Terrorism is definitely one of the most powerful and most emphasized words that depict an outstanding situation in present times. Since the September 11 attack on the WTC on the US soil and the consequent scenario as created by the US authority, terrorism has thereafter been the dominant issue in a quest to define it. Although there is no clear definition most people tend to incline in favor of perpetrating premeditated violence by instilling fear and death on civilian populations with an aim achieving political, religious and ideological goals (Borum, 2004).
As we continue with our scrutiny to find the most accurate definition, it is obvious that there are varieties of contradictions that limit our struggle. First, we realize that as time goes by, the whole aspect is being subjected to changes that involve a terrorist’s ideology and the ever-changing scope from country to country. This includes the new truths that emerge on a daily basis and not only do they influence the character of the perpetrators but they influence our second limitation where fighting for other people’s freedom is regarded as terror by another people or by popular culture. On the other hand, psychologists and other scholars alike have failed to align to an infinite concept due to the vast ideas and reasons for this act that, dictate a need to define it on a seemingly tough plural basis. In addition, errs that characterize current definitions are bound to knowingly or unknowingly implicate innocent or justifiable victims and reliance on the magnitude of murders committed contradicts several acts of violence as orchestrated by several governments in faraway lands such as Iraq (Cryan, 2004).
The other form of limitation lies in the tendency to justify and implement a universal worldview on the act, but it is hard to validate ideas from a certain portion of the world as the basis of judgment for this act. Therefore, my view holds that the biggest obstacle towards a definition is the amount of freedom that governments posses in when they inflict forms of violence on foreign populations and eventually qualify as symbols of democracy. This, therefore, creates a double standard view since governments and terrorists inflicting violence act under the same motives that entail political or ideological goals (Kingsley, 2001). In conclusion, this main obstacle leaves many people with the idea that the means are justified by the end. Meaning that each of the two factions, government and terrorist, target a certain cause and are justifiable either way in relation to the people they represent and thus complicate the definition.