" 

 == Countervalue definition of terrorism == 

 OK, so I propose we have a new definition of terrorism, one that focuses on the violent action, its executor, its target, and its intended effect. I think its a logical application of the vocabulary developed in the game theory analysis of nuclear war scenarios. It is basically the classification of an violent (i.e. essentially military) action as being counterforce or countervalue. 

 In this generalized definition, we focus on the main complaint against terrorists, in that they usually target non-combatants, and rely on high publicity to promote their agenda. Terrorist organizations that strike against non-combatants are essentially exhibiting countervalue targeting behavior. Precisely because most are small and stateless, they cannot engage their enemies (in the contemporary global context, this is often an industrialized and developed country) in a symmetrical ""conventional"" counterforce military operation and expect to win. Therefore, attempts to change behaviors or policies in the richer country through military (that is to say violent) action will not work.  

 This is why these organizations logically pursue asymmetrical conflict models, and strike at countervalue targets instead of counterforce targets. The other main complaint against terrorist actions is that they occur without warning, without a declaration of the state of war 

 Therefore the main criteria for terrorism becomes whether the target selected is countervalue, and whether the organization in question clearly declares the geographical and otherwise physical extent of its military operations. This is related to the countervalue vs. counterforce targeting issue, as pre-defining the theatre of war physically allows non-combatants a chance to escape the area before fighting begins. In countervalue targeting, you don't do this precisely because the non-combatants are the target."