November 18, 2018, 09:14:23 AM


Author Topic: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?  (Read 8563 times)

Offline Nivea

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2015, 03:27:21 PM »
I saw quite a few fashion terrorists on the way to work this morning...

My favourite Konglish term.

Offline Archeon

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2015, 03:29:02 PM »


But that sentence in itself is in direct reference to "Political Terrorism"

I showed you this already.

Quote
A study on political terrorism examining over 100 definitions of "terrorism" found 22 separate definitional elements

It was a study on political terrorism, that examined over 100 definitions of terrorism....ie some political, some religious, some economic, some occupational and so on.

The same way a study on Hyundai examines over 100 definitions of "vehicle"...not all vehicles are hyundai

What?   That comparison doesn't make sense at all.   You'd have to use a descriptor in tandem with "vehicle" for them to match up.   It wasn't a study on terrorism, it was a study on political terrorism...

A study on "Hyundai Vehicles" examining over 100 definitions of "vehicles" found 22 separate definitional elements.

Yet all of the vehicle's studied were made by Hyundai.

It was a study on "Hyundai Vehicles", that examined over 100 definitions of vehicle....ie some cars, some trucks, some boats, some motorbikes and so on.



I will tolerate your existence only so far as it doesn't infringe on science.

Offline waygo0k

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2015, 03:30:32 PM »


Disagree. I, the majority of academics, dictionary.com, the guy I asked at lunch and probably most rational humans, disagree. But I guess, we won't be changing each other's minds here today.

There is a reason why there is no precise definition of terrorism and terrorist. If the majority of academics were in agreement, terrorism would have an agreed upon definition.

Offline waygo0k

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2015, 03:40:25 PM »

What?   That comparison doesn't make sense at all.   You'd have to use a descriptor in tandem with "vehicle" for them to match up.   It wasn't a study on terrorism, it was a study on political terrorism...

A study on "Hyundai Vehicles" examining over 100 definitions of "vehicles" found 22 separate definitional elements.

Yet all of the vehicle's studied were made by Hyundai.

It was a study on "Hyundai Vehicles", that examined over 100 definitions of vehicle....ie some cars, some trucks, some boats, some motorbikes and so on.

"A study on "Hyundai Vehicles" examining over 100 definitions of "vehicles" found 22 separate definitional elements".

As in, 100 definitions of the general word vehicle. The same way one would do in the introduction section of an academic paper.

Very different from -  "A study on "Hyundai Vehicles" examining over 100 definitions of "types of Hyundai vehicles" found 22 separate definitional elements"....which is the point I think you're trying to make.

The study was on political terrorism, and I assume the 100 definitions of terrorism would have been part of their introduction, in an attempt to reach a conclusive definition of the word "terrorism" in general.

Online zola

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2015, 03:46:03 PM »


Disagree. I, the majority of academics, dictionary.com, the guy I asked at lunch and probably most rational humans, disagree. But I guess, we won't be changing each other's minds here today.

There is a reason why there is no precise definition of terrorism and terrorist. If the majority of academics were in agreement, terrorism would have an agreed upon definition.

Nope the disagreement comes within the framework of the general understanding that the murderous act has a certain kind of motive behind it. There is no disagreement on that issue as ALL of the basic, though different, definitions mention the notion of a poitical/religious motive. You are just plain wrong, but too embarrassed to admit. You also come off as an arrogant dork. You are basically saying, everyone is wrong except you, and a few other professional offense takers on twitter.
Kpip! - Martin 2018

Offline waygo0k

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2015, 04:09:59 PM »


Nope the disagreement comes within the framework of the general understanding that the murderous act has a certain kind of motive behind it. There is no disagreement on that issue as ALL of the basic, though different, definitions mention the notion of a poitical/religious motive. You are just plain wrong, but too embarrassed to admit. You also come off as an arrogant dork. You are basically saying, everyone is wrong except you, and a few other professional offense takers on twitter.

Complete and utter shite.

Even the UN states that there is more to terrorism than just ideology, politics and religion.

Quote

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"
UN 1994

Just because you have a need to narrow down the world you live in, doesn't mean there isn't a bigger world out there.

It has even been stated here that there are over 100 different definitions of terrorism, ranging from economic to political to biological to pathological...but you can't bear to separate yourself from the tin can mantra you've been fed all your life.

As I have quoted before - the only thing that is consistent in ALL forms if terrorism, is the act, or the threat of violence...for whatever reason the perpetrator has.

Political, religious, ideological reasons do make up a good chunk of terrorism, but NOT ALL.

Online zola

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2015, 04:37:50 PM »
or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"


That little dependent clause there doesn't give free reign to include every single act that creates terror. It's typical legalese/diplomatic speak that gives breathing space to a term. The UN are famous for giving the most broad definitions possible so that they dont come back to bite them on the ass. And they precede it with"political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious", as what 99.99% of people understand and how they use the term. A good chunk? No, how about all, except cases where the bitter agenda pushers try to make a point by contorting the language to fit their narrative.

Quote
It has even been stated here that there are over 100 different definitions of terrorism, ranging from economic to political to biological to pathological...but you can't bear to separate yourself from the tin can mantra you've been fed all your life.

Are you confused or doing this on purpose? 100 definitions. 100 definitions
You keep mentioning these different kinds of terrorism
Biological
Pathological
Economic
The method of terror is not up for debate. 100? I could think of 1000. Elephant terrorism, release all the elephants at the zoo on to the city streets and watch carnage ensue. Urine terrorism. I piss into a vat for 10 years, take the vat up into a plane and then drop it onto Peoria, Illinois. It doesn't matter what the method is. IT'S THE FRICKIN MOTIVE. 

Also, everything has multiple definitions. If I searched the word socialism, I could probably find a few hundred definitions, and academics debating this or that issue  with a definition. However, the way the term is used within the actual language it was created for has a pretty set limitation and is used as such.

When you are posting in a thread created by Foreverparadise and agreeing with his OP you know you are on the losing side.

Kpip! - Martin 2018

Offline waygo0k

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2015, 05:27:56 PM »
If it were as conclusive as you're claiming it to be, why is there no agreed upon definition for/of terrorism? Surely, it would be incredibly easy for everybody to just state all terrorism has to have religious, political and/or ideological beliefs....why hasn't this been done yet after all these decades?

Simple question - how did the captain and passengers feel in the final minutes of the flight?

Were they terrified? And if they were terrified, with a feeling of terror sweeping through the plane as it descended...would the person that caused this terror not be called a terrorist?
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 05:35:24 PM by waygo0k »

Online Aristocrat

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #48 on: March 30, 2015, 05:50:29 PM »
If it were as conclusive as you're claiming it to be, why is there no agreed upon definition for/of terrorism? Surely, it would be incredibly easy for everybody to just state all terrorism has to have religious, political and/or ideological beliefs....why hasn't this been done yet after all these decades?

Simple question - how did the captain and passengers feel in the final minutes of the flight?

Were they terrified? And if they were terrified, with a feeling of terror sweeping through the plane as it descended...would the person that caused this terror not be called a terrorist?

Last night, while lying in bed with my wife, I let off a massive stinker. The child in me decided to pull the blankets over her head. The look on her face, before I pulled the blanket over her and as she knew what was in store for her, was that of pure terror and horror... Am I a terrorist?

Please stop being so literal.

Offline waygo0k

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #49 on: March 30, 2015, 06:21:02 PM »
If it were as conclusive as you're claiming it to be, why is there no agreed upon definition for/of terrorism? Surely, it would be incredibly easy for everybody to just state all terrorism has to have religious, political and/or ideological beliefs....why hasn't this been done yet after all these decades?

Simple question - how did the captain and passengers feel in the final minutes of the flight?

Were they terrified? And if they were terrified, with a feeling of terror sweeping through the plane as it descended...would the person that caused this terror not be called a terrorist?

Last night, while lying in bed with my wife, I let off a massive stinker. The child in me decided to pull the blankets over her head. The look on her face, before I pulled the blanket over her and as she knew what was in store for her, was that of pure terror and horror... Am I a terrorist?

Please stop being so literal.

Did you commit an act of violence against your wife? Did you threaten your wife with violence?

If not, then no, you are not a terrorist

Offline tamjen

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #50 on: March 30, 2015, 08:48:01 PM »
Lots of great back and forth here about what does or does not constitute terrorism. I'm still trying to figure out how, according to the OP, people actually got inside the black box.

"The blackbox included people inside screaming..."
Hail Caesar

Offline Archeon

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #51 on: March 30, 2015, 10:11:12 PM »

What?   That comparison doesn't make sense at all.   You'd have to use a descriptor in tandem with "vehicle" for them to match up.   It wasn't a study on terrorism, it was a study on political terrorism...

A study on "Hyundai Vehicles" examining over 100 definitions of "vehicles" found 22 separate definitional elements.

Yet all of the vehicle's studied were made by Hyundai.

It was a study on "Hyundai Vehicles", that examined over 100 definitions of vehicle....ie some cars, some trucks, some boats, some motorbikes and so on.

"A study on "Hyundai Vehicles" examining over 100 definitions of "vehicles" found 22 separate definitional elements".

As in, 100 definitions of the general word vehicle. The same way one would do in the introduction section of an academic paper.

Very different from -  "A study on "Hyundai Vehicles" examining over 100 definitions of "types of Hyundai vehicles" found 22 separate definitional elements"....which is the point I think you're trying to make.

The study was on political terrorism, and I assume the 100 definitions of terrorism would have been part of their introduction, in an attempt to reach a conclusive definition of the word "terrorism" in general.



No... you added an extra word in there i didn't use.

I used the same terminology and descriptors used in the original sentence you tried to copy.  Let's look at them again.

This is from Wiki.

Quote
A study on political terrorism ("notice the descriptive word in there") examining over 100 definitions of "terrorism" found 22 separate definitional elements (e.g. Violence, force, fear, threat, victim-target differentiation

This is what you wrote.

Quote
The same way a study on Hyundai  (no descriptive word) examines over 100 definitions of "vehicle"...not all vehicles are hyundai

This is how you should have written it for them to be comparable.

Quote
A study on "Hyundai Vehicles" examining over 100 definitions of "vehicles" found 22 separate definitional elements.

You see that missing word?  It changes the sentence.  This is the part you are overlooking.

If we wrote the original sentence like you are trying to it would look as such...

 A study on terrorism examining over 100 definitions of "terrorism" found 22 separate definitional elements (e.g. Violence, force, fear, threat, victim-target differentiation.

If the wording was changed to this, your sentence would favor your side of the argument.

There very well may be sentences who match up to what you are saying, this just isn't one of them.

I was terrified when I had to show my report card to my parents with a C on it.  Why was I terrified?  Because they would be disappointed in me.  Are they terrorists?  Was that terrorism?

They weren't terrifying me because they wanted to terrify me.  It was a side effect of what was going on at the time.

Had they tried to hit me into doing what they wanted me to do, had they forced their will upon me, had they wanted to instill fear in order to follow their way of thinking, then that would be terrorism.
I will tolerate your existence only so far as it doesn't infringe on science.

Offline waygo0k

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2015, 06:32:43 AM »


No... you added an extra word in there i didn't use.

I used the same terminology and descriptors used in the original sentence you tried to copy.  Let's look at them again.

This is from Wiki.

Quote
A study on political terrorism ("notice the descriptive word in there") examining over 100 definitions of "terrorism" found 22 separate definitional elements (e.g. Violence, force, fear, threat, victim-target differentiation

This is what you wrote.

Quote
The same way a study on Hyundai  (no descriptive word) examines over 100 definitions of "vehicle"...not all vehicles are hyundai

This is how you should have written it for them to be comparable.

Quote
A study on "Hyundai Vehicles" examining over 100 definitions of "vehicles" found 22 separate definitional elements.

You see that missing word?  It changes the sentence.  This is the part you are overlooking.

If we wrote the original sentence like you are trying to it would look as such...

 A study on terrorism examining over 100 definitions of "terrorism" found 22 separate definitional elements (e.g. Violence, force, fear, threat, victim-target differentiation.

If the wording was changed to this, your sentence would favor your side of the argument.

There very well may be sentences who match up to what you are saying, this just isn't one of them.

I was terrified when I had to show my report card to my parents with a C on it.  Why was I terrified?  Because they would be disappointed in me.  Are they terrorists?  Was that terrorism?

They weren't terrifying me because they wanted to terrify me.  It was a side effect of what was going on at the time.

Had they tried to hit me into doing what they wanted me to do, had they forced their will upon me, had they wanted to instill fear in order to follow their way of thinking, then that would be terrorism.

What the heck are you on about?

A study on political terrorism (one type of terrorism) examined over 100 definitions of terrorism (be it political, religious, financial and so on), and found that all the definitions shared 22 separate elements.

Is it really that difficult to understand the sentence?

FYI, this is the actual book we're talking about - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=NgDks1hUjhMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Notice how "political terrorism" is clearly defined and differentiated from other types of terrorism on page 46.

Furthermore, your parents wouldn't be terrorists simply because they were disappointed in you. They would be terrorists however, should they be violent towards you, or threaten you with violence.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 06:44:34 AM by waygo0k »

Offline Archeon

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #53 on: March 31, 2015, 07:48:24 AM »

What the heck are you on about?

A study on political terrorism (one type of terrorism) examined over 100 definitions of terrorism (be it political, religious, financial and so on), and found that all the definitions shared 22 separate elements.

Is it really that difficult to understand the sentence?

FYI, this is the actual book we're talking about - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=NgDks1hUjhMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Notice how "political terrorism" is clearly defined and differentiated from other types of terrorism on page 46.

Furthermore, your parents wouldn't be terrorists simply because they were disappointed in you. They would be terrorists however, should they be violent towards you, or threaten you with violence.

I'm on about the fact the sentence refers to them looking at 100 definitions of terrorism under the umbrella of political terrorism.

In other words, one type of terrorism IE political terrorism... includes 100 different definitions of terrorism.

It isn't saying, Terrorism includes 100 different definitions of terrorism.

It is saying, Political terrorism includes 100 different definitions of terrorism.

Again, under the umbrella of political terrorism there are 100 different definitions of terrorism found.
I will tolerate your existence only so far as it doesn't infringe on science.

Offline waygo0k

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #54 on: March 31, 2015, 07:55:22 AM »
WOW...just wow!

Have you read the book?

Why would they define 100 types of terrorism "under the umbrella of political terrorism", and then go on to state "political" as one of the definitions.

Do you even understand what you're saying?

Offline Archeon

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #55 on: March 31, 2015, 09:40:58 AM »

FYI, this is the actual book we're talking about - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=NgDks1hUjhMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Notice how "political terrorism" is clearly defined and differentiated from other types of terrorism on page 46.

Furthermore, your parents wouldn't be terrorists simply because they were disappointed in you. They would be terrorists however, should they be violent towards you, or threaten you with violence.

I don't see page 46 on the preview, but I can see page 5 in which he is trying to define Terrorism itself.

On the definition of terrorism it includes elements which are most commonly used to define terrorism.

By the man's own admission he uses 13 of them.

So let's take the top thirteen.

1) Violence, Force
2) Political
3) Fear, terror emphasized
4) Threat
5) (Psyche) effects and anticipated Reactions
6) Victim Target Differentiation.
7) Purposed, planned, systematic, organized action.
8) Method of combat, strategy.
9) Extranormality in breach of accepted rules without humanitarian constraints.
10) Coercion extortion, induction of compliance
11) Publicity aspect
12) Arbitrariness, Impersonal, Random character indiscrimination
13)Civilians, non-combatants, neutrals, outsiders as victims.

Now realize, the author of the book does not like using a single word to paint a broad stroke of terrorism.  He likes succinctly defined words by using as many identifiers as possible.

He wouldn't consider something terrorism unless it fit all 13 different categories.

many people would disagree with this guy.

For instance, Gerhard Schmidtchen as this author calls out only uses 5.

So, I'll agree that the definition of terrorism is amorphous, but it isn't so amorphous that the  learned community just calls everyone who does something bad a terrorist.

He's a mass-murderer/sociopath.

Which i find worse than a terrorist.

At least a terrorist usually has an ideal which can be debated and discussed.  This man, so far, does not.

In other words, it's not something that can be fought against with logic.  It is merely a condition of humanity that will require more science to try and fix through medicine or therapy.
I will tolerate your existence only so far as it doesn't infringe on science.

Online zola

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #56 on: March 31, 2015, 09:49:30 AM »
If it were as conclusive as you're claiming it to be, why is there no agreed upon definition for/of terrorism? Surely, it would be incredibly easy for everybody to just state all terrorism has to have religious, political and/or ideological beliefs....why hasn't this been done yet after all these decades?

Simple question - how did the captain and passengers feel in the final minutes of the flight?

Were they terrified? And if they were terrified, with a feeling of terror sweeping through the plane as it descended...would the person that caused this terror not be called a terrorist?

The dispute isn't over the issue of weather all violence that creates terror is Terrorism. Not one thing you have posted defines that as the dispute. This is the dispute I have seen come up and one that was taught in a university paper i did years ago:

" Lumpers define terrorism broadly, brooking no distinction between this tactic and guerrilla warfare or civil war. Terrorist splitters, by contrast, define terrorism narrowly, as the select use of violence against civilians for putative political gain."

The issue is different forms of violence, not about having no motive whatsoever, other then dying. It is about the aims and where they fall in view of the commentator. E.G one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter etc. Academics are arguing over the right of the state to impose the definition on non-state actors and all the problems that brings.

No one, is arguing that the definition should include all acts that induce terror. The term would become so broad as to become meaningless.

Kpip! - Martin 2018

Offline waygo0k

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #57 on: March 31, 2015, 10:12:04 AM »

FYI, this is the actual book we're talking about - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=NgDks1hUjhMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Notice how "political terrorism" is clearly defined and differentiated from other types of terrorism on page 46.

Furthermore, your parents wouldn't be terrorists simply because they were disappointed in you. They would be terrorists however, should they be violent towards you, or threaten you with violence.

I don't see page 46 on the preview, but I can see page 5 in which he is trying to define Terrorism itself.

On the definition of terrorism it includes elements which are most commonly used to define terrorism.

By the man's own admission he uses 13 of them.

So let's take the top thirteen.

1) Violence, Force
2) Political
3) Fear, terror emphasized
4) Threat
5) (Psyche) effects and anticipated Reactions
6) Victim Target Differentiation.
7) Purposed, planned, systematic, organized action.
8) Method of combat, strategy.
9) Extranormality in breach of accepted rules without humanitarian constraints.
10) Coercion extortion, induction of compliance
11) Publicity aspect
12) Arbitrariness, Impersonal, Random character indiscrimination
13)Civilians, non-combatants, neutrals, outsiders as victims.

Now realize, the author of the book does not like using a single word to paint a broad stroke of terrorism.  He likes succinctly defined words by using as many identifiers as possible.

He wouldn't consider something terrorism unless it fit all 13 different categories.

many people would disagree with this guy.

For instance, Gerhard Schmidtchen as this author calls out only uses 5.

So, I'll agree that the definition of terrorism is amorphous, but it isn't so amorphous that the  learned community just calls everyone who does something bad a terrorist.

He's a mass-murderer/sociopath.

Which i find worse than a terrorist.

At least a terrorist usually has an ideal which can be debated and discussed.  This man, so far, does not.

In other words, it's not something that can be fought against with logic.  It is merely a condition of humanity that will require more science to try and fix through medicine or therapy.

He wouldn't consider something terrorism unless it fit all 13 different categories.

many people would disagree with this guy.

For instance, Gerhard Schmidtchen as this author calls out only uses 5.

So, I'll agree that the definition of terrorism is amorphous, but it isn't so amorphous that the  learned community just calls everyone who does something bad a terrorist.

He's a mass-murderer/sociopath.

Which i find worse than a terrorist.

At least a terrorist usually has an ideal which can be debated and discussed.  This man, so far, does not.

In other words, it's not something that can be fought against with logic.  It is merely a condition of humanity that will require more science to try and fix through medicine or therapy.


He is as much a mass murderer/sociopath as he is a terrorist.

Just because we are not aware of his reasons for murdering 150 people, does not mean he does not have his reasons.

Regardless of what his reasons are - he committed the same act (by and large) as the perpetrators of 9-11...which is crashing a commercial plane, killing multiple people and causing widespread terror.

A police officer that shoots and kills a criminal is as much a murderer as a criminal that shoots and kills a police officer...and both are as much murderers as a criminal that shoots and kills another criminal.

A guy that deliberately decides to crash a plane and kill hundreds of people (supposedly because of his mental issues) is as much a terrorist as a bunch of jihadis that decide to do the exact same thing for political and ideological reasons....both sets of people committed the same act. Nothing can change that bar time travel.


Offline waygo0k

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
Re: Plane Crash, A Terrorist Attack?
« Reply #58 on: March 31, 2015, 10:18:52 AM »

The dispute isn't over the issue of weather all violence that creates terror is Terrorism. Not one thing you have posted defines that as the dispute. This is the dispute I have seen come up and one that was taught in a university paper i did years ago:

" Lumpers define terrorism broadly, brooking no distinction between this tactic and guerrilla warfare or civil war. Terrorist splitters, by contrast, define terrorism narrowly, as the select use of violence against civilians for putative political gain."

The issue is different forms of violence, not about having no motive whatsoever, other then dying. It is about the aims and where they fall in view of the commentator. E.G one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter etc. Academics are arguing over the right of the state to impose the definition on non-state actors and all the problems that brings.

No one, is arguing that the definition should include all acts that induce terror. The term would become so broad as to become meaningless.

The term is already broad enough for most people to struggle to understand.

My point is and has always been - the only thing that is consistent in ALL acts of terrorism (inducing terror) is the act of violence, or the threat of violence.

My argument is that ALL acts of violence (especially against innocents), for whatever reason - constitutes an act of terrorism.

The main reason why there is no agreed upon definition for the word is as you stated - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

People cannot, and are not willing to give credence to anything that may paint their belief systems in a negative light...particularly the negative light they use to point out others' flaws.