Looking for a practical definition of a "Homegrown Terrorist"

What does a citizen actually do to earn the title of "homegrown terrorist"?

Is it similar to "the enemy within", "alter ego"?
Is it the neighbor who mows his lawn when I´m having breakfast on the patio?
Is it the children who have forced their parents into therapy?
Is it the individual who stands up for himself against a crowd?

Can an individual use the term on a business card?

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in Phoenix, Ariz., distributed a brochure (Images: 1, 2) to local law enforcement agencies a few years ago which defines terrorism as individuals or groups within the U.S. who engage in criminal activity to promote political or social changes. This is correct, as far as it goes, but the brochure then gives a listing of “suspicious” activities, telling law enforcement officers: “If you encounter any of the following, call the Joint Terrorism Task Force.”

Some of the things for which you should be reported as a suspected terrorist include the usual things, like weapons of mass destruction, and hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis, but also includes people who “Make numerous references to US Constitution,” “Claim driving is a right, not a privilege” and “Attempt to ‘police the police.’”

In addition, “People whose political motivation is usually Marxist/Leninist philosophy,” “‘defenders’ of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN,” computer hackers, and “Lone Individuals” should also be reported.

more at: http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/13/you-are-the-homegrown-terrorist-threat/

What kind of references is the question. Because if it was the disrespectful kind, they woulda hauled Bush** off long ago.

Are apparently deemed "terrorists" because shopping malls, light beer, American Idol and sports don't sufficiently pacify them into acquiescence.

it´s easier to see where this is going.

None of your examples seem to fit this pretty specific definition. Please dial down the Chicken Little act.

If you had, you might know how similar concepts were used to target Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Abbie Hoffman and other peaceful activists in the 60s for wiretapping, harassment and worse.

Oh well, no point arguing with someone who has no grasp of history.

We actually grow our own, more often than not.

Hekate

he was attempting to punish the system and commemorate Waco rather than change policy through the use of terror, right? The Unabomber likewise didn't represent a political faction with coherent aspirations but was merely sending reasonably random protest bombs.

Eric Rudolph on the other hand really was working at least alongside a recognizable political force and was using terror to try to manipulate policy.

Certainly, there are many others. Those who are the Southern Poverty Law Center's mailing list know about the numerous groups that fit the descrption, as well.

or so some quarters would have it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=71635&mesg_id=71639

It seems that the slides in the Simon Wiesenthal Center presentation do indeed reflect a desire in some quarters to squelch Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Their lies, according to the SWC, are being used by people in the Middle East to radicalize terrorists. If they were saying the truth, that would be one thing.

But they are. They fabricate evidence, they misrepresent and distort 9/11, and they do it to literally get a free lunch.

They rightfully deserve a just punishment.

Why would your govt go to such great lengths and unconstitutional measures/legislation over a form of criminal activity that would only be applicable to a fractional percentage {at best} of the current 300,000,000 population? Afterall, other countries experience far more problems with terrorism than does the U.S. without the supposed need to abolish law, civil rights, common sense, dissident voices, etc. Phony democracy. Phony "war."

one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Hold onto your rights.

:kick:

who enjoys visiting freeperland. They are terrorists to different agrees. Fanatical/hostile seeking to destroy choices in life, leaving the only alternative as their distorted view.
:eyes:

:hi:

.

Maybe we need a legal definition of terrorist.

According to Reagan, that's the Sandinista invasion force approaching the Texas border. :rofl:

The definition changes as political opposition shifts!