As the website explains, the original definition behind the collection was:

“The threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.”

A subsequent version has expanded the definition to include:

“The intentional act of violence or threat of violence by a non-state actor. In addition, two of the following three criteria also had to be met for inclusion in GTD2:

The violent act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal;

The violent act included evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) other than the immediate victims; and

The violent act was outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law.”

This new version attempts to synthesize the two data-sets consistent with the expanded definition.

I much preferred the original definition. Terrorism is a serious threat. But as we have already seen in some US prosecutions, there is a temptation to fuse and confuse criminal acts with terrorist acts, which I do not believe is in the long-term interest of effective counter-terrorism or the preservation of our constitutional liberties. It is better, I think, for terrorism to be narrowly defined.

There are lies, damned lies, and STATISTICS?