How do they define "terrorist"?

[Yellow Rose]

Practically every day we hear about some kind of new 'law', 'act', 'legislation', 'code', etc. against terrorists. However, we never hear 'them' define the word terrorist.

What exactly is their definition of a terrorist?
Who decides what that definition is?
Once they get their 'laws', 'acts', etc passed, is it then just a simple matter for them to quietly change the definition behind closed doors?

Are we included in their current or future definition of 'terrorists' because we (may or may not be) any of the following:
Soverigns
Gun Owners
Homeschoolers
Self (un)Employed
Unplugged
Self-Aware
Wise to the IRS
Wise to the 3rd Party Debt Collectors
Wise to the Corporate Bankers
and so on and so forth...

These guys are slick!

Originally Posted by Yellow Rose

What exactly is their definition of a terrorist?

The answer to your question is "however they want to."

The real question is: Does "their" definition concern you?

If you are free, it does not, even if you are named in it.

Henry Franklin

[charlesa6]

Yellow rose, welcome to the suijuris forum.

[Yellow Rose]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

The answer to your question is "however they want to."

The real question is: Does "their" definition concern you?

If you are free, it does not, even if you are named in it.

Henry Franklin

True. I still find the subject interesting. Being aware of the reality of who and what 'they' are, and how they operate, I personally find the subject amusing. What is not amusing, however, is knowing that there are so many out there who are ignorant of the scam and just go along with whatever their government says is good for them.

It seems to me that this question should be obvious; is screaming to be asked. The question is so elementary that even the aforementioned ignorants should be asking it. They're not (that I've seen). That is what gives me pause.

[fulltitle]

Without prejudice.
Based on my assessments after years of analysis. One reason they wont openly define it may be because 'terrorist' means:

Those who use military authority or take a military-style action who are not under the control of the United Nations or New World Order pundits. Another set of favorite polispeak words that are related: rebels, militants, guerillas.

Basically seems that those who do not engage in a "sponspored" military action that is offensive in nature and perhaps who are also subject to their jurisdiction seems they would define that as 'terrorism". It may be that they dont define the term so clearly because, it would reveal too much?

To reiterate:

Send by United Nations to shoot people in Indonesia--probably not a terrorist by their definition.
Sent by United States to shoot people in Iraq--probably not a terrorist by their definition.
Offensive military-style action by someone not under control of United States, United Nations, United Kingdom or not favored by them--branded at terrorist.