, how to get tough on domestic's gone postal without a stronger set of rules?

Way back when, being a traitor or committing treason was worse than any other criminal act known in the USA.

Terrorism (and lately IED, IEDD and CIED) seems to be a catch all phrase for the USG and the Beltway Bandits. Include any combination of the two and you have instant funding and recognition.

In my current field, you merely state "all personnel have combat experience" and their are automatically "instructors" in spite of the fact "they" were never instructors.

Regards, Stan