"Since we seem to be stuck with the terminology it is understandable that we would define the term in a way that does not include ourself."

That's sort of fair. I think it's OK to recognize terrorism as terrorism, and do it anyway if seriously threatened.

In the narrow view, which people, tribes and nations must take from time to time, their own terrorism is justified. In the bigger picture, necessarily taken by others, it still may be justified, and it should be recognized as terrorism.

Actually, a great case can be made for throwing Bill Clinton in the slam (a lot of great cases, I know) for bombing civilians in Kosovo in hopes they would get angry and overthrow Milosevic. That was terrorism, by our side.

It did the same thing bombing WTC did to the US - unified them behind their leader. NATO got the same deal they would have without the bombing.

Doesn't usually work well. And, I would submit that while it is sometimes understandable, there is no moral high ground when terrorism is used.

Arf