Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.

We have a challenger. "My opponent asks you to vote on a simple definition. My friends, this is silly because there is no "simple definition" of a terrorist...just ask the supreme court." Well the United States Government disagrees with you, there is a very simple defenition and it has been stated. I presented to you the defenition below, and you scoffed, you say it exhonerates Al Gore. I point you to section (c). This IMPLICATES Al Gore. I point out, you must only meet one of the criteria listed to be committing an act of terrorism. "a) the action falls within subsection,(2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." I will also point out that even if Al Gore did not fit this defenition of terrorism in the United Kingdom, he would still be considered a terrorist by the European Union, and the United States of America. Earlier in the debate you stated: "He is saying that even if Gore's movie is 100% accurate it is still TERRORISM because it makes people fearful." This is not what I am saying, you are being misleading. I point you once again, to the defenition of terrorism used by the United States of America. "To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;or To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." He is not a terrorist just because he causes fear. It is because he used his documentary, as a method to scare the public, and in turn influence the worlds governments to attempt to stop global warming. As I said previously , he could have also "intimidated the civilian population" and in turn affected housing prices in the area. Wether he meant to or not. In the end my argument exists to point out Al Gore is a terrorist. But the main goal is to point out the failure of human language to explain what we mean. We attempt to explain what a terrorist is, yet in the end we implicate those we do not view as terrorists. This is a statement by Edward Peck, the former U.S Chief of Mission in Iraq. "In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities." He is a testament to the failure of us to explain what we mean. He attempted to define terrorism, and it implicated the United States Government itself. Now it implicated one of that countries upstanding citizens, Al Gore. We face the ultimate challenge in defining our language, and we fail often. This is one of our failures.