If you cannot define something, how do you know what it means?
We can define any word in any way we wish, so long as we understood the meaning. I'm going with the consensus on terrorism:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.
We can also go with dictionaries...
ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Here's another one:
ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Organized group = government;
Unlawful use of force = ignoring constitution;
Coercing societies = politics;
It seems the more "official" definitions of terrorism include government, or at least don't imply terrorism cannot be committed by states. So if we're referring to the "majority", we must be referring to the individual interpretations of terrorism, which, if implying terrorism couldn't be performed by non-state actors, would be adopted by our favorite officials on word definitions. Whoever these people are that believe governments are incapable of terrorism don't appear to make up the majority of definitions.
Noun[edit]
terrorism (usually uncountable; plural terrorisms) Wikipedia-logo.png Terrorism on Wikipedia.
The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
A form of psychological manipulation through warfare to the purpose of political or religious gains, by means of deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants of a specific geographical region.
Definition of TERRORISM
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Now this one above flat out points the finger at government.
noun
[mass noun]
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:
the fight against terrorism
international terrorism
This is the only one which might exclude government; since all that government does is legal (and if it isn't, it will be), they can potentially authorize any form of violence. If a government official was legally allowed to spy on and torture citizens at random, just to teach the rest "a lesson", it could not be a form of terrorism by this definition, for it would be authorized, and therefore be legit. But again, we might say, ignoring the constitution is always unlawful, so...I'll give this one 1/2.
It would seem we all agree, then, based on the majority of popular definition; terrorism can be committed by government, including American government.
So, then, knowing this, do we know whether America has committed acts of terrorism? Based on these definitions, does threatening and subsequently going to war with another nation over what currency their oil can be sold in count as furthering a political agenda through violence?
