At what point does civil disobedience become terrorism?

I don't really think protests turning violent qualifies for terrorism, unless the violence was planned by the protest leaders, and the targets are ordinary people or innocent businesses. In Oakland, a small business owner was forced to shut his business forever after Occupy Oakland severely damaged his store. He was permanently hurt, and wasn't even a bank or major corporation.

Terrorism is the use of violence against non-combatants for the purposes of spreading terror in a population.

Civil disobedience and demonstrations are the use of numbers and slogans to demonstrate support for an idea (or opposition to one).

These are two completely different things. When police crack down on demonstrations, they often employ state-terrorism, for example, use of excessive (sometimes deadly) force, spraying people with pepper spray, water under high pressure or rubber bullets. Overseas, the US military employs terrorist tactics when they threaten and use violence against non-combatant civilians (which they do). Sometimes, governments will employ "agents-provocateur" in demonstrations to commit an act of violence, and then paint the entire demonstration as violent. Often, governments directly fund terrorist groups (such as Afghanistan funding Al Qeada, the US funding the mujahideen that created Al Qaeda, or the US funding of Cuban terrorists in Miami).

But civil disobedience and demonstration is almost always peaceful, and violence enters into things when the authorities decided to deploy terrorist tactics against demonstrators.

At the point where property is getting damaged or people are getting hurt. The left crossed that line years ago.

this is REALLY stupid.

Have you EVER read a newspaper in your entire LIFE?

VERY few demos turn violent.

And when they do, 99% of the time it's the cops who start it.

http://voices.yahoo.com/public-demonstrations-brin...