Do you know anybody who's in favor of "terrorism"?  I don't.

                      The United Nations Security Council came out against it after little or no debate.  The world is
                      virtually unanimous in its opposition to "terrorism”.

                      Why the quotes around the word?  Because after we all agree the attack on the World Trade
                      Center was terrorism, the UN, and the rest of us, still need a definition to differentiate other
                      events.

                      Terrorism, standing alone, seems to involve some or all of the following elements:

                      - An ideological or political purpose (not conventional criminal acts).

                      - The desire to cause "terror" as much as human or physical destruction.

                      - Attacks on specific, or random, persons.

                      - Destruction of essential infrastructure or other physical property.

                      - A desire to die in the effort (unlike military personnel).

                      It's hard to define in terms of terrorists' actions.  Their techniques -- bombing bridges,
                      infiltration, assassination, hand-to-hand combat -- are things our military special forces and
                      CIA agents are trained to do. Surely they aren't terrorists.

                      There is an only half-humorous definition of a terrorist as "someone who has a bomb but
                      doesn't have an airplane”.  That is, terrorism usually involves attacks by individuals, as
                      distinguished from a nation's uniformed military.

                      Does this mean that actions dubbed "terrorism" in time of peace become acceptable in time
                      of war?  Apparently so.

                      Our government is at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan.  But is that all it takes to turn
                      "terrorism" into "war" - a president's assertion?  It's not just that there's no Congressional
                      declaration of war.  It's that usually wars are declared against nations.  Bin Laden is not a
                      nation.  Nor, for that matter, is the Taliban.

                      And is it not at least possible that September 11th was masterminded, funded and staffed
                      from Saudi Arabia?  (More of the terrorists were Saudis than were Afghans -- as, indeed, is
                      Bin Laden.)  If so, are we willing to bomb our source of oil?

                      Is President Bush not a terrorist because he orders bombs dropped from military planes, and
                      Bin Laden is because he orders civilian planes to be used as bombs?

                      Surely we don't want to argue that it is only "terrorism" when others do it to us.  And yet, if
                      not, how do we justify "harboring" (the President's word) American Catholics who finance
                      terrorist acts of the IRA against Protestants in Ireland?  Cuban Americans who want to
                      overthrow Castro?

                      What about our "School of the Americas" in Georgia (now "Western Hemisphere Institute for
                      Security Cooperation")?  It's trained those we've called "freedom fighters" in Central and South
                      America.

                      School of the Americas Watch charges that "Graduates of the SOA are responsible for some
                      of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America”.

                      Does that make the SOA a terrorist training camp?  Presumably, our government thinks not.
                      At least there's no known plan to bomb Georgia.

                      What of our mining the harbor in Nicaragua?  This is a terrorist's kind of action.  The World
                      Court condemned it.  The U.S. simply ignored world opinion and the court's judgment.  Would
                      it be terrorism if Nicaraguans provided training in how to place mines in New York City's
                      harbor and sink U.S. ships?  Presumably.  So why was it not terrorism when we did it to
                      them?

                      What of our attempted assassination of Castro?  Our involvement in the overthrow of Salvador
                      Allende's government in Chile?  There were no declarations of war.  What we did couldn't even
                      be justified as retaliation.  No terrorist destruction had been wrought by Cuba or Chile in the
                      United States -- certainly nothing like the September 11th attack.

                      What if a military dictatorship takes over a democratic third world country?  Are we to
                      condemn as "terrorists" those who use all available means to reestablish democracy?  Even if
                      we fund and train them?  What if we back the dictator?

                      And so we come full circle.

                      Apparently, it is not "terrorism" we condemn after all -- aside from that on September 11.
                      Only "unjustified terrorism”.

                      We're all against it.  On that there is unanimity.  Now all we have to do is figure out what "it"
                      is.