Political action becomes terrorism when it uses intimidation and fear rather than persuasion to achieve its ends.

I’m not refusing to call a spade a spade, I’m calling one a trowel and one a post-hole digger.

With regards to your second paragraph, I think a lot of serious crimes get pushed to the back burners and don’t get the justice the deserve because they are difficult to prosecute in the international–and even national–community. Rape, for example, is often ignored and statistically underreported because it can be so difficult to successfully prosecute. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call a spade a spade in either case.

I get your frustration with not calling state acts of terror “terrorism” because I understand how that might seem like giving state-sponsored violence a pass. But unfortunately, you have to deal with state violence in the international community, which, as we all know, is fickle. I think a danger lies in labeling such acts as “terrorism” and then not punishing it due to politics/logistics, thereby seeming to excuse terrorism in the abstract. I also think it de-emphasizes that non-state actors, for the most part, commit terrorism because they cannot commit violence overtly through a state institution.

The sheer number of terrorism definitions indicates that these kinds of difficult scenarios are everywhere. It’s hard to make these things “always,” because when intent is involved it becomes much grayer. In many cases, the distinction is definitely a circumstantial one.

I may have exhausted my coherent thoughts on the matter at this point, but we’ll see what comes up.

I appreciate the thoughtful conversation with all of you on what tends to be a very difficult topic.

I think the question in regards to Matthew Shepard is whether or not fear was the intent or the consequence. If the attack was because of his sexuality, as originally reported and backed up by some parts of testimony, then I would probably classify it as a hate crime directed at homosexuals as a group with this individual being the target, thus fitting my own definition of terrorism.

On the other hand, if it was just a violent attack on an individual, then the fear was a secondary consequence and not the purpose.

I’m inclined to go with the former, just because Shepard seems to have been targeted because of his sexuality even though the perpetrators tried to shy around that to keep from being prosecuted for hate crimes, but I will stand by my opinion that not all violence is terrorism. People are afraid of violence, yes, but it becomes terrorism when the person who committed the violent act did so for the PURPOSE of making people change their actions or opinions out of fear.

I’ve done some scholarly study of this stuff. I’m by no means an expert, but I’ve been around the block on the arguments.

Brunn was living within just a few miles of my house. I absolutely do not feel safe now, as a Jewish person and a member of the same artist community he was, living here any more.