Well, my point was that there are well over 100 different definitions of the term "Terrorist" depending on who you ask. The only common thread they all seem to share is they all contain the words "Violence or threat of violence" .

Going by that definition, all Armies are terrorists. (as are all police, armed security guards or any enforcement agency) WE All use Violence or threat of violence.

The military has a lot more rules it has to follow (Geneva Convention, Code of Conduct) etc, but still we use "violence or the threat of violence" to achieve our means. So, by BROAD definition, or by most common denominator in all the definitions, we DO fit the BROAD definition of Terrorist.

I like to think the difference lies in what we aim to achieve and how far we are willing to go to achieve it. Were we as unscrupulous as our enemies, we WOULDN'T hesitate to drop our nuclear arsenal on any country that opposed us and our agenda. We would purposely attack civilians and innocents. We would routinely use torture to obtain our means. The funny thing is if we used THEIR tactics and disreguarded following the rules, we would beat them in a few days!