Are you serious? Okay, this is my personal definition of a "terrorist" Someone, particularly a muslim given the current war, who travels to another nation, which is not their own, for the express purpose of engaging in acts of hostility (sniping, bombing, kidnapping and beheading, etc) or engages the American and Coalition forces, while not in a uniform, with the intent of killing said forces, and disrupting and overturning the democratic governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other democratic nation. Also, those who randomly use guns, rockets, mortors, grenades, explosives, or any other devices to INTENTIONALLY inflict casualties to the civilian populace of any nation, whether they be in a plane, on a ship, on in their country of origin, or in another country as a tourist. Also, if they use such devices to attack and kill American or coalition forces abroad, in an act of coercion to force an outcome which would overthrow the democratic process in those and other nations. That is my definition of a terrorist as I see it, and those are the people whom I would have no compunction doing the things to that I described in my previous posts #107 and 114.
Most of those in Iraq that have been killed fighting us have been foreign terrorists, and those which are Iraqi hussein loyalist insurgents, have killed more of their own people than they have Americans, and are no longer part of the Iraqi Army, and are not obeying the laws set forth by the newly elected government of Iraq, and their actions are indistinguishable from those of the foreign terrorists. That is my definition of "terrorists". Is there another? There certainly isn't any of that that applies to American policy or it's military personnel.