"Terror" is an abstract noun. How do you have a war against it?
535000
By discrediting its methods and success. Terror is not a noun either. It is a abstract concept. That said, militarily, you can't win a war on terror unless you kill everyone, which would mean no agents for terror to use. \n\nRationally, to win, one must win the hearts and minds and show that terror doesn't work in achieving goals. \n\nSuffice to say, we aren't doing a very good job.
779544
Terrorism.  Fighting against a uniformed military or government is always easier than a nameless, faceless cowardly ideology.  Cold war leader knew that if a thermonuclear war occurred, they would be destroyed as well.  Terrorist follow a leader who hides in the shadows and tells it's followers to kill and die for their cause.  It's always harder to kill an enemy that lurks in the darkness,
42063
ter•ror•ism   (t r  -r z  m) n. \n\nThe unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.\n\nThe American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition\nCopyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.\nPublished by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.\n\n*************** \n\nMain Entry: ter•ror•ism\nPronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m\nFunction: noun\n1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion\n2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter•ror•ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter•ror•is•tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective \n\nMerriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc\n\n************** \nterrorism\nn : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]\nWordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
847739
We will be attack  again by terrorist. Not necessary Laden. It is not "IF: it is : when:
84703
Definition by US Gov't.:  "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."\n\nThis word is used a lot lately in very imprecise ways.  For example, Iraqis who blow up US troops are not terrorists, because the troops are not noncombatants.  To call any government or any person working for any government "terrorist" is a contradiction in terms.  This doesn't mean that they may not be behaving in inappropriate ways, just that people should find something else to call them.\n\nFor example, if it is discovered that the men who carried out the Trade Center attacks were actually working for the government of, say, Iran, (and I am not implying that they were) then they would no longer be called "terrorists."  They would be "enemy combatants."  This is a distinction which is particulary relevant in the current political climate.
1093736
I doubt it.  Terrorism isn't limited to just Al Qaeda.  Terrorist, freedom fighter, guerilla, it's all synonymous.  As long as people are unhappy enough with the government in power in their country enough to die fighting it, there will be terrorism.
887677
Instilling fear in people is terrorism, eg. "shock and awe", "all options are on the table".  \n\nAnyone who uses force or the threat of force to coerce others into compliance and obedience is a terrorist.  \n\n"War is terrorism practiced by the rich.  \nTerrorism is war practiced by the poor."\n- unknown\n\n\n.
453378
George Bush\n\n      Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. - US Federal Bureau of Investigation\n\nRead the sentence carefully. You didn’t hear it on any corporate media newscast since 9/11. It’s the official US FBI definition of terrorism.  In its official definition, the FBI does not limit terrorism to stateless individuals or groups. In its official definition, the FBI does not suggest that terrorism cannot be perpetrated by the leader of a nation state. But even more amazing is that the official FBI definition of terrorism describes exactly what George Bush did in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11!\n\nAPPLYING THE DEFINITION\n\n    *\n      George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory.  The Charter's core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.\n    *\n      The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded by the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. His Shock and Awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership. That, in itself, was a political objective.\n    *\n      The purpose of the invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq was to replace the existing dictatorship with an American-backed form of democracy that would not permit the emergence of a government headed by the majority Shia religious leadership.  These motives were unquestionably political and social.\n\nSo, what part of the FBI definition of “terrorism” do the voters of the United States not understand?  And what acts of terrorism as defined by the FBI do the voters of the United States not recognize?  Is there any doubt at all that the Bush administration committed acts of terrorism when it unlawfully used force and violence against the nation of Iraq to intimidate and coerce its government and the civilian population, in furtherance of the Bush/PNAC political and social objectives.\n\nTherefore, by any definition, if George W. Bush is guilty of terrorism, he can accurately be identified as a TERRORIST. And if he is truly a terrorist, it is only fitting that George W. Bush be scrutinized in terms of his success in that capacity.  What is his standing among the other murderous terrorist activity in the world today?  Is it possible that George W. Bush actually has claim to being the very BEST at something during his reign in office?
205378
Terrorism = acts of violence commited against non-combatants (that includes civilians and auxiliary military personnel and any military that's not actively involved in an open armed conflict) with the purpose of harming the psychological balance of the enemy (basically seeding terror within an opponent's ranks).\n\nThe men fighting US and UK in Iraq (and elsewhere where US and UK have troops on soil other than their own) are basically freedom fighters. But when they employ tactics that are ment to seed fear rather than obtain tactical advantages over a declared enemy, that makes them terrorists also.\n\nHowever even here there's a fine line as some freedom fighters commit terrorists acts others don't. The difference is even more obscured by the fact that US declared a war on terror and if such a notion is to be taken seriously (though normally it isn't enough to just say you're at war and actually considered to be at war lawfully) then the attacks against US personnel in Iraq can't be considered terrorist acts, since it's war.\n\nIf another country occupied mine I would fight by any means I see fit. There is only one justified reason for occupation and that is if the occupied country has requested foreign military intervention through recognized representatives that speak for an accepted majority of the country. Sometimes the UN can authorize military intervention on a country's soil if that country has commited repeated acts of aggresion against UN members or the violent conflict within a country threatens the territorial integrity of a UN member. If my country would be at fault for any of these, I would join the occupation force (which wouldn't be called an occupation force anyway).\n\nAs such, the US presence in Iraq isn't justified and is also illegal. The US campaign there was accomplished with the use of lies, deception and acts of terrorism performed by US military (attacks against civilian population, economic embargo even of humanitarian products, the 'oil-for-food' extorsion attempt - some which were conveniently called mistakes, a very unbelievable excuse from the most modern army in the world which also claims high moral principles).\n\nAgain, as such we can identify two types of terrorism: classic terrorism (performed by international organisations such as Al-Qaeda or national such as ETA or IRA that usually employs physical violence: guns, bombs, etc) and neo-terrorism (or state-terrorism - performed by a nation against another, state-endorsed which employs methods of economic coercion, indirect violence against civilian population such a economic embargo, high prices for food and water, etc commonly performed by US, Israel and sometimes China outside of international lawmaking agencies such as UNESCO and UN).\n\n--- to bungiebabe (edit): it will be a challenge to find the source which I copy/pasted simply because it doesn't exist. All answers I give come from my personal experience and research (I am correspondent on Middle East issues for some newspapers in my area, which is why I tend to answer this type of questions) and sometimes I credit Noam Chomsky and Annabel McGoldrick for quotations, but I don't copy paste. My main source is, as always if you've followed my posts, www.un.org and the UN list of General Assembly resolutions and Security Council resolutions.
995647
What war on terrorism?\nThe United States of America are acting as terrorists themselves  insisting on that stupid war.
1093408
Military people aren't weak minded...they are governed and deployed by the weak minded.\n\nWe've no business fighting a "War on Terrorism".  Terrorists are fighting for an ideal and it's an ideological conflict that we're in.  To say we're at war is a misnomer because you can't fight an invisible enemy (an ideal).  Two armies suqaring off is a war...guerillas fighting for a belief against an army or government is a conflict.
1042231
terrorism is a word was called by the west for all what is against america and what america and israel wanna do. so it is so hard thesedays to distinguish between who fights for freedom and who has the hobby of killing people!!\nlet me ask u a question now myself... if u were sitting peacefully in ur house and suddenly a stranger jumped from the window and tried to kick u out of ur house, the house that u love all ur life, so as a corresponding action u brought a gun and killed him or injured him to defence ur house and urself, who is the terrorist?? u or the stranger?
1113589
terrorism: s defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
62937
Everybody has his right to express opinion. There are critics who say A, there are others who say B. I personally think war is wrong, terror is wrong. War brings more terror. Terror brings more war. Please focus on trying to end both war and terror, blaming one another as the source of problems won't do any good.
791487
You are correct.  According to the Bush definition, anyone who blows up a cliinic is a terrorist.  I'm sure you have answers denying this, saying that to blow up a clinic is somehow patriotic, but terrorism is terrorism - to attempt to stop someone by scaring them with violence.
527579
Terrorism is an extreme act in opposition to something or someone you personally value.  \n\nThe "legal right to fight against occupation" is an extreme act in support of something or someone you personally value.\n\nOne person's patriot is another person's terrorist.
74042
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.\nwww.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm\n\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Terrorist\n\nThe exact definition of terrorism is highly controversial. According to one of the primary working definitions, it is the unconventional use of violence against civilians for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).