Global Warming Update

P

PadawanBater

Guest
Nobody educated by America's enemies like you with your terrorist avatar you mean. Under Saddam Iraq didn't even have electricity and clean water. Now it is exploding with shopping malls and restaurants and a thriving stock market. All symbols of the capitalism you hate, I know. But the clear fact is that Iraq is a huge success and had the regime change not been done, there would have been a nuclear exchange in the middle east by now. That's something you probably would have welcomed, and thus the source of your bitterness and disappointment.
You two are probably the MOST partisan members who post, so these responses don't really surprise me, close your eyes and dismiss the facts, Bush was a national hero... yeah, sure he was... :roll:

These are the facts;

The Iraq Study Group Report was released on December 6, 2006. Iraq Study Group, made up of people from both of the major US parties, was led by former US Secretary of State James BakerDemocratic congressman Lee Hamilton. It concluded that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating" and "U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end."

On December 18, a Pentagon report found that insurgent attacks were averaging about 960 a week, the highest since the reports had begun in 2005.

More than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country for the first time. 144 of the 275 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition that would require the Iraqi government to seek approval from Parliament before it requests an extension of the U.N. mandate for foreign forces to be in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2008. It also calls for a timetable for troop withdrawal and a freeze on the size of foreign forces. The U.N. Security Council mandate for U.S.-led forces in Iraq will terminate "if requested by the government of Iraq."[195] Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution called for by a majority of lawmakers.[196] 59% of those polled in the U.S. support a timetable for withdrawal.

On April 9, 2009, the sixth anniversary of Baghdad's fall to coalition forces, tens of thousands of Iraqis thronged Baghdad to mark the sixth anniversary of the city's fall and to demand the immediate departure of coalition forces. The crowds of Iraqis stretched from the giant Sadr City slum in northeast Baghdad to the square around 5 km (3 miles) away, where protesters burned an effigy featuring the face of former U.S. President George W. Bush, who ordered the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and also the face of Saddam.

(such an international hero!)

On April 30, 2009, the United KingdomPrime Minister Gordon Brown characterized the operation in Iraq as a "success story" because of UK troops' efforts.

(OH!! So that's what makes it a success!... efforts)

The withdrawal of U.S. forces began at the end of June, with 38 bases to be handed over to Iraqi forces. On June 29, 2009, U.S. forces withdrew from Baghdad. On November 30, 2009, Iraqi Interior Ministry officials reported that the civilian death toll in Iraq fell to its lowest level in November since the 2003 invasion.

(But if we leave the violence would really start!! :neutral:)

Subsequently, in 2008, the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity has enumerated a total of 935 false statements made by George Bush and six other top members of his administration in what it termed a "carefully launched campaign of misinformation" during the two year period following 9-11, in order to rally support for the invasion of Iraq.

Many soldiers came to oppose the invasion, especially after the administration's claims that Iraq held WMD turned out to be entirely false. A group calling itself, Iraq Veterans against the War, quickly developed a membership of well over 1,000 soldiers and veterans. In January 2006, over 1,000 soldiers signed a petition, An Appeal for Redress, which was delivered to Congress asking for a "prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq."A February 2006 Zogby poll discovered that 72 perecent of soldiers who served in Iraq felt that the U.S. should withdraw within one year.

In a report entitled "Civilians without Protection: The Ever-Worsening Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq", produced well after the stepped-up US-led military operations in Baghdad began in February 14, 2007, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement said that millions of Iraqis are in a disastrous situation that is getting worse, with medical professionals fleeing the country after their colleagues were killed or abducted. Mothers are appealing for someone to pick up the bodies on the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school.

Between June 18 and July 18, 2007, up to 592 unidentified bodies were found dumped in Baghdad. Most of the approximately 20 per day found by the police have been bound, blindfolded and shot execution style. The police attribute these deaths to Sunni and Shi’ite death squads. According to Baghdad medical sources, many have also shown signs of torture and mutilation. Despite official Iraqi and U.S. statements to the contrary, the reports indicated that the number of unidentified bodies in the capital rose to pre-surge levels in July.

Iraq's health has deteriorated to a level not seen since the 1950s, said Joseph Chamie, former director of the U.N. Population Division and an Iraq specialist. "They were at the forefront", he said, referring to health care just before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "Now they're looking more and more like a country in sub-Saharan Africa."[5] Malnutrition rates have risen from 19% before the US-led invasion to a national average of 28% four years later.[6] Some 60-70% of Iraqi children are suffering from psychological problems.[7] 68% of Iraqis have no access to safe drinking water. A cholera[8] As many as half of Iraqi doctors have left the country since 2003.

Iraq's anti-corruption board reported that official government statistics revealed that five million (or 35%) of Iraqi children were orphans.

There are more than 4.7 million refugees of Iraq, more than 16.3% of the population.

An estimated 331 school teachers were slain in the first four months of 2006, according to Human Rights Watch, and at least 2,000 Iraqi doctors have been murdered and 250 kidnapped since the 2003 U.S. invasion.

According to a January 2007 BBC World Service poll of more than 26,000 people in 25 countries, 73% of the global population disapproves of the US handling of the Iraq War.

According to an April 2004 USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, only a third of the Iraqi people believed that "the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger."

in 2005 when asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace was opposed to the US occupation and wanted US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis supported attacking US troops.

Another poll conducted on September 27, 2006, found that seven out of ten Iraqis want US-led forces to withdraw from Iraq within one year. Overall, 78% of those polled said they believed that the presence of US forces is "provoking more conflict than it's preventing."

53% of those polled believed the Iraqi government would be strengthened if US forces left Iraq (versus 23% who believed it would be weakened), and 71% wanted this to happen in 1 year or less.


  • 64% described their family's economic situation as being somewhat or very bad, up from 30% in 2005.
  • 88% described the availability of electricity as being either somewhat or very bad, up from 65% in 2004.
  • 69% described the availability of clean water as somewhat or very bad, up from 48% in 2004.
  • 88% described the availability of fuel for cooking and driving as being somewhat or very bad.
  • 58% described reconstruction efforts in the area in which they live as either somewhat or very ineffective, and 9% described them as being totally nonexistent.
London's conservative International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded in 2004 that the occupation of Iraq had become "a potent global recruitment pretext" for jihadists and that the invasion "galvanised" al-Qaeda and "perversely inspired insurgent violence" there.

The US National Intelligence CouncilDavid B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, indicated that the report concluded that the war in Iraq provided terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."


Just to name a few...
 

iivan740

Well-Known Member
nobody died in the boston tea party. it was action taken against a govt, not innocent civilians. terrorism? not even close.
The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda; Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives; A psychological strategy of war for gaining political power.

Jeff while the boats carrying the tea were escorted by the military, the tea was owned by the East India Tea Company. That was a civilian company. Furthermore terrorism does not specifically mean that civilians have to die.

declaration of independence was issued against the british govt. the revolutionary war was agaisnt the govt NOT innocent civilians. revolutionary soldiers didnt go to england and blow up NON warriors. terrorism? not even close.
The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

there were two reasons for the Declaration of Independance:

1. To declare to the world, that the British Colonies in America were declaring themselves an independent nation.

2. To explain (by listing the grievences against the King) why the colonies were declaring independence

In Thomas Jefferson's words, the Declaration of Independance was written, "In order to place before mankind the common sense of the matter in terms so plain and simple as to command their assent."

It was an issued to the world (mankind) not just the military. All I was trying to show was the duality. I was not trying to rewrite anything. You tell me if the "rebellion" had been contained what do you think would have happened to our founding fathers? I would wager that they would have been tried for treason against the crown and executed.

nice try at rewriting history and redefining words.
Sorry :neutral:, the point wasn't to try and rewrite history. I was not trying to say that our founding fathers were terrorists.

Padawan was saying that terrorism was unlike a rebellion. I was trying to show that the only differance is who writes the history book. He is right though the the people we (you and I) see as terrorists do not consider themselves terrorists.

The point is that my view, your view, papawan's view, or any one view point is NOT the only valid point of view. My post was not ment to read like my position on the founding fathers was that they were terroritst, it was ment to point out the they could have been labeled terrorist if things had turned out differently.
 

iivan740

Well-Known Member
I am not trying have an argument about wether our founding fathers were terrorist or revolutionist.

I concede the point that they weren't terrorists.

It was an example nothing more.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Nobody educated by America's enemies like you with your terrorist avatar you mean. All symbols of the capitalism you hate, I know. But the clear fact is that Iraq is a huge success and had the regime change not been done, there would have been a nuclear exchange in the middle east by now.
My avatar is a metaphor IS.

I love capitalism.

All hail prophet IllegalSmile! :lol: (am I the only one who notices the strange coincidence that people who make such statements believe in some higher authority...?)
 

jeff f

New Member
The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda; Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives; A psychological strategy of war for gaining political power.

Jeff while the boats carrying the tea were escorted by the military, the tea was owned by the East India Tea Company. That was a civilian company. Furthermore terrorism does not specifically mean that civilians have to die.



The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

there were two reasons for the Declaration of Independance:

1. To declare to the world, that the British Colonies in America were declaring themselves an independent nation.

2. To explain (by listing the grievences against the King) why the colonies were declaring independence

In Thomas Jefferson's words, the Declaration of Independance was written, "In order to place before mankind the common sense of the matter in terms so plain and simple as to command their assent."

It was an issued to the world (mankind) not just the military. All I was trying to show was the duality. I was not trying to rewrite anything. You tell me if the "rebellion" had been contained what do you think would have happened to our founding fathers? I would wager that they would have been tried for treason against the crown and executed.


Sorry :neutral:, the point wasn't to try and rewrite history. I was not trying to say that our founding fathers were terrorists.

Padawan was saying that terrorism was unlike a rebellion. I was trying to show that the only differance is who writes the history book. He is right though the the people we (you and I) see as terrorists do not consider themselves terrorists.

The point is that my view, your view, papawan's view, or any one view point is NOT the only valid point of view. My post was not ment to read like my position on the founding fathers was that they were terroritst, it was ment to point out the they could have been labeled terrorist if things had turned out differently.
so you are saying that some "may" confuse the tea party with downing the twin towers? i still dont get it.

there is no moral relationship between standing up to the king, right in his face, and saying fuck you pal, and a bunch of cowards strapping bombs to 15 year olds and telling them to walk into that cafe.

one is an act of heroism the other an act of cowardice.

what am i missing?

contrary to what people on the side of the cowards think, there is such a thing as right and wrong.

edit: and how was pitching a bunch of tea overboard an act of "violence"? your example is a real stretch even when high....
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Terrorist is just a word jeff.

The United States government could label you or me a terrorist, does that make us one?

All terrorists fight for a cause, even if you can't see it or don't understand it.

The tactics they use are a consequence of their circumstances, it's all they've got. Does that make it right? No, but who said war was right?
 

jeff f

New Member
Terrorist is just a word jeff.

The United States government could label you or me a terrorist, does that make us one?

All terrorists fight for a cause, even if you can't see it or don't understand it.

The tactics they use are a consequence of their circumstances, it's all they've got. Does that make it right? No, but who said war was right?
boy, thats a load of crap.

terrorism is a specific word that has specific meaning. and its carried out by specific people, cowards.

thats all they got? bullshit! the chief coward in charge, osama suck my balls binladen has millions of bucks. he has tons of political power, and a lot of followers. you telling me all he can do is tell 16 year old boys to blow them selves up and kill hundreds sometime thousands of regular guys and gals just trying to provide for their family? bullshit.

and your thought process that compares these actions as somehow nobel is pure pablum garbage. if thats the way you really think then you are a puppet. because there is a huge difference between standing a handfull of patriots up against the most powerful army in the world and fighting them face on, and loading dynamite kids into a subway to kill people trying to get to work..

and if you cant see that, there aint no helpin ya bud.
 

dukeofbaja

New Member
So when we broke treaties with native americans and forced them from land that we had promised to them in the name of manifest destiny, was that terrorism? You might have a totally different take on the issue depending on whether you grew up reading typical textbooks in public schools versus if you grew up and went to school on a reservation. The native americans would certainly call it terrorism. Americans call it manifest destiny.

Not everything is so black and white. People who ACTUALLY think that way are dangerous and often uneducated.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
boy, thats a load of crap.

terrorism is a specific word that has specific meaning. and its carried out by specific people, cowards.
Malcolm X
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
Martin Luther King Jr.
William Wallace

You're calling all of these men cowards.


thats all they got? bullshit! the chief coward in charge, osama suck my balls binladen has millions of bucks. he has tons of political power, and a lot of followers. you telling me all he can do is tell 16 year old boys to blow them selves up and kill hundreds sometime thousands of regular guys and gals just trying to provide for their family? bullshit.
OK, what could he do? Explain it to me. What could Osama Bin Ladin do against the full force of the United States military? :confused:

and your thought process that compares these actions as somehow nobel is pure pablum garbage. if thats the way you really think then you are a puppet. because there is a huge difference between standing a handfull of patriots up against the most powerful army in the world and fighting them face on, and loading dynamite kids into a subway to kill people trying to get to work..
When did I say it was noble? I'm pretty sure I just said... "Does that make it right? No, but who said war was right?"

It's unrealistic to expect anyone to face the US military head on. We spend more than every single other nation COMBINED in "defense"... Would you take them on head on? - good luck...

If the nation was being founded today, it would be fought much differently. The battles of then against government authority could be won by militia, today they can't. Thus modern warfare in the 21st century.
 

jeff f

New Member
So when we broke treaties with native americans and forced them from land that we had promised to them in the name of manifest destiny, was that terrorism? You might have a totally different take on the issue depending on whether you grew up reading typical textbooks in public schools versus if you grew up and went to school on a reservation. The native americans would certainly call it terrorism. Americans call it manifest destiny.

Not everything is so black and white. People who ACTUALLY think that way are dangerous and often uneducated.

no it wasnt terrorism. it was pretty much a war over land....they lost. thats the wy of the world when it comes to land disputes. you either buy it or fight a war and conquer it.

the indians made their bed when they signed on with the british. they cast their lot with the wrong side and lost, big. sucks to be them.

flying planes into building full of innocent people is terrorism.

telling your children to blow themselves up is terrorsm.

sawing the heads off of entire families and leaving the bodies to rot in the street is terrorism.

are you guys getting this yet or do i need to keep defining everything that is terrorism.

going to war for legitimate reason is not terrorism. peopel will be terrified, but it isnt terrorism.
 

jeff f

New Member
Malcolm X
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
Martin Luther King Jr.
William Wallace

You're calling all of these men cowards.



OK, what could he do? Explain it to me. What could Osama Bin Ladin do against the full force of the United States military? :confused:


When did I say it was noble? I'm pretty sure I just said... "Does that make it right? No, but who said war was right?"

It's unrealistic to expect anyone to face the US military head on. We spend more than every single other nation COMBINED in "defense"... Would you take them on head on? - good luck...

If the nation was being founded today, it would be fought much differently. The battles of then against government authority could be won by militia, today they can't. Thus modern warfare in the 21st century.

he could start by not killing all the people who disagree with his religion. he could start by starting political dialog with the US. no, he starts by bombong the world trade center, twice. then kills 600 in a british subway, then spain....all cowardly acts that didnt kill a single person that e percieves as enemies. just a bunch of normal people trying to contribute to society.

there are thousands of places to start. killing innocent people is not one of them.

he is a fucking coward...that really bugs you when i say that doesnt it pad?
 
K

Keenly

Guest
thats strange, according to the FBI there is not enough evidence to link bin laden to those crimes
 

dukeofbaja

New Member
no it wasnt terrorism. it was pretty much a war over land....they lost. thats the wy of the world when it comes to land disputes. you either buy it or fight a war and conquer it.
So can I go to someone's house and remove them by force, and that is not terrorism? Especially if I kill off a 1/4 of their family during a forced march?

Leave it to me to assume that every simpleton has at least heard of the Trail of Tears. At least 2,000 Cherokee died during the forced removal. No war was fought.

And that is the only scratching the tip of it. You want me to go in depth on atrocities we committed upon native americans? It is nothing short of terrorism.

Tell me, who was here first?
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Michael_Mann_Money_011410.html

For Release: January 14, 2010
Contact: [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist[/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Funds Should be Returned to U.S. Treasury, Says National Center for Public Policy Research[/FONT][/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Washington, DC - In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views. The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind's activities are causing global warming. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"It's no wonder that Obama's stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren't being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration's position on the global warming theory. This misuse of stimulus money illustrates why tax cuts are a better way to stimulate the economy than letting the government decide where to spend taxpayer dollars. As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds," said Deneen Borelli, a full-time fellow with the National Center's Project 21 black leadership network. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"Mann's credentials as a climate change alarmist seems to fit the political criteria for stimulus funds sometimes known as 'Obama money'," added Deneen Borelli. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Mann is a central and controversial figure in climate change research. Mann's so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting temperature changes over a 1000 year period was used as evidence in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 report to demonstrate that carbon dioxide from industrial activity is causing global warming. Mimicking the shape of a hockey stick, the graph showed a long time period of stable temperatures (the shaft) followed by a rapid rise in temperatures (the blade) during the last hundred years. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Critics of the hockey stick claim Mann manipulated data to eliminate periods of time such as the medieval warming period and the little ice age to eradicate the visual impact of natural global temperature variation. The emails from Climategate reveal that the inner circle of climate scientists were troubled by the methods Mann used to produce the graph. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"It's shocking that taxpayer money is being used to support a researcher who seemingly showed little regard to the basic tenets of science - a dispassionate search for the truth," said Tom Borelli. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The National Center for Public Policy Research is a conservative, free-market think-tank established in 1982. It receives less than 1% of its revenue from corporations.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]-30-[/SIZE][/FONT]​




[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]Home | Donate | Subscribe | Search | About Us | What's New | Blog | Twitter[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]501 Capitol Court, N.E.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-2][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Washington, D.C. 20002[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](202) 543-4110[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fax (202) 543-5975[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]E-Mail: info@nationalcenter.org[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Web: www.nationalcenter.org[/FONT][/SIZE]
 

dukeofbaja

New Member
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1]

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər, ˈte-rər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrēre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble — more at tremble
Date: 14th century

1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3 : reign of terror
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror> synonyms see fear

co·er·cion

&#8194; &#8194;/ko&#650;&#712;&#604;r
&#643;&#601;n
/ Show Spelled[koh-ur-shuh
n] Show IPA
&#8211;noun 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.




Now CJ, I know what these words mean, so my posting these definitions is for your benefit. Now tell me how Indian removal and genocide does not fit the EXACT definition of terrorism, please. I'll be waiting
 

dukeofbaja

New Member
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

Even if you want to narrow the definition down to this, what we did to the native americans still qualifies as terrorism. There was violence and destruction commited by groups (the United States) in order to intimidate a population or government (the native americans) into granting their demands (we want your land! Even though we promised you in many treaties that it was yours).
 
Top