[ninjafetus]

Well, defining terrorism can get murky, but one definition that I think is pretty good is "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation."

[ninjafetus]

Yeah, Colombine was terrible, but I'd be hard pressed to call it terrorism. The discussion is not just academic, either. In the next decade we can reasonably expect an increased level of violence from non-state actors in unstable nations in Africa, as well as continuing conflicts in the middle east. From the perspective of the US (and NATO, for that matter), acts of terrorism targeting us are governed by different policies and laws than those governing other acts of violence. If everything can be called "terrorism", then those laws and policies will most likely be ignored or challenged.

Of course, how we deal with terrorism is already an active, unresolved political issue, and I don't necessarily see an end in sight anytime soon. Finding a more specific set of criteria would be beneficial to both sides of the issue: a more narrow definition would lead to less social liberties challenges and allow the military to more easily pursue those who seek to war on us.

[ninjafetus]

Oh, those guys. I think my dad was acting as the go between for them and some of the NM indian tribes at one point. I'll ask him and see if he knows anything, but I think he's been off that for a while now, so no promises.