“Terrorism” is only a word specifying a certain type of warfare. Specifically, it is used to refer to warfare that is uncivilized. Of course, what constitutes “civilized” warfare varies greatly. Soldiers are killed in combat universally (of course). But, at some times and places in history, captured combatants are executed, imprisoned or even assimilated (into the conquering nation).
Usually the distinction of terrorism hinges on the treatment of non-combatants. But, even there, there is plenty of gray area. Why is it acceptable to kill a 16y/o boy with a rifle but, not say, a 22y/o factory worker. The rifleman may pose an immediate threat; but, if the factory worker’s plant produces 500 main battle tanks a month (WAG), he may well pose a greater threat. But, the infantryman intends, firsthand, to inflict harm directly. However, by that reasoning, high-ranking officers would be invalid targets, and forward observers and spotters would be completely off-limits. Also, though I understand that a soldier’s life is considered less valuable b/c of a (usually) voluntary career choice; why are male lives considered less valuable, and young lives. A 40y/o tanker can no more be ressurected than a 16y/o schoolgirl.
My theory is that war, though impossible to elliminate due to human nature, is senseless. The powers that be KNOW that it is senseless but, try to impose order on the institution by inventing rules that are essentially arbitrary. “Sure, we’re destroying the lives of fellow human-beings; but, we’re not barbarians. See, we have rules; right here on this paper.”
Personally, I don’t care if the WTC attack is referred to as an act of war, a terrorist act or a criminal act. On a practical basis it doesn’t matter. However it is classified, it is unacceptable and the only rational course of action is to find those (individuals, organizations and/or governments) responsible and destroy them. If I had my druthers, the US would recognize our enemy as an autonomous state. That way, in accordance with the current set of arbitrary rules of war, its agents would be soldiers, not criminals, and instead of being arrested and tried, we would be empowered to simply find and kill them.
PS: I feel my opinions to be reasonably informed as I am a veteran and am fairly well aquainted with the Geneva Convention, International Rules of War, and military history.