> It's not terrorism. I think you undermine your own argument here. The problem is that "terrorism" does not have an agreed-upon definition. As far as I can t

> It's not terrorism. I think you undermine your own argument here. The problem is that "terrorism" does not have an agreed-upon definition. As far as I can tell, the smallest common subset of definitions -- ie, what everyone will agree on -- is "violent crime that should carry particularly harsh punishments." If you use the word before agreeing on its meaning, that's the definition you fall back to. Historically, western liberal democracy believes in the rule of law -- that the punishment should fit the crime, rather than our opinion of the criminal. Obviously this is violent crime. Without choosing a more specific definition, the only thing left to argue about is whether it deserves extraordinary punishment, given the same set of facts. Treating that as a valid argument to have is rejecting the rule of law. The alternative is to decide on a definition. What makes terrorism different from breaking and entering? Assault? Murder? Mass murder? Rebel? Revolutionary? Etc. If the answer is "nothing", then use the other word instead. Keep loaded terms like "terrorism" out of the debate unless they're needed.