I addressed your point at great length in my response to Pete. He's new around here, and I spend so much time already arguing with you, I thought I'd engage him at greater length instead.

The crux of the matter is the definition of "terrorist". If, as is likely, those "foreign fighters" were simply defending what they consider a part of their Muslim homeland, they're not terrorists. They may be gullible and they may be on the opposite side from us, but they're not therefore part of a formal terrorist organization. You're on a slippery slope if you fall into the intellectually-lazy habit of labelling anyone who fights against US forces a "terrorist". If "hurling" yourself against the enemy is a terrorist act, then wouldn't an American soldier who showed a similar willingness to die fighting Iraqi soldiers also be legitimately called a "terrorist"? You don't want to go there, Tom, you really don't.