The U.S. Department of State (qtd. in Douglas, Kemedi, Okonta, and Watt 2003) classifies acts such as kidnapping, hostage taking, pipeline vandalization, abduction, killings as terrorism. Such acts and many other related ones are carried out to instigate terror among the people or to coerce or provoke the government to act for or against a policy or situation (Cassese 2006:1; Ogundiya 2005:3). Cassese and Ogundiya provide a framework to conceptualize terrorism that involves identifying the conduct, purpose, and motive of such acts under international law (Cassese 3-7). A terrorist act must exhibit a conduct that is criminalized or punishable under the law; its purpose must be to spread terror among the people and to coerce the government or international bodies/ organizations to respond to a need; its motive must be collective rather than personal or private. Resource mobilization theory (Ogundiya 2 qtd. in Beiner 2008) explains the struggle and competition for the control of resources between groups, states, and multinationals. In the case of the Niger-Delta as Ogundiya contextualized it (2), the militants explore Cassese's tripartite framework for their agitations (see Douglas et.al 1). They use the available resources and their unequal distributions system to forge a collective pursuit in order to redress the repressive and exploitative situation (Ogundiya 3). It is under that framework that the militants justify their stance for kidnapping, hostage taking, pipeline vandalization, abduction, killings. They dis-identify (Spivak qtd. in Jarrett 1998) themselves as ''terrorist'' because working under that 'name' implicates their resource control cause. Instead, they re-identify (I am using this in opposition to the negative implication of ''terrorism'') as ''freedom fighters.'' Does doing so vindicate their acts? If they commit crime against civilians during the armed conflicts, they are not justified under humanitarian law (Casses11). Following Cassese's and Ogundiya's framework, the acts of the Niger-Delta militants are classified as terrorism. But are the oil multinationals and the federal government who perpetrated, 1) Odi massacre in 1999, 2) murder of 9 Ogoni in 1995, 3) air and water pollution, 4) environmental degradation among others vindicated in terrorist acts? This study re-conceives terrorism as a (larger) space - physical and conceptual - to accommodate not only the acts of the militants but also anyone whose (explicit or implicit) acts aid crimes against humanity. These acts of violence -- both in their verbal (Austin 1966; Baktin) and physical manifestations -- further provoke the terrorist acts. On such a reading, the acts of the Nigerian government, oil multinationals, the press, international bodies, human right activists, writers of all genres on Niger-Delta conflicts are implicated in this space. Any resolution talk on the conflict which adopts a binary approach - between the militants and the government as it is currently going on in Nigeria - excludes many of the voices which are implicated and those who have a stake in the resolution process (Kuti 1999:3). ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]