Some matters are too subjective to have its exact definition. Take a simple example, the word 'beautiful'. Yes, it is undeniable that the definition of beautiful has been stated in a dictionary, despite with that, when it comes to a particular perception you will have a different meaning, understanding and aspects that has been taken into account.
"for me..she's beautiful if she is tall, have a blue eyes..bla bla bla"
"i would say that a girl who are able to play guitar is considered as beautiful"
Here is the reason of why some matters like this has been given just a general definition.
Because there are too many aspects that need to consider
For you, someone who are able to play drum and guitar are beautiful but for some other guys, they might define a smart girls as beautiful. It's a matter of personal perceptions though.
Am I going to type about this? Beauty? No, of course not. As a matter of facts, it is about 'terrorism'.
So, lets take an eyes onto the definition of terrorism given by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
"terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"
Since they are the one who listed out the names of terrorists, so they are the one who define what is terrorism. The funny thing is, they (America) is the terrorist themselves. Well, this is just a personal thoughts and views. Why?
Its better to look back at their own definition before I define themselves as terrorist right?
Based on what aspects?
1. "unlawful use of violence"
The word unlawful can be considered as 'no right', 'no legal declaration', 'no authority' and so forth that are based on the 'law'. Do you know that the action taken by the President of United States of America in regards with the military action towards Libya was unlawful? Because he actually failed to get an approval from the right authority, the Congress.
Section 8 of Article 1 of United States Constitution states that;
"The Congress shall have power to.....declare war..."
To declare war, President shall get an approval from The Congress. Did he? No, not at all. Micheal Dorf, a constitutional law expert and professor of law at Cornell University said that this action (military action towards Libya by United States of America) is considered as unconstitutional.
Well, that fulfilled the first aspect of what is terrorism.
2. "to intimidate or coerce government or civilian population, in furtherance of political or social objectives"
Iran, Afghanistan, Libya and many more. They killed hundred thousands of them. What is the common thing between all these three countries ? What are the benefits that they will gain by doing so towards these countries?
On its surface, the purpose of attacking Libya is in order to keep Moammar from continuing his attacks on civilians in defiance on international demands. But truth to be told, it is to about political control and oil. Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. Isn't a very good reason? To protect? Then, what the hell with all the killing of Libyan's civilians? Come on guys, you are not that idiot to deny their true objectives.
The funny part is, they gave the their usual excuses of killing those civilians. Wrong hit target ? Thousands of them died and they claimed a 'wrong hit' ??
I guess it is a clear cut to show that the words or the elements of intimidate and coerce had already been fulfilled.
"when the power of love overcome the love of power, the world will know peace" ~ Jimi Hendrix.
