So... just to be clear then.. you'd also consider the anti-WTO anarcist protestors as terrorists since they often get violent intentionally.

As well as the various Occupy Wallstreet groups who got agressive and started throwing stones and such.

Essentially, any protest that gets violent = terrorism.

Afterall the only difference between domestic terrorism and terrorism is the target right?

Pretty much, yes. "Incidental terrorism." Just like how a fight where someone happens to kill someone else in a fit of rage is still murder, but it still fits the means and motive of terrorism, just without the scale or planning.

I... guess I just disagree.  Don't even know where to go to from there then.  I hope your definition never makes it into legal precedent.

That would more or less make any mob violence terrorism... which is an extremely terrifying precedent since essentially that means any protest of the government could be seen or it atleast eaisly made to be "Terrorism"... alowing american citizens to be detained under the NDAA.  All you would need to do is put one or two plants in.  Start violence.  Bam suddenly everyone in the mob, even those minding their buisness is a terroirst/supporting terroism/suspected terrorist" and can be held indefinitly without trial.

I think you guys are moving away from what actually happened here.  The original story was that it was a demonstration that turned ugly when somebody pulled out an RPG and shot it at the consolate.  I don't know about you, but what angry mob or demonstration has an RPG handy?  

In the middle east?  It's probably more likely then you'd expect.

Espiecally in a country that just had it's government overthrown by a bunch of random armies with weapons.

Though granted... to bring it to the consulate would suggest some level of premediation no doubt.

However though... if say, instead of that an angry mob just overwhelmed and killed someone.  I wouldn't call that terrorism i'd call that mob violence and prosecute it through the normal justice system, and not arrest people for terrorism.

We're misunderstanding each other. I'm not saying to change the legal definition, but i am saying that it would be okay to call such things "terror," since mob violence is a form of terror in the sense that it generally achieves the same ends as "terrorism" and generally with a similar motive, just a different execution.

You specifically used the direct term of terrorism twice.  Which is a totally different thing.

I committed an error of semantics, then. Sorry about that.

I was just saying that what Obama went for initially was still acceptable, to call it "terror" even if he believed it was motivated by random mob violence, since killing the American ambassador over a video would still qualify as "terror."

Except he went for it as him specifically saying he identified it as a terrorist attack immediatly... in response to Romney saying it took weeks for the Obama administration to let us know it was terrorism and not a demonstration.

If you look at the debate transcripts Romney first said

"It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading, or instead whether we just didn't know what happened, you have to ask yourself why didn't we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could we have not known?"

followed by

"The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."

So i think we can both agree that it was in fact a political dodge where he tried to use terror as a substitue for act of terrorism.  (not to mention he never actually directly infered to it as such.

However, unlike your mistake... I don't think Obama's was one of semantics.

I know who I would vote for if I was able to vote.