Religious and Political terrorists

Solution Preview

Q1:
There is no official all encompassing definition of terrorism and definitions tend to rely heavily on who is doing the defining and for what purpose. Some definitions focus on terrorist tactics to define the term, while others focus on the actor. Yet others look at the context and ask if it is military or not.

There will probably never be an absolute definition that is universally agreed upon, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. The only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," etc.). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence.
-As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "The decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' is almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[3] For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc."
It may be never be possible to have an all encompassing definition of terrorism.A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[7] Record continued "Terrorism ...