If a soldier attacks women and children by order of their government, is that terrorism? Yes, of course, but do we condemn the Sudanese as Terrorists? Are we going to invade Burma because they starve their people to death? Surely that is terrorism -the French wanted to.deliver food by force.

Do we define Terror ONLY if it is Politically Correct and we simply assert they are "enemies of the US"? Is it meaningful to condemn those that fail to throw flowers in our path in Iraq, like VP Chaney predicted, as Terrorists? Was the prediction right and proper?

I know we must be on the side of the angels but, like someone wrote, "the important thing is not whether we assert God is in our side but whether we are on the side of God!" Maybe, just maybe, Pastors, Reverends, Ministers, Rabbi, Priests and Popes do matter and we should listen to them, even when they speak in a manner we don't think is kosher.

A terrorist is whoever we say is a terrorist. So Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are terrorists. But the Guatemalan government and the government of El Salvador in the 1980s weren't terrorists. And the Chilean government that took over after we helped oust Allende weren't terrorists. And the IDF and militant West Bank settlers aren't terrorists. In Northern Ireland in the 1970s the IRA were terrorists but the UDA and UVF were "paramilitaries." All the uppity Negroes that were fighting the Apartheid regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa were routinely called terrorists by the Whites that ran those regimes.

When was the last time the IDF put a roadside bomb in front of a HMMV? When were the governments of those Latin American countries you mentioned plotting to crash planes into American bulidings? Also, an American embargo helped to end Apartheid in South Africa. And if you want to talk about Rhodesia, let's talk about the current economic chaos in that country brought about by Robert Mugabe and those other noble freedom fighters that helped him into power. That mess makes the Weimar Republic's experience with hyper-inflation look like a birthday party. And how about the roving gangs of black murderers who routinely killed white farmers and their families. Forgot them, huh? Just like everyone else on the left, you think that every effort made against Communism and world socialist revolution was a terrorist act. There are certain parts of the third world in which murder and mayhem have been a way of life for as long as can be remembered. The only question is which band of murderers to support: the one allied with the enemy who plots your destruction as a nation, or the one who thinks the enemy's philosophy is poison? Oh, yeah the Sandanistas were completely above reproach! You probably wish the Soviet Union had won the Cold War. And nice job with the comparison between the US calling Al-Queda terrorists and the South African government calling the ANC terrorists. I'm sure Nelson Mandella would invite that comparison

Even though you have railed a little bit, it appears that your post agrees with greeneggsnham, it is whomever the current government considers to be terrorist.

Terrorism is a trite ,overused and indefinable term.

It certainly has no real meaning except in a political sense.

There are two kinds of bad guys, our enemies and criminals.Our enemies are nations like North Kprea and Iran, the rest are criminal.

“When was the last time the IDF put a roadside bomb in front of a HMMV?”

Is that the test for who is a terrorist? Because if it is then terrorists fight conventional military using unconventional tactics. Those types of “terrorists” used to be called guerrillas.

Terrorists are simply militants that target non-combatants. “Terrorist” is a fairly broad term that includes a lot of people who we don’t like but also some people who we do like. So the term is not really that useful except for PR purposes.

Samurailawyer-san you have disgraced yourself and all Samurai Lawyers with your silly overblown argument. To redeem your honor you must commit seppuku by disemboweling yourself with your Montblanc.

“There are two kinds of bad guys, our enemies and criminals. Our enemies are nations like North Korea and Iran, the rest are criminal.”

Slapping labels on countries and groups is okay for PR purposes but is silly if you’re trying to understand the world and figure out how to neutralize threats to the US.

All foreign countries are potential threats to the US, or at least are potential impediments to the US doing what it wants to do. Some countries are bigger threats to our security, like Iran or North Korea. But others, even countries that are our “friends,” are also potential threats. We have a special relationship with Israel but they spy on us and lobby us for their own purposes, which are sometimes not helpful or even harmful to US interests. And we bully them and probably spy on them too.

And all the “criminals” you refer to are different groups with different objectives.

Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting turf wars with Israel and fighting for power with other factions within their own countries. They use terrorism, guerrilla warfare, community outreach, PR, and politics to try and achieve their goals, which seem to be contained and concrete—get back land colonized by Israel and install Islamist governments in Lebanon and Palestine. The Tamil Tigers want an independent Tamil Eelam. The IRA wanted reunification of Northern Ireland with Eire under a socialist regime. These are goals that can be identified and theoretically can be wholly or partially solved through negotiation.

Al-Qaeda is more of an ideological group with amorphous goals that can’t be easily identified or realistically addressed through negotiation. But we can address the factors that give rise to religious fanaticism and undermine support for Al-Qaeda through non-military endeavors.

And we shouldn’t be afraid to use military power if it’s appropriate.

But all this labeling—‘terrorists,’ ‘enemies,’ ‘criminals,’ and ‘evil-doers’—is sort of simplistic and doesn’t help deepen the US understanding of the world.