We need a clear definition of "threat."

The War on Terror was a farce. It was about money-hungry capitalists using terrorism as an excuse to invade foreign territories and gather resources. To make more money. And the whole time they said it was “to make the world safe for democracy.” No thinking person listens to that argument.
Now, the word “terrorism” is too broad. We need a clear and concise definition of threat. Who poses a threat? Why does that person and/or group pose a threat? What can be done to quell or eliminate such threat?
Is instigation a threat? At this point, certain aspects of free speech might be considered threatening.

I uphold that the definition of terrorism is “using fear to motivate others.” I would argue that the authorities do that today in ways that are utterly immoral, and I would argue that the War on Terror is a “war on suicide bombers.” To win a war on suicide bombers, you do not attack and meet them head on as we have done; that is antithetical to the mission. It is the exact opposite of what should be done to defeat terror. To defeat ruthless, savage suicide bombers, we need sensible, thinking people to rise above. They are TRYING to get a rise out of us, and by invading their territory, they are succeeding in getting a rise. They are instigators. If you let the instigators get to you, you are already losing.

If we want to win the War on Suicide Bombers, we don’t let them get to us. We Keep Calm and Carry On, we don’t “Stay Strong.” That implies that we are scared. They are trying to scare us. If you let them scare you, you are letting them win.