[smsm42]

Governments can lie. But terrorist is not an arbitrary term to stifle dissent - it is a specific and identifiable tactic used to achieve certain goals. If somebody says black is white, it doesn't mean black and white are arbitrary labels that can be applied to anything. That's the false dichotomy that is offered to us.

[alan_cx]

Terrorist is an arbitrary term used to stifle dissent and demonide an opposition. One could use the term "freedom fighter" in it place and suddenly it has a whole new moral meaning.

We Brits know this well, as we referred to the IRA terrorists, while many Americans and Irish called them freedom fighters, while funding them.

Perhaps consider this when Nelson Mandela dies. A man who for years was considered a terrorist, but is now almost universally considered a freedom fighter.

Note: I have mode no moral judgement about either the IRA or Nelson Mandela.

The falseness is this is in the application of morality labels. "Terrorist" implies something wrong and evil. Freedom Fighter implies nobility. Both are people using violence to achieve political aims. Much like the US does. Which means many world wide have every right to consider the US a terrorist state, since that terror is by a democratically elected government.

[malandrew]

Exactly. This country was founded by terrorists.

    "The first recorded incident in America occurred in 1766: 
    Captain William Smith was tarred, feathered, and dumped 
    into the harbor of Norfolk, Virginia, by a mob that 
    included the town's Mayor."[0]

Claims of US perpetrated terrorism aren't even limited to the founding of the country. Take the downing of Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 and the Contras in Nicaragua for example[5]

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspée_Affair

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviación_Flight_455

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

[eitland]

Terrorism implies the use of terror, -choosing targets and tactics not to inflict the biggest/smallest damage but to scare.

Typically this results in attacks on civilians instead of attacking enemy soldiers (who have been trained to handle fear). Other typical traits: using weapons that creates visible damage, injures etc

The sets of freedom fighters and terrorists might intercept but neither is a subset of the other.

[PavlovsCat]

I think the main problem the US has with sticking to a clear definition of terrorism is that it usually would apply to itself as well, so that's no good..

But yes, terrorism does mean something; just the way the word is used a lot, kinda doesn't... but this doesn't change what is terrorism and what is not. Even if someone where to argue that the ends justify the means, it would not change what those means are.