In this article I discuss the generally accepted definition of “Terrorism” by considering it extensional and not intentional. The danger of doing so is that from it derives political decisions that lead to the use of force. The lack of objectivity and applicable criteria of the extensional definition makes of it an arbitrary characterization and of your applicability a decision merely political. Besides ontological and epistemological issues of this arbitrary way of defining, it darkens the strategic drawing and makes it more difficult to effectively face this threat. I call the attention for the political use of this word, more frequently used to criminalize groups and social protesters movements, because in this way it is intended to legitimize all types of means of combating, including torture. Because of this I propose to limit the use of the word “terrorist” as an adjective that qualify certain violent actions and avoid using it as a noun referring to groups and strategies. Finally I propose the victimologic approach to the study of terrorism because of its heuristic fertility and explanatory capacity of certain forms of violence.
terrorism; September 11; International Security; political violence; War on Terror