Should word terrorism be abolished

Should the word terrorism be abolished?
The word terrorism shouldn’t be abolished, due to the fact there has to be a specific word to classify those who ‘use of fear, violence, and intimidation toachieve an end’, ‘the system of government that uses fear to rule’ and ‘the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population in order to bring about a particular politicalobjective’. If we look for the definition of criminal in the dictionary we will find ‘Guilty of crime’, or ‘One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime’; neither of these definitionsof criminal are close to the definition of the word terrorism, because it goes beyond, a terrorist it’s not only someone who commits a crime or is a murderer, is a person or a group of people who useterror in order to achieve an objective. This objective is usually related to the gain of power, the desire of wealth, the “defense” of one’s religion and the revenge.
Terrorism then, is violence bythe weak against the strong and by the strong against the weak. In this order we could say terrorism was evidence in the in 911 attacks, in the bombing of Baghdad by George Bush, in US embassybombings done by Egyptian Islamic Jihad, in 1993 Bombay Bombings done by an underground Islamic group from Pakistan, in Oklahoma City Bombing and in Nogal Club bombing in Colombia done by the farc. These arejust some terrorist attacks that have occurred in our history, attacks that cannot be called another way, because they match perfectly with the definition of terrorism given previously in this essay.On the other hand, if we abolish the word terrorism, then we should abolish many words on our language that describe a person or a group of people which harm, discriminate or diminish anothergroup, as racism. Although this words are controversial and strong, we need them to refer to this groups of this people, because there are no other words which can replace terms as terrorism or racism,...