different definitions of terrorism, and made some good points. One thing I
like to think about is the specific purpose of these U.S. agencies which have
different definitions. Some of these agencies, which have these definitions,
are tasked with other jobs besides simply attempting to stop terrorism.
Q1. Do you think that these agencies tailor their definition of terrorism to fit their
individual needs? In other words, do they tailor the definition so that they
justify their purpose for investigating the terrorists?
Q2. Does violence have to included in the act of terrorism for it to really be terrorism? Can you provide any examples of terrorists acts that are non-violent?