Terrorism is nearly as problematic to define as it is to predict and control. Like obscenity, many people are convinced that they know it when they see it, but when pressed for a specific definition, few can provide one. This is partly due to the fact that terrorism, its practitioners, characteristics, and tactics, are diverse and constantly evolving. Also, the terrorist and his victim are unlikely to agree on what constitutes terrorism.
Be that as it may, one of the most comprehensive and widely used definitions of terrorism was formulated by George Bush's 1986 Vice Presidential Task Force on combating terrorism. It states that terrorism is, "The unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals, or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics" (Lacquer, 1987, p. 144). The main problem with this definition is that it places what we might normally consider legitimate resistance to a repressive regime in the same class as obvious terrorism.
Although imperfect, this definition is adequate as a working definition of terrorism for this paper. We can narrow the field of inquiry further by isolating the four subcategories of terrorism: State-sponsored terrorism such as existed in the U.S.S.R. under Stalin and in Romania under Ceaucescu; extreme left or right wing internal terrorism such as practiced by the Grey Wolves of Turkey, the Italian Red Brigade, and the Baader-Meinhof Gang; separatist-nationalist terrorism seen in the Middle East, Ulster, and Spain; and, Latin American terrorism which defies all boundaries and incorporates elements of all three of the latter categories (Lacquer, 1987, p. 203). In this research we will be dealing only with separatist-nationalist terrorism since it is the most well-known and global type of terrorism.
The three best examples of separatist-nationalist te...