Zero wrote:
Another problem with the word "terrorism" is that the number of cases that are really clear-cut and unarguable is not so great. The extreme cases that most people here are giving as examples are not really representative.
This is also true, though, regarding many useful and important words -- in fact, most words. Language is a very complex and subtle thing. Take for example the word "democracy." There is a simple definition for it: a system of government in which the people rule (as opposed to dictatorship, monarchy or anarchism, which is a social system marked by the absence of government). In practice, though, there have been endless debates over whether a given society is truly a democracy. In all existing democracies, some people have more influence than others. Does this mean that "the people" aren't really ruling? How oligarchic does a country have to get before it no longer qualifies to be a democracy? No one can answer that question to everyone else's satisfaction. But does this mean that term democracy has no meaning or value? I think it has a great deal of meaning and value, notwithstanding the impossibility of finding examples of its perfect implementation.
The same thing can be said even about very precisely defined mathematical terms, such as "zero," "infinity," or "line," none of which can be found in nature but are nevertheless indispensable. There are no perfectly straight lines in nature, but the CONCEPT of a straight line enables people to achieve some very close approximations which are very useful to architects and engineers.
Getting back to the word "terrorism," personally I favor a fairly strict definition of the term. All acts of war and violence instill fear, but I think terrorism should be defined to mean specifically that ASPECT of warfare in which instilling fear is the primary goal of the warrior. This is how most military strategists use the term. The anthrax mailings in the United States, for example, only killed a few people, but they did billions of dollars worth of economic damage by spreading fear and compelling the U.S. to devote extensive resources to protecting against similar attacks in the future.
Following this definition, the 9/11 attacks would be classified as an act of terrorism, but the bombing of Hiroshima or the firebombing of Dresden or the U.S. invasion of Iraq would not, nor would the Nazi holocaust against the Jews. All of those actions were considerably more lethal than any terrorist act to date, but instilling fear was not their PRIMARY purpose.
Of course, some people here are bound to disagree. Suit yourselves.