The quest to establish a universal definition of terrorism is entangled in questions of law, history, philosophy, morality, and religion by nature, a subjective definition that eludes large-scale consensus. Terrorism is defined differently in different countries, nations, and even federal or state law enforcement departments. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (NIJ). The UN definition of terrorism is “any action, in addition to those already specified by existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004), intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act constitutes terrorism? Implications for counterterrorism policy. I think the United States could be accused of terrorist acts, we are considered domineering and aggressive by many. The attack in Japan could easily be considered a terrorist act, which essentially instilled fear in many people. We have probably committed many acts and will commit acts of terrorism; it will always be somehow justified between governments. The reason for this would be the lack of a fully universal identification of what defines terrorism; it is even bad when the United Nations fails to fully define terrorism. 80% of countries around the world have a broad definition of terrorism and those that have a robust definition of terrorism, such as the UK, could be identified as an almost borderline invasion of human rights. MY DEFINITION OF TERRORISM WOULD BE ANY ACT OF VIOLENCE BY A GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL WHO VIOLATES NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT LAWS, TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON ANY PERSON, COMMUNITY OR ANY NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT FOR POLITICAL, PERSONAL BENEFIT OR RELIGIONAL