Terrorism is entirely and inexcusably horrific. There is no debate about that. Unclear though is what exactly constitutes terrorism. It seems like every group and government has a different idea of what the set definition should be. Even the United Nations has yet to agree on a description. Different countries are obviously going to look at terrorism differently, depending on how it effects them specifically. In addition, it is hard to pinpoint exactly what terrorism is, as it takes on many forms. Americans have a very different idea of what terrorism is than do some groups of people living in Arab states -- and neither thinks they're wrong. Within the United States, there is also divergence on the classification of terrorism, even between the FBI and the State Department definitions. So whose definition should we use to dictate lawful and unlawful use of force in international situations?

The U.S. war on terror needs to decide this as it goes. Whereas states have boundaries and overtly public leaders that are kept up to date on what other states are doing, terrorist organizations are effective because their tactics require secrecy, and they are virtually undetectable on a map. Bush has proposed the "if you're not with us, you're against us" philosophy, citing that any country that harbors terrorists is themselves promoting terrorism. So what does that mean if terrorists are unknowingly living in the United States? Terrorists have proven they can counterfeit documents and they have trained in our military camps and our universities. Does the rule still apply if their presence is unknown to the government?

There are far too many questions that need to be answered and not enough agreement to do so.

The U.S. State Department currently defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." However, an Official Declaration of Arab States wishes to exclude "peoples [who] combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means ... in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-definition" from the category of "terrorist." This statement would eliminate Palestinian suicide bombers and those involved in recent attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. In this case, it seems to be all a matter of perception.

Furthermore, is an act still considered terrorism if it is carried out by a sub-national group but funded by a valid state? In the 1980s, the United states armed and financed the Afghan mujahideen when it was fighting Soviet forces who had invaded their country. The mujahideen (including then member Osama bin Laden) used what would be considered acts of terror against civilian targets, such as blowing up schools and torturing and murdering captured Russian soldiers.

The State Department's definition in this case leaves a fuzzy line between freedom fighter and terrorist.

Terrorism is no longer just used to describe civilian tragedy carried out by sub-national organizations, but is beginning to be used to get attention. The United Nations Child Welfare Agency (Unicef) has named the sexual exploitation of children a "form of terrorism." Americansforwar.com, a radical Web site, lists Phish guitarist Trey Anastasio as a terrorist. The site also lists Anastasio as the number four future target for war (among Libya, the Undersecretary for Policy in the Defense Department Douglas Feith, Iran, France, and SUV drivers) because he "supports terrorism" by endorsing movements advocating the prohibition of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and thus increasing dependency on foreign oil.

Due to the uncertainty of definition, the BBC in some cases refuses to even use the word "terrorist," and instead substitutes words such as "militants." It's as if the word that is capable of breaking so many hearts and lives has now been turned into a rhetorical strategy.

Controversial and infamous political analyst Noam Chomsky compared the terrorism scare to that of the Communism scare in the 1920s: "If you want to press some agenda, you play the terrorism card."

In a sense, Chomsky is right. Not to say that all actions taken in the name of protecting the world from terrorism aren't in fact motivated by a terrorist threat, but the general public is more likely to respond in a supportive manner if the word "terrorist" is used over something like "unlawful attacker" or "militant."

Whatever the case may be, beware of the wording used to inform you of the latest threat to national security. Terrorism is an awful and horrifying thing to deal with, but purposeful civilian deaths should be considered no less tragic if they are carried out by a government.

Be as sure as possible that you know that the action being described is indeed terrorism before labeling someone or some group a terrorist; otherwise, the word itself will dictate your desires and fears.