"The unlawful use of FORCE or violence against persons or PROPERTY to intimidate or COERCE a GOVERNMENT, the civilian population, or ANY SEGMENT THEREOF, in FURTHERANCE OF POLITICAL OR SOCIAL OBJECTIVES." This is how the FBI defines terrorism, though they too use force to intimidate and coerce the civilian population in furtherance of a social objective, thus they are terrorists by their own definition. However, this definition can also include activists and is probably written in these words for that very purpose. Civil Disobedience is slightly unlawful and it is a form of "force" against persons and property to coerce the government and corporations (one of the segments thereof). It is nonviolent, but they can still call it terrorism because it is to further a political and social objective, several actually. This only means that their definition of terrorism is not the real definition, but a revised one. We should write this definition on signs to carry at marches and demonstrations, to indicate what hypocrites they are. Also, we should demonstrate against terrorism, because we should be against it, they are the ones terrorizing people and we don't wanna' look like them. I don't think anyone in this movement would even consider a form of terrorism, but if the Feds make up their own definition of terrorism they can write it to include their political opponents, us. Pretty sneaky, huh. Let's have an anti-terrorist rally sometime, I am happy to protest against terrorism, it is a bad thing, especially when it is carried out by lawful authorities of which we pay to protect us. It is kind of hard not to be against terrorism, especially that kind of terrorism where you are powerless to defend yourself, yet you knew it would happen well ahead of time and you just have to take it. Don't take it anymore, speak out against terrorism, and make it loud so the jerks who think we are terrorists will at least have the chance to hear the truth to where they can't deny they got that chance.

Peace