Wolf notes that the definition is too broad to be useful. I suspect that the definition’s authors at Webster were aware of that deficiency. Unable to resolve it, did they throw up their hands? The word “etc.” after “subjugate” is an almost visible shrug.

I would be hesitant to view the Webster definition as neutral and objective, if not the nec plus ultra of definitions. Glenn seems to imply that view in stating “the only reason to change its definition is to make it fit a predetermined storyline.” Question: does not Webster’s definition itself fit a predetermined storyline?

The definition of “terrorism/terrorist” is crucial. It determines, among other things, who will go to the gas chamber. If we accept many definitions circulating today (among them the Webster as well as Schmid’s “academic consensus definition”), Harry Truman was a terrorist for authorizing nuclear attacks on Japan. I won’t repeat here what I wrote elsewhere (“From Pontius to Pilate: The Perils of Bureau-pathic Thinking about Terrorism.” http://www.artipot.com/articles/401225/from-pontius-to-pilate-the-perils-of-bureau-pathic-thinking-about-terrorism.htm ). The long and short of it: by my definition (see above post), Truman was not a terrorist. Nor were Eisenhower, Churchill, and others who authorized or participated in the bombing of Dresden. Morally, they may have been right, they may have been wrong: they were not terrorists.

I agree with Glenn that no government should be let off the hook simply by defining “terrorist” as necessarily a “subnational” entity. A “terrorist government,” then, is not an oxymoron. However, that viewpoint presents a new set of challenges and responsibilities. Condemning all governments everywhere does not meet them.

Per the definition that you are referring to, EVERY country would be labeled a terrorist (state), especially the countries in the Middle East and Africa (to include Israel). Take for instance Saddam Hussein’s gas attacks against the Kurds! or the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks. It would be absurd to only point fingers at the United States.

That is why they are adjusting the definitions, because a lot of definitions are just too broad. Each agency tries to narrow their focus to areas that they can effectively combat.

politically correct lawyer speak= BS

I hope you will find the following definition of terrorist to be helpful.

Highest regards,
Thomas Belvedere
Author of “The Source of Terrorism: Middle Class Rebellion” (published May 2009).

A terrorist is usually a middle class rebel (1) experiencing magnified marginal or transitional conditions, who (2) voluntarily (3) goes through certain rites of passage, among which are (4) clique membership and (5) a deliberate decision to commit a criminal act that is almost always (6) violent and usually (7) murder, in (8) the name of higher intentions or convictions without (9) retaining consciously the ambiguity of his criminal act and his higher intentions/convictions. He expresses powerful, unconscious, ambivalent emotions in two ways: (10) converting his intentions/convictions into idées fixes or absolute truths, the opposite extreme from ambiguity, and (11) wielding uncertainty as a weapon. That uncertainty is total, as shown by the fact that (12) everyone — allies, non-combatants, even himself — is a potential victim. A concluding note: it is the syndrome, the running together of components, which counts — not specific components taken in isolation.

By not admitting what he cannot admit, the terrorist guards his secret, even from himself.

By not admitting what he is, the terrorist shows the gravity that admission holds for him. To my knowledge, no terrorist or other middle class rebel has ever said what he is.

What he is, is the secret he keeps: he is a middle class rebel.

Thanks for your invaluable input.