From the article:
"Few things better illustrate the utter meaninglessness of the word Terrorism than applying it to a citizen of an invaded country for fighting back against the invading army and aiming at purely military targets.
To the extent the word means anything operationally, it is: "he who effectively opposes the will of the U.S. and its allies. This topic is so vital because this meaningless, definition-free word — Terrorism — drives so many of our political debates and policies.
Virtually every debate in which I ever participate quickly and prominently includes defenders of government policy invoking the word as some sort of debate-ending, magical elixir: of course President Obama has to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process: they’re Terrorists; of course we have to stay in Afghanistan: we have to stop The Terrorists; President Obama is not only right to kill people (including civilians) using drones, but is justified in boasting and even joking about it, because they’re Terrorists; of course some people should be held in prison without charges: they’re Terrorists, etc. etc. It’s a word that simultaneously means nothing and justifies everything."
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/10/the_..._of_terrorism/