Terrorism

Does terrorism really work as an effective means of achieving an ultimate goal? It seems that many believe that terrorism can be wielded as an effective means of conducting warfare, making political statements, and achieving goals. Yet, terrorism remains a difficult topic to address because it is a subjective term that we as a society have long struggled with an adequate objective definition for the term. If we are unable to reach a consensus on what specifically labels an incident as a terrorist attack, how then can we adequately combat it? Can we truly allow someone to serve as the governing body that determines whether an act is of a terrorist nature or not? Even if we were to do so, how can we trust that the governing body or entity responsible for determining terrorism is being objective in its decision? Some believe that terrorism has a clear-cut definition and thus any act can be easily identified as a terrorist act or not. I disagree emphatically with such an asinine assumption. Putting aside the difficulties involving properly defining the term, the question I have battled with for some time is whether terrorism is an effective means of achieving a goal or not. Can we actually believe that killing innocent people will bring sympathy to our cause and force the surrender of the opposing side? On the other hand, maybe we do not seek sympathy, we instead wish to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies and by doing so, and they will be unwilling to wage war on us. Either rationale has both its pros and cons, but I think history has provided us with some notable examples of both success and failure involving terrorist organizations. This again is subjective, as the concept of victory can be heavily debated when it comes to the following examples. Lets' join our hands and fight against terrorism :)