Almost assuredly yes, though the Black Panther Party would be a better example.
>Are the looters in the Ferguson riots "terrorists"?
Yes.
>Are the countless people who are in prison all "terrorists"?
Many, yes. Prison can be very radicalizing, especially since gangs form along ethnic lines, which suggest political outlooks.
> Just because something is criminal and political doesn't make it "terrorism," as much as law enforcement and prosecutors would like you to believe otherwise.
I don't see how you can make this assertion. Breaking the law means you are rejecting the fundamental foundation upon which society is based. If you reject that, you are open to all possible outcomes. Any act of breaking the law is a rejection of all law and with it all order, stability, and moral uprightness.
Are you not afraid of that outcome? Does it not strike fear into your heart? Or did you watch The Purge and think it was some sort of comedy?
Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactics were appropriate for his time, but today we live in a different time, and they would be considered terrorism. Anti-war protesters are frequently terroristic. The Occupy movement was overtly terrorist, as it intended to cause economic harm for political ends.
It's important to always remember that while people might advocate for causes we agree to in principle, we live in a society of laws and rules, and we all must stay within those rules. There is a beautifully documented, perfectly effective mechanism in our society for effecting change: liberal democracy. If the change you wish to make is true, right, and just, it will inevitably take place without any requirement for lawbreaking. All you need to do is call your representative, and vote. Problem solved.
However, if you go outside of this, you are a terrorist and you deserve to be targeted, hunted, and eliminated by the state, in order that our society be protected, and that we all be able to continue to live in prosperity and peace.
It sounds like you're conflating "terrorist" with "criminal". A criminal is, by definition, a person who breaks the law. A terrorist has a different definition--back in the day it meant something along the lines of committing acts of mass violence for a political/ideological motive. Unabomber, plane hijackers in the 70's and 80's, McVeigh, etc. Putting Ferguson looters in the same class as the Unabomber shows precisely how dangerous such a conflation can be. According to you, missing a payment on your cable bill--i.e. breaking the law--is an act of terrorism. What a terrifying world it is, the one you seem to live in.
I downvoted you because you seem to be conflating breaking the law (even unjust ones, and you cite MLK Jr. and presumably others in the tradition including Ghandi) with acts of terrorism.
I would like to express my opinion that your sort of thinking is very dangerous and something to be discouraged.
Indeed. But this is the core of the matter. Black people defending themselves with guns in the 60s would probably make them "terrorists" (even if the white people throwing fire-bombs, shooting and lynching would be "terrorists" too). Now this need to be connected to what "terrorist" means today: it means being on a watch-list (questionable, but ok -- the whole reason for a clandestine police force is to monitor those that might be willing and capable to attack civilian infrastructure -- for whatever reasons) -- and also placing them on kill lists. The latter is not ok, by any standard. Could we imagine calling in a drone strike on a black panther activist, because he was in a "part of town sympathetic to his cause" and the number of non-adult-male people in the kill zone constituted "acceptable collateral damage"? I think not.
>Could we imagine calling in a drone strike on a black panther activist, because he was in a "part of town sympathetic to his cause" and the number of non-adult-male people in the kill zone constituted "acceptable collateral damage"? I think not.
This is essentially what happened to Fred Hampton. People don't like to admit it, but freedom is protected by blood, and in order to maintain the society we have, we have to continually suppress the people who would seek to destroy what we've worked so hard to achieve.
I wasn't familiar with that particular case[1] -- but as I gather, he was assassinated by an FBI/Police kill-squad -- so more similar to how the US trained dictators to operate across the Americas, than to how the US operates in Yemen and Pakistan. I obviously don't support kill-squads as a means to "support democracy" either -- but there's still a difference between going in and killing one man (even if 20+ were expected to be found/killed) -- an dropping a couple of hell-fire missiles on a civilian structure.
So there is something intrinsic about the status quo that is different from the past and that means the rules have changed.
This justifies expanding the definition of terrorism as anything intending to effect change in society that can be deemed harmful or for political ends.
As a representative, is it an act of terrorism if your constituency persuades you to vote in a way that is economically harmful to the country if it benefits your state or ideology?
A man in the desert blows a stop sign in the name of Allah and the NYPD is not around to stop him from resisting, is it an act of terrorism?
Almost assuredly yes, though the Black Panther Party would be a better example.
>Are the looters in the Ferguson riots "terrorists"?
Yes.
>Are the countless people who are in prison all "terrorists"?
Many, yes. Prison can be very radicalizing, especially since gangs form along ethnic lines, which suggest political outlooks.
> Just because something is criminal and political doesn't make it "terrorism," as much as law enforcement and prosecutors would like you to believe otherwise.
I don't see how you can make this assertion. Breaking the law means you are rejecting the fundamental foundation upon which society is based. If you reject that, you are open to all possible outcomes. Any act of breaking the law is a rejection of all law and with it all order, stability, and moral uprightness.
Are you not afraid of that outcome? Does it not strike fear into your heart? Or did you watch The Purge and think it was some sort of comedy?
Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactics were appropriate for his time, but today we live in a different time, and they would be considered terrorism. Anti-war protesters are frequently terroristic. The Occupy movement was overtly terrorist, as it intended to cause economic harm for political ends.
It's important to always remember that while people might advocate for causes we agree to in principle, we live in a society of laws and rules, and we all must stay within those rules. There is a beautifully documented, perfectly effective mechanism in our society for effecting change: liberal democracy. If the change you wish to make is true, right, and just, it will inevitably take place without any requirement for lawbreaking. All you need to do is call your representative, and vote. Problem solved.
However, if you go outside of this, you are a terrorist and you deserve to be targeted, hunted, and eliminated by the state, in order that our society be protected, and that we all be able to continue to live in prosperity and peace.