> Isn't terrorism the use or threat of violence and destruction to achieve a political goal?
No, it isn't. It is the act of instilling terror. It seems like a small nuance, but it's different. Sadly, the the ambiguity in the definition lends itself to politicians, and modern use seems to be shifting to be more in-line with your definition of it, as you can see in the link I provided.
Interestingly, the first use of it was in context to a government terrorizing citizens during the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution.[0]
> No, it isn't [use or threat of violence to achieve a political goal]. It's the act of instilling terror.
I think it is, but those two definitions are connected.
When you make the people afraid, that tends to have an implied political goal. Fear will drive the voters to put political pressure on government to do something.
No, it isn't. It is the act of instilling terror. It seems like a small nuance, but it's different. Sadly, the the ambiguity in the definition lends itself to politicians, and modern use seems to be shifting to be more in-line with your definition of it, as you can see in the link I provided.
Interestingly, the first use of it was in context to a government terrorizing citizens during the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution.[0]
[0]:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism