Frank said:

>If innocents were killed when there was no possibility of killing
>military or politicals and without the possibility of settling an
>issue, it is to me pure terrorism.

I would argue that defining terrorism is similar to the problem of defining pornography. Pornography is almost impossible to define but most people can recognize pornography when they see it.

I think most reasonable Americans or Europeans would agree that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Towers was an act of terrorism. However Osama bin Laden or a Jihadii would probably argue that 9/11 was justified payback for US support of Israel. At a more pragmatic level, bin Laden probably saw the 9/11 attack as necessary to further the credibility of Al Qaeda as Islam's main military force against the United States and to attract future funding and recruits. From bin Laden's perspective, 9/11 settled some very important issues. I think a terrorist like bin Laden would argue that 9/11 does not fall under Frank's definition of terrorism.

Gary