Before all of you go off on a rant you need to understand the reasons for a specific and limited definition of terrorism, as well as other forms of violence for political ends - and why the distinctions are important.
I am halfway through a course on terrorism in the Middle East at the local University. It is taught by a part-time visiting professor of sociology from Israel - part-time because he is also an IDF infantry major, on the command staff of the Northern District of Israel (facing Hizbollah in Syria and Lebanon).
Israel is a small country with a very capable armed force, but it is small compared to the giants. The senior officers know each other, and during their military careers have worked in most of the different areas of military service. So Major Chodoff has more experience with both counter-terrorism and guerilla warfare than almost anyone you could mention.
First, the definition. Terrorism consists of violence or the credible threat of violence, committed against non-combatants but targeted for a larger audience, for the purpose of effecting political change. The targeting is indiscriminate - not aimed at specific individuals, although frequently at a group or class. And it is ALWAYS committed by a non-state entity.
This kind of an attack committed by one state against another is no less than an act of war, and terrorism is an inadequate word to describe it.
Assassination differs in that it is aimed directly at the political establishment, whether that is the ruler, military, police, or civil government. Tyrannicide has an ancient history, but it peaked in the 19th and early 20th centuries in the anarchist movement. By the way, how do you organize an anarchy? Two of the most famous victims were President McKinley and Archduke Ferdinand.
The problem lies in our general approval of personal freedom and antipathy toward repression and dictatorship. We tend to view movements of national liberation in a positive light, even when they engage in violence to achieve their ends. The mistaken notion that, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” makes a specific and exclusive definition of terrorism essential if we are to decide whom to support and whom to oppose.
Consider our sympathy for the victims in Darfur, Kurds in Iraq, and currently for some on this forum, the Palestinians, who pay NO HEED WHATSOEVER to the Geneva conventions. For instance, Israel had know for months that the Gaza headquarters for Hamas were located in the basement of the main hospital in Gaza City. That ENUMERATED war crime automatically made EVERY HOSPITAL IN GAZA a legitimate military target according to the Geneva convention, without regard to any “collateral damage” to civilians within. But of course, Israel did NOT attack that or any other hospital during their incursion.
Now that I read my post above, I see that I omitted guerilla operations. Guerillas operate against military or quasi-military targets or other government facilities - force vs force - and do not target non-combatants, although collateral damage may occur. They operate as a quasi-military organization, and attempt to actually establish specific areas of influence, if not actual control.