ghhh, I know what you mean - but sorry, I'd be rvery reluctant to give such a definition as yours for "war on terrorism". simplty because it would be another generalisation - same as what is or isn't terrorism.
terrorismQUOTE
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
in Politics
Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion
in Military
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological
Many definitions of terrorism exist, from various locations within the political spectrum. Most definitions of terrorism recognize and explain four primary criteria, these being the target, the objective, the motive, and the legitimacy of the action.
In November, 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as: "Any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians, non-combatants when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."
apperantly the term itself is more than 200 years old, while historically it is much older - it was used even in the 1st century against Roman occupants / opressors.
however
QUOTE
Terrorism is a controversial term with multiple definitions. It can refer to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal through intimidation or by instilling fear rather than for specific military reasons. It can also more specifically mean the calculated or threatened use of violence against civilian targets exclusively. The targets of terrorist acts can be government officials, military personnel, people serving the interests of governments, or civilians. Acts of terror against military targets tend to blend into a strategy of guerrilla warfare. Acts of violence which target civilians are perhaps the most obvious way to arouse fear in the general populace. {one of reason Truman decided to drop the nukes on Japan - to arouse fear and hasten surrender - terrorism ? - Razin } Intentional violence against civilians (noncombatants) is the type of action most widely condemned as "terrorism." Civilians are usually held to be "innocent" victims of terrorist violence if they are unarmed and not in uniform when it occurs.
Acts of terrorism can be perpetrated by individuals, groups, or states, as an alternative to an open declaration of war. They are often carried out by groups who otherwise feel powerless. Groups that sponsor or engage in the use of terrorist tactics tend to use more neutral or positive terms to describe their own combatants, – such as freedom fighters, patriots, or paramilitaries, while the targets of their activity are quicker to use terms like terrorism. According to one view, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter - but these two terms are not mutually exclusive and not all freedom fighters are considered terrorists. Likewise, not all terrorists are considered freedom fighters.
On the surface, the popular definition of 'terrorism' represents a shift from previous means of defining an enemy from territorial or cultural disputes over ideology or religion, to the acts of violence against the public. Many people dispute this definition however as ideological and simplistic, arguing instead that 'terrorism' is simply another in a long lists of enemy terms — that underneath any current conflict lies the same materialistic and ethnocentric reasons of which most past wars were based and now freely explained. The use of the terms terrorism and terrorist are politically weighted, and are often used to polarizing effect, where 'terrorism' becomes simply a relativist term for the violence committed by an enemy, from the point of view of the attacked. Because of the political nature of some struggles, 'terrorism' can become identified as simply any violence committed against the establishment.
interesting huh ? well, some would say - this is ideological jugllery. however it is an understanding of terms clearly. so, according to paticular definitions - any sort of violence is terrorism. than what is going on in Iraq nowdays is not much different from what happened on 9/11 . arguable of course.
QUOTE
The violence, i.e., terrorism, committed by state combatants is also considered more acceptable than that of the 'terrorist,' who by definition does not follow the self-serving laws of war, and hence cannot share in the acceptance given to establishment violence. Thus the term is impossible to apply by its rational definition — states who engage in warfare often do so outside of the laws of war and often carry out violence against civilian populations, yet rarely receive the label of 'terrorist.' {again - as nukes droped on Japan - Razin} The common public distinction between state violence and terrorism is based on a perception that terrorism targets noncombatants as a consistent policy, and therefore more irrational than state violence, which is assumed to be more considerate of human life, or at least does not consistently pursue unarmed civilian targets with the same zeal.
History does not always bear this out however, and language reflects this: few would question that deliberate attacks on civilian refugee columns and camps is an attempt to induce terror in the enemy population and is therefore a terrorist act. As such the most accurate definition of "terrorism" must be based in its abstract nature as a term for characterising the violence of an enemy as conforming to an immoral code of conduct.
On the other hand, a common characteristic of terrorism is that its perpetrators take shelter behind local population (either sympathetic to their cause or under duress) in an attempt to impede opposing state forces from retaliating, again exacting high civilian casualties if they do. Such casualties would damage the state's public image and earn publicity to the terrorist group cause, objectively demonstrating which side is exploiting civilian deaths and which side is impaired by them.
In this case, a finer definition will distinguish between attacks on civilian population as a primary target, in contrast to civilian casualties resulting from an attack on terrorists who intentionally retreat and live among a largely noncombatant community (as opposed to terrorists who choose to operate from jungles, deserts and other uninhabited areas). See also collateral damage.
Whether the primary "intention" of an attack was to harm civilians or not may seem difficult to ascertain, but in reality there are several unarguable factual pointers: if the attacker makes at least some attempt to reduce civilian casualties, such as by evacuating them forcefully before the attack or warning the authorities in advance within a reasonable space of time (so that they can evacuate), shows some concern to civilian casualties, and would indicate the primary target to be the "system" rather than its civilian inhabitants.
A terrorist' is, strictly speaking, one who is personally involved in an act of terrorism. The term "terrorism" comes from the French 18th century word terrorisme (under the Terror), based on the Latin language verbs terrere (to tremble) and deterrere (to frighten from). The use of the term "terrorist" has had broader applications however, ranging in application from disgruntled citizens to common political dissidents. The term "eco-terrorist" for example was coined to apply to those who damage or destroy property as a symbolic act of resisting economic trends and policy that impact the environment negatively.
may be it is funny (well , at least for me) - but my g/f loves animals and always otraged by any kind of violence towards them. whenever she watches some TV program with report of cruelty to animals or abandoning them etc - she gets so angry that makes statements like "if I had power - I'd kill such people who harm animals - coz I hate them !". well - from particular point of view it makes her a terrorist, coz she threatens to cause violent harm to non-combatant civilians for some her reason and even would probably act according to her threats.
same as many Green Peace activists are arrested for their "terrorist" acts.
the article I refer to is quite long and explicit. it has other references to separate articles "War on Terror" and "Terrorism in Iraq". as well as few interesting and informative essays.
let's see. about "Terrorism in Iraq" it is actually said as
Iraqi insurgency :
QUOTE
The Iraqi insurgency (also called the Iraqi resistance) comprises the groups fighting against what they see as the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the Iraqi Transitional Government. The various guerrilla and insurgent groups began battling the U.S.-led multinational force and the New Iraqi Army during the occupation of Iraq that followed the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, including what was then the Iraqi interim government of Iyad Allawi. Not all those opposed to the occupation and/or the government use violent means; there are various Iraqi groups and political parties advocating peaceful, non-violent resistance. Thus the broader term "Iraqi resistance" is favored by some.
quite objective explanation seems to me ! there are more details there about different groups, both violent and non- .
here is what said about
War on terrorism QUOTE
The War on terrorism or War on terror (abbreviated in policy circles as GWOT for global war on terror) is a global effort by the governments of several countries (primarily the United States and its principal allies) to neutralize international groups it deems as "terrorist" (primarily radical Islamist terrorist groups, including al-Qaida) and ensure "rogue nations" no longer support terrorist activities. It has been adopted as a consequence of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
Most recently, the current war in Iraq has been tied to the "War on terrorism" by the Bush administration, which has stated that Saddam Hussein of Iraq was giving safe haven to and supporting terrorist groups. This assertion was and remains highly controversial.
The very phrase "War on terrorism" is the subject of some debate and disagreement. First, there has always been considerable debate as to what constitutes terrorism; in addition, the notion of declaring war on an abstract concept is troubling to some (in the same vein as the war on drugs, war on poverty, and the war on crime).
According to French minister Dominique de Villepin, the term war implies the fighting of :
two internationally defined states
according to international laws,
the respect of these laws being judged if needed after the war is over (see Nuremberg Trials).
None of these conditions are met, and as the operations cannot be qualified as regular organized crime fighting either, he suggests that the fight against terrorism continue being called the fight against terrorism.
But Villepin's criteria may be an over-simplification of the complexities of recent armed conflicts. For example, civil wars are not between "two internationally defined states", but rather two competing factions in the same geographical area.
There are difficulties inherent in labelling armed participants as "freedom-fighters," "terrorists," "insurgents," etc., due to the relative criteria required to meet such labels.
Even when the boundaries of an organization are clearly defined, there might not be a way to distinguish some organizations as terrorist or otherwise. For example, the militant Islamist group Hamas, although directly responsible for violent acts that Israelis, Americans, and Europeans deem as terrorism, is also responsible for many of the charities and other social welfare programs in Palestine.
Among those who accept the term "War on terrorism," there are disagreements as to which actions, by which states, should be considered as part of the "war." For example, the Bush administration, despite considerable international and domestic disagreement, contends that the pre-emptive 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation is a crucial part of the war on terrorism. Likewise, Russia has recently asserted that its ongoing struggles with Chechen fighters should be part of the international effort.
Noam Chomsky has argued that some commonly accepted definitions of "terrorism", as accepted by U.S. officials, also apply to many of the actions undertaken by the U.S. in the name of "the war on terror." Since, according to Chomsky, the U.S. engages in terrorism, he concludes that the "war against terror" is aimed only at terrorism directed at the U.S. and their allies. [1] (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm)
of course politicians skip many sharp edges and omit contraversial points. and general public anyway is passive, lazy and powerless to make much difference. so, the term "War on terror" becomes more and more rather idiomatic, sort of slang. pretty much as many other political terms nowdays.
).
come on 
why to be so touchy about ethics and moralities - free market ! and business is amoral after all, right? as long as money can be made - does it matter if some don't like the stuff sold ? 
