[spitz]

Terrorist are in the business of intimidating and coercing societies and governments for ideological or political reasons. The selection of targets, at least in my view, is not the measure to define a terrorist. A terrorist could push his cause by attacking military targets only, this is of course a much harder prospect than attacking civilians.

No, I have not seen the Patriot. It's just a movie.

[Restorer]

Terrorist are in the business of intimidating and coercing societies and governments for ideological or political reasons.

This is at least as good a definition of warfare in general as it is of terrorism. It is a rewording of Clausewitz's "Politics by other means."

I assume you make consider some forms of resistance movements and guerrilla warfare to be legitimate and not terroristic. Where do you draw this line? I'm really interested.