I was somewhat aghast when reading the definitions of terrorism put up by the class for the mid-term.  So many of them were so vague, and so wide.  I presented my thoughts to my pen pal:

Me: There is a lot of disagreement over what terrorism is, and who qualities as a terrorist.  I think that the label “terrorist” is being applied too widely these days.  People who are doing bad things in any variety of ways are labeled as terrorists by the US.  Do you think this is the case?
Bubble’s answer was rather long, dealing with what her definition of terrorism was (“For me terrorism is about acts of violence (damage, killings) done by people in the name of their bigger group (country, religion). Acts of violence done on people that have nothing to do with it, people who are not part of a army nor the government.”), and then continuing more to the topic.
Her conclusion, in short, was that people do use terrorism as a catch-all for anything that scares them or hurts them.  Why?  Because terrorist attacks leave “deep psychological wounds” on an affected country.  So, in her point of view, when Lexy says terrorism is undefinable and that “Terrorism is fear and as long as fear exists then so will terrorism.  It is living and breathing and omnipresent,” this is because Lexy associates fear with terrorism, and thus terrorism is fear.
Which, I suppose, makes sense, but certainly was not along the lines of my thought process – I was grasping for the utility of a wider definition.  Perhaps the wide definition of terrorism comes from governmental usage, which comes from “terrorism” being a great rallying call to action.  I didn’t think of the wide definitions just being a natural result of terrorism.
No offense to Lexy or anyone else with a wide definition of terrorism.  I’m just kinda obsessive with technical and precise definitions.