Terrorism Defined

Dictionary.com gives this definition: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. (is this especially? what, we've gotten so lazy we can't even spell the entire word? or is it supposed to be left up to the reader to decide?) for political purposes.

Everyone has been arguing back and forth whether the shooting at Ft. Hood was an act of Terrorism or not. My feeling, looking at the definition is that yes, it most definately is an act of Terrorism. The root of the word is Terror: intense, sharp, overmastering fear.

In what universe are people not terrified when someone walks into a building and starts shooting? I believe that all acts of crazy people shooting large numbers of people should be considered terrorism as they are using violence and threats to induce fear--regardless of their end goal. If your desire is to shoot people who fired you, is that not an attack on citizens of this country? If you feel the need to take out an entire lunch room of kids because some girl broke up with you--that's still the use of violence to coerce people to remember how stupid you were after you're gone.

Why is this sooooo hard for people. Violence=Terror. I understand that there are times when people are just crazy and they want to get back at one person and it goes terribly wrong. But do we not think that someone who is willing to strap a bomb to themselves and walk into a crowded building is crazy? Crazy or not, it's still an act of Terror. And if innocent people are involved, it should be called Terrorism; therefore, if the shooter or bomber manages to make it out alive, they should be prosecuted as such.