>In that case, all military action from any country in the world for any reason (even self-defense) would fall into the category of terrorism. Yet we know that there is a clear separation of 'accepted' military actions and 'terrorism.' I submit that the definition you found is too generic to be applied in the world today for there is a clear difference between a group of individuals blowing up a bus of civilians to make a political point and the military targeting missile sites because they are weapons and a military target.
>
>Tracy

I only got the first line of of the message, I only found the rest on replying.

I agree a very generic definition. I would argue against applying it to much military action, but the stated aim of "Shock & Awe" [I got it back to front in previous messages] is to demoralise both the military AND the civilian population - if it was only aimed at the military then I could accept the fact the it was not terrorist in nature, but when deliberately targetting the civilian population as well, then it's a different matter. To that extent, it looks like we almost agree, the point of disagreement seems to be where the person commiting the act is wearing a uniform & acting with some degree of authority (I'll leave out discussion of the legality of the impending action in Iraq).