Definition of Terrorism

I agree with all your points, except the last one, which is regarding not using the word as all. I believe the word 'terrorist' still has its meaning, distorted as it often is. ('Terrorism ' on the other hand in the context of fighting it is different.)

For example, it is important to distinguish between groups that kill for the fun of it, and groups that kill for political purposes. In one case there really is little to do besides try and reduce incidents of violence, whereas in the latter situation there is indeed a goal - and in that a possibility for redemption. (For example, look at Northern Ireland)

"terrorism" noun the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.

Click to expand...

==Isn't that the definition of warfare? Terrorism is a form of warfare, terrorists are soldiers, as they impose violence upon their opponents to achieve outcomes they desire.

I would say that terrorism is violence that:

1. Targets Civillians
2. Has a political or religous/political motivation
3. Is Committed without reasonable military justification (Example: Attacking a city with a large civillian population with enemy troops garrisoning it is not terrorism, blowing up a building in that city without lots of enemy troops in it is.) This part is very subjective.

I agree with the fact that history is written by the victors. If Germany or Japan won WWII, then all the resistent fighters in occupied countires would be considered terrorists. Even before WWII, KMT has always regarded CPP as "Communist Bandits." In their eyes communists are nothing but terrorist and they work in terror cells, too (Communists call these cells "underground party") I am sure many people in Iraq believe the "insurgents" or liberators fighting an foreign invader as oppose to being "terrorists"

perhaps the only solid definition of terrorism is that it is something that conducts acts of terror (eq. doing violent acts in order to couse fear or other related and following feelings) and are against the ruling power.

Trying to fit it anymore narrower "black-and-white" or "either with us or against us" thiniking is waste of time and has nothing to do reality except in political propaganda use.
Trying to separate in wich cases it is "reasonable" to waste innocent lifes are IMHO pure BS. Every act of killing, despite how mindles they migth seem has at least some sort of motive behind it. And in the end, to sparse those motives into some sort of line or order cannot stand any closer "morale" look...

unless we are willing to accept some superhuman, non-cultural-bound morale or ethical codex....and by doing that we take the carbet out of the very believes that we usually tend to use in support our own acts of terror ... and the witch cirlce is ready