<div>All-</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Given how this concept dominates our political life, foreign policy, changing views of civil rights, and is used to justify wars that our citizens die in and our taxes pay for, a clear and agreed upon definition would be wise. Yet anyone objectively studying all the arguments regarding how to define terrorism will discover a wide range of complex definitions, with some scholars insisting the concept cannot be clearly defined. Other terms should be used instead.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some sources to ponder on this issue:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<table id="table16" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" width="100%" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#fff9e6"><font size="2"><b><a target="contents" name="The_lack_of_consensus_on_what_constitutes_terrorism">The lack of consensus on what constitutes terrorism</a> points to its inescapably political nature</b>
- <i><a href="http://www.tamilnation.org/terrorism/terrorism_definition.pdf" target="contents">What is 'Terrorism'? Problems of Legal Definition" Ben Golder and George Williams , 2004</a></i></font></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="2"> "Our aim in this article is not to determine what is or is not terrorism. We do not add our own definition to an already long list. Instead, we address some of the practical and political problems that lawyers encounter when they attempt to establish a definition. The lack of consensus on what constitutes terrorism points to its inescapably political nature, perhaps best encapsulated in the aphorism (or cliché) that 'one person's terrorist is another person's freedomfighter'..."
</font></p></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<table id="table16" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" width="100%" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#fff9e6"><font size="2"><b><a target="contents" name="State_terrorism_is_vastly_more_destructive_">State terrorism is vastly more destructive </a>than anti-state and individual and small group terrorism</b> -
</font><i><a href="http://www.tamilnation.org/terrorism/0602state_terrorism.htm" target="_self"><font size="2">Edward S. Herman, February 2006</font></a></i></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="2">"..By any generally applicable standard—i.e., excluding the fraudulent but widely used "terrorism is what somebody else does" criterion—state terrorism is vastly more destructive than anti-state and individual and small group terrorism. This is the basis for distinguishing between the two as "wholesale" versus "retail" terrorism. Wholesale trade implies large scale business operations that deal with many smaller retail operators. The retailers have little capital and do business with a small set of local customers. State terrorists apply their violence over a wide terrain using the large resources of the state, and they can employ a broader and more cruel range of techniques of intimidation, including devastating weapons like napalm, phosphorus, depleted uranium munitions; cluster, thermobaric and 500-pound bombs; advanced delivery systems like helicopter gun-ships and cruise missiles; and torture..."
</font></p></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<div>
<table id="table16" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" width="100%" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#fff9e6"><font size="2"><b><a target="_self" name="There_is_no_globally_accepted_definition_of_terrorism">"There is no globally accepted definition of terrorism"</a></b> - </font><i><font size="2">
<a href="http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2478/newsletter_info.htm" target="_self">Foreign Policy Association (FPA)</a> </font></i></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="2">"There is no globally accepted definition of terrorism. Most scholarly texts devoted to the study of terrorism contain a section, chapter, or chapters devoted to a discussion of how difficult it is to define the term. In fact, various US government agencies employ different definitions of the term. The most widely accepted definition is probably that put forward by the US State Department, which defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience" [Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)]."
</font></p></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<div><font size="2">"The most problematic issue relating to terrorism and armed conflict is distinguishing terrorists from <a href="http://www.tamilnation.org/tamileelam/armedstruggle/index.htm" target="contents">lawful combatants
</a>" - <i><a href="http://www.tamilnation.org/terrorism/index.htm#The_most_problematic_issue" target="_self">Terrorism and Human Rights - Final Report of UN Special Rapporteur, Kalliopi K. Koufa</a>, 25 June 2004</i>
</font> </div>
<div>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2">"Above the gates of hell is the warning that all that enter should abandon hope. Less dire but to the same effect is the warning given to those who try to define terrorism"
</font><font size="2"><i>- </i></font><i><font size="2">David Tucker in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0275957624?ie=UTF8&tag=tamilntamilrelat&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0275957624" target="contents">
Skirmishes at the Edge of Empire</a> quoted by Lord Carlile in his Report on the </font><font face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.tamilnation.org/terrorism/uk/070317carlile.htm" target="contents"><font size="2">The Definition of Terrorism
</font><b><font size="2"> </font></b><font size="2">- Presented to UK Parliament, March 2007</font></a></font></i>
<hr color="#fede94">
</p></div>
<p><i>"There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause'. Some state clearly the kinds of group ('sub-national', 'non-state') or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical." .
</i><em>..my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'.</em></p>
<div>Jason Burke ("Al Qaeda", ch.2, p.22) </div>
<div>------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>