There is a problem with that word unless you want to define it first. Once there is a correct definition which you know what it is - than you can label someone or a group as a terrorist. And if I or any of us find it that you labeled them wrongly than anyone or people will correct you.

You can do it here in this board if you want and it is an opportunity for you define what terror is, than we can continue. Do you have time for this? 

[QUOTE=dude289] Terrorism-The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. QUOTE]

According to this meaning, the U.S. government could be considered terrorists for the invasion of Iraq.

Currently, the definition of unlawful would seem to me defined by those who use the phrase. In the case of the U.S., they would put forth that what they do they have every right to do as a sovereign nation, even if these action encroach upon the sovereignity and human rights of other nations and peoples.

Since the world has become a global citizenry, and we can travel from one end to the other in a matter of hours, then I would venture to say that the opinion of the majority would/should hold sway. Thus the U.N. and the World Court would have a distinct advantage.

However, both of these bodies have held forth that the Israeli occupation of Phalesteen is an unlawful occupation, making the Israelis and those entities that support them the terrorists. So why are the Phalesteenians still being held up as terrorists?