[Mad Dawg]

I think the charge of 'terroristic act' is perfectly appropriate.

Here's why I disagree. If one-on-one violence, even if it inadvertently threatens the safety of others, is called terroristic, what shall we call acts which are assymetrical, one (or few) on many, and designed precisely to obstruct commerce and limit the exercise of freedoms by making people afraid?

We already have aggravated assault for acts like the one described. The problem with language inflation is that it impoverishes those who rely on language, which would be most of us ... okay, except democrats.

[monday]

"If one-on-one violence, even if it inadvertently threatens the safety of others, is called terroristic, what shall we call acts which are assymetrical, one (or few) on many, and designed precisely to obstruct commerce and limit the exercise of freedoms by making people afraid?"

I understand what you mean. You want one word for "ordinary criminal terrorizing" and another for "organized ideological terrorizing". Perhaps you should coin new terms? Right now we are stuck with a single term for both.

It's just unfortunate that all the ideological terrorism happening currently makes us automatically assume that all terrorism is of the ideological type. Professional criminals as well as bullies have long used terroristic tactics to intimidate their victims. It is actually a much more common type of terrorism, but it doesn't make the headlines.

[ReignOfError]

I think the charge of 'terroristic act' is perfectly appropriate.

Here's why I disagree. If one-on-one violence, even if it inadvertently threatens the safety of others, is called terroristic, what shall we call acts which are assymetrical, one (or few) on many, and designed precisely to obstruct commerce and limit the exercise of freedoms by making people afraid?

Then lobby your state representatives to re-word the law. Terroristic threats have been a criminal offense since long before terrorism became a commonly-used word. It isn't "language inflation," an attempt to link mere criminal violence to international terrorism -- it's just a coincidental collision of language.