Another challenge confronting the definition of terrorism is probably linked to the various contexts in which the word is applied. For example, Schmid’s (2004a) article: Frameworks for conceptualising terrorism, described the various contexts in which terrorism is applied: “crime, politics, war, propaganda and religion” (p. 197). Although the author presented five conceptual lenses for examining terrorism, which would contribute to a robust understanding of the concept. He, however, also noted the limitation of the framework, as not being all-encompassing. This suggests that the breath of application of the concept, opens it up to several interpretations and thus, serves as another obstacle to the adoption of a unitary definition. Still on the subject of the various contextualisation of terrorism, Santiago Ballina refuted the existence of a clear cut distinction between crime and terror, a dichotomous relationship where crime are regarded as mainly profit – and terrorism as ideologically-driven (Ballina, 2011). The author’s CVO three-dimensional model, however, highlights the possible existence of hybrid organisations that could alternate between profit and ideology, due primarily to their social cultural environment (pp. 130-131). According to Lizardo (2008), other inhibiting factors to the emergence of a unified definition are results of some of the already existing definitions of the concept proffered by authors in the field. Lizardo asserted that the extant definitions fall within the ambience of vagueness or over specificity; place salience on some terrorism elements or the various groups that execute acts of terror (p. 91). Considering the broad frame of violent groups that employ this tactic, arriving at a definition would be challenging. For Grob-Frizgibbon (2005), some of the definitions are too inclusive (p. 235), while neglecting the vast applicability of the strategy as well as the distinctions between the groups that adopt the approach. According to the >