July 2005 (UTC)
Your assumptions as to my intentions are incorrect.  I am not motivated to convince you of anything.  I am not motivated to include any specific example.  As I've stated quite clearly, and my actions verify, I am here to create an NPOV definition of terrorism.  You can help those of us who are trying to resolve the NPOV dispute by suggesting wording that does not create a primary or secondary source.  Your entire introduction is a historic generalization which would be considered a secondary source if it were based on axioms or primary sources.  Even if the creation of secondary sources were allowed in Wikipedia (which it is not), I can't find any credible evidence to support the assertions you derive.  If you are honestly trying to promote an objective introduction for terrorism, I suggest that you help us start from the beginning and add descriptions that can be cited or that are at least generally accepted by other editors.    18:30, 23