State terrorism
While the most common modern usage of the word terrorism refers to civilian-victimising political violence by insurgents or conspirators, several scholars make a broader interpretation of the nature of terrorism that encompasses the concepts of state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. Michael Stohl argues, "The use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents. Stohl clarifies, however, that "[n]ot all acts of state violence are terrorism. It is important to understand that in terrorism the violence threatened or perpetrated, has purposes broader than simple physical harm to a victim. The audience of the act or threat of violence is more important than the immediate victim."
USA Act and the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act
The primary difference between the USA Act and FISA is the definition of terrorism. In FISA, terrorism is limited to acts that are "backed by a foreign power." The phrase "foreign power" is commonly regarded as "foreign government". Focus on Al Qaeda after September 11 raised the issue that there are terrorists who are not backed by a foreign government and even those who may act completely alone. In the USA Act, terrorism was redefined to be activity that appears to be intended to (1) intimidate or coerce the government or civil population AND (2) breaks criminal laws AND (3) endangers human life.