Richard (2014) study approached terrorism as a mode of violence, appropriated by different groups, states, and ideologies. His definition of terrorism is a product of three key assumptions: a. No act of violence “is in and of itself inherently terrorist” (p. 222). According to the author, terrorist’s events are products of a host of violence-based techniques such as bombing, kidnapping for ransom, theft, hostage taking, and more. These approaches are not unique to terrorist organisations, but are also employed by different groups, from social movements to ‘legitimate’ states. However, the techniques adopted become terrorist, only when layers of meaning are applied. b. Terrorism as a method of violence is vastly applied across groups, causes and ideologies (p. 224). Terrorism as a method of violence relates to the end-game of a particular act of violence, which is mainly to terrorise; not the specific techniques adopted. The author asserted, therefore, that since this method has been adopted by different groups, there is a need to distinguish terrorist groups, from groups that employ the strategy. c. Terrorist attacks are not only targeted at civilians or non-combatants (p. 226) Terrorists attack just about anyone, at times of peace or warfare, as long as the victims or object of attack serve sufficiently as message generators to a wider group or audience. He conceptualised terrorism thus: “the use of violence or the threat of violence with the primary purpose of generating a psychological impact beyond the immediate victims or object of attack for a political motive” (p. 230) While Richard’s definition included the psychological component, an element, which for many is a core definer of terrorism, it still had not met the criteria for scientific definitions. This is especially because intent cannot be readily empirically determined. According to De la Roche (2004) That others may use the term terrorism pejoratively-or that violent actors or their opponents may like or dislike the word-is irrelevant to a scientific definition of the phenomenon. A definition is not a value judgment and cannot be evaluated from a moral or ideological point of view. And because it is a conceptual rather than a factual or explanatory statement, a definition cannot be evaluated as right or wrong. Instead we evaluate a scientific definition solely by its usefulness in the ordering of facts (p. 1) Opposing this view, Richard (2014) had maintained that since terrorists m>