Using any form of fear to control someone is terrorism.

That's exactly my point.  What if the objective is NOT to produce fear but to produce the death of one particular person?  Is murder terrorism?  Only if you do it to scare/intimidate people. 

The issue with terrorism is that its extremely difficult to define. Most definitions (not all mind) I've read are pretty weak and could equally be applied in some ways to military action for example.

Its simple Socratic method. If you've found significant exceptions to your view that Terrorism cannot be justified then your problem with the fact that it potentially can be justified is your problem, not terrorisms. If ones viewpoint isn't logically on very solid ground then you can either stick your head in the ground or shift your opinion. Ones really idealistic (which can both be good or dangerous) and ones pragmatic and involves ones intellectual growth.

the fact that there a fear that saying yes would make people think ones a terrorist is sad.

Terrorism is BS. IMO the Americans and Israelis are much bigger terrorists than the Muslim terrorists.

War on terrorism is not possible. No one really knows who the enemy is. It is not like they will jump out with different colours and say I am a terrorist, I am your enemy. Lol.

One nation's terrorist is another nation's freedom fighter.

War on terrorism is a declaration of war on Islam.

I think the bigger question is to question what terrorism is.

Usually, 'terrorism' is asymmetrical, guerrilla warfare against a stronger, well-organized force. Many people have had to use such tactics against a better army...Even America did in the war for independence. We did a lot of things to the British regulars that were either unconventional or illegal in warfare at that time.

Now, the bigger heart of the issue would be if blowing up civilian targets is justified in an asymmetrical war. I'd argue that only in a few, rare cases has it been justified - I would cite nuclear warfare against Japan in WW2 as one of the rare viable times its justified. However, I'd say that it is very rare that attacking civilian targets is justified.

There is really nothing you can debate here. Obviously the answer is yes. What you call freedom fighters, are called terrorists on the other side.

Terrorism does not involve civilians except when working under ideologies that allow it.

Most ideologies do not.

Americans killed more civilians than terrorists or enemy military personnel in most of the wars they have engaged. If it moves fire- Americans shoot regardless. American troops kill more friendlies than they do enemies. Rogue missiles hitting schools, hospitals and residential areas.

Americans would be seen by many non-Americans as being a terrorist nation and an aggressor because they start most of the wars. Too bad they lost Vietnam and Korean Wars. They are losing Iraq and Afghanistan wars which are bankrupting America.

Wow. I know you love to hate America, but now you're just rambling.

Do you have any proof for anything you've said? I seriously doubt civilian deaths exceeded enemy deaths in most of the wars the U.S. fought, especially when you take into account earlier wars. Hmm, I wonder how many enemy civilians died in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Let's take a look at a lot more and see where it takes us (nevermind, too lazy). And American troops kill more friendlies than enemies? A source even? Chrissakes. You really do just say anything terrible thing you can about America. It's pathetic. And if you really are from the U.K. (you may or may not be), don't get me started on what ol' Britain has done.

Sure you can say Heroshima and Nagasaki are the height of terrorism as its worst. But many of you are also forgetting about Dresden.