And I take toadfrog's point about there being a distinction between torture and terrorism - the distinction not being between who does it, but between the purpose. A government agent engaged in torturing a prisoner is not necessarily engaged in a "terrorist" act, if the purpose is extracting information; nor is an operative of Al Qaeda or the IRA who is engaged in the same charming activity from the same reasons. That isn't a moral distinction, but a logical one - a torturer who believes that any means are acceptable to achieve the goal in view, has essentially the mindset of a terrorist.

And if the aim is to break the morale of sympathisers with the enemy, and so forth, that is terrorism. No matter who does it. And that is the way that torture has very often been used - for example in Chile, or Apartheid South Africa or in the French war in Algeria, and by both sides in Vietnam.

"Terrorist,n. One who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community" (Concise Oxford Dictionary."

So when the Israeli governments, for example, punishes the communities and families of identified terrorists, by bulldozing homes, more especially when there are civilian non-combatants inside them, that is an act of terrorism. Bombing campaigns aimed at breaking the will of the enemy to resist is terrorism whether the bombs are carried in satchels or by guided missiles. It's not whom you are that defines you as a terrorist, it's what you do, and why you do it.