h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

By your definition, the wartime bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be considered acts of terrorism, in that most of the victims were innocents.

Yes they could, but war is also a terroist act, claiming as its principle victim, the truth. Hiroshima and nagasaki were also terrorist acts as they were a demand for Japanese surrender and seen as a means to an end.

Which makes the definition of terrorism so broad that it's useless.

Youv'e stumbled upon the truth that alot of the time terrorism seems useless with no gains, except by those that perpetuate it and support it

I was talking about the defintion rather thant the actual practice. Terrorism is effective. Look at what an effect al-Qaeda had last year. Israel was founded by terrorists as a result of their terrorist campaign against the British. The Palestinians are virtually guaranteed an internationally recognized state as a result of forty years of terrorism. It can be effective.

It's not always effective in the way you would think. In the early 1990s the patriot and militia movement was gaining steam. The Oklahoma City Bombing took the wind out of their sails. A lot of people were sympathetic to the patriot movement, but they didn't want to be associated with terrorism. So a lot of people dropped out.

The israelis had american backingm truman recognised them in an instant and apathy is normally a key player in successful terrorist campaigns. State supported or funded terrorism is the most likely to succeed or be noticed, just look at the IRA and the libyans (and some american finance)that has enabled them to fight for 30 years, and win some concessions.

The West routinely targets civilians, on much larger scales than Irish, Spanish, Arab, or any "terrorists" (I prefer the term "militants").