Just to answer your other post > do you think Mohammed Atta was a terrorist

I think he was a terrorist, but he's not a convicted terrorist. I don't believe he's been convicted of anything to this day.

> Violent acts specifically targeted against civilians to gain political power.

Like I said, the definition of terrorism presented was characterized as "well accepted", but as I predicted, you've now presented an amendment to what was already purported to be definitional. If the definition given by the other poster isn't the well accepted one, how can I be sure yours is? How are you sure it is?

Your own definition of "Violent acts specifically targeted against civilians to gain political power" is equally unsatisfactory. Governments bring violence specifically against their own civilians all the time to gain political power.

In fact, the Snopes article provides what I would say is a generally accepted definition of terrorism, 18 USC § 2331(5), which offers a concise framework we can use to evaluate the case of Rosenberg. Crucially, applying this framework would require facts that have not been established in a court of law. You can say to yourself that the application of the facts fit this code as you see them, and that's valid. But at the same time this code is not a criminal statute, and moreover itself contains a subjective assessment of intent -- "...appear to be intended...". Therefore it's quite hard to get from "I think this person is a terrorist" to "this person is a convicted terrorist".

So I would say that the general accepted definition of terrorism actually is itself subjective, and would hinge heavily on the issue of proving intent, or at least the appearance of intent.

> their audience was acting in good faith.

Please stick to the topic, let's not turn this into personal attacks, thank you.

> likely already aware that in the common definition of terrorism

Literally I'm not. You can't even agree with the other poster with your definition, or the US Code for that matter. Within the span of 3 posts we now just as many "definitions" for terrorism.

And anyway, we are not talking abut common definitions here, we are talking about criminal statutes when the word "convicted" is thrown into the mix. I simply reject the notion that "convicted terrorist" was meant as anything other than "someone convicted of terrorism". And we really don't have to speculate on the intent of that phrase, because the next sentence of the post under fact check was:

She was convicted for the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building, the U.S. Naval War College and the New York Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assoc

Which is a flat out not true. She was not convicted for those acts. It's true she was convicted of possessing weapons and bombs. It's true she was convicted for having forged documents. It's not true she was convicted for terrorism, and it's not true she was convicted for a single bombing, let alone three. Given this, I don't see how anything other than a mixed verdict is okay.

> I think you're just supporting for football team rather than trying to seek the truth and I feel bad for the parent they're engaging with you.

If you don't want to engage with me, or the other poster doesn't want to, neither of you have to stick around. I'm happy to keep talking about this issue, but please keep the personal attacks to a minimum, thanks.

In fact if you want to know what my football team is, I'm a pacifist and I find the Weather Underground and its members abhorrent. Rather than assume things about me and using those assumptions to draw conclusions about my intentions, you could have just asked me my personal opinions. If I'm rooting for a football team here, it would be the team of nuance in political discussions, rather than labeling people "convicted terrorist" and "convicted for ... bombing[s]" when they literally are not.