1.Do you think the international community will agree with a strict definition of international terrorism in?

Answer 1

I don't see why they wouldnt. terrorism is pretty much already defined internationally.
But out of curiosity what do 'you' mean by strict definition?

Answer 2

No, it is very unlikely.
First, because the terrorism is not an unusual phenomenon, to contrary - it is one of the methods of pressure in international politics.
The proof is Iranian role in supporting Hezbollah movement against Israel in 2006 summer campaign. The Israelis have failed to meet the ends of their military action - i.e. disarm Hezbollah and release captured Israeli soldiers. Besides, Israelis have suffered big losses in terms of armoured vehicles and tanks. In American mass-media there were claims that russians have assisted Hezbollah with RPG-26 and antitank laser guided missiles. The Russian side has denied that, and ultimately it became evident that Tehran has supported Hezbollah with weapons made under Russian license.
Another case is that Shia militia, like Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army or Badr Corps. They are connected and trained by Iran's Revolutionary corps.
So this may be a substantial evident for claiming that iran will never agree to Israel supported definition of international terrorism.
And Israel or India or Kazakhstan will never agree to terrorism definition provided by palestine, Pakistan or Kyrgyzstan and etc.
Finally, the claim is that international community consists of G-8 countries who have totally different comprehension of the world affairs than 3rd world countries like India, Phillipines and Somalia have.

Answer 3

There is already a definition of terrorism. If the international community agrees, we can end it.

Answer 4

did they ever agree on anything.