Actually, a military retaliation to an act of terrorism can itself be an act of terrorism, and usually is.

I'll give some historical examples from the frontier period in North America. Whites frequently practiced terrorism on Indians, shooting them down with or without provocation, scalping them for bounty money, raping their women, and burning their villages. Indians frequently practiced terrorism on Whites, shooting them down with or without provocation, scalping them for prestige, raping their women, and burning their cabins and other possessions.

Indians and Whites also practiced terrorism on other Indians and Whites similar to themselves, and on Mexicans, while Mexicans did more of the same on all the above parties at various times.

Most of these acts were considered to be legitimate forms of military retaliation against...terrorism.

Keep in mind that terrorism is simply this: A violent act against an identifiable group of people with the intention of killing them, terrorizing them into submission, having revenge upon them, or driving them off a particular area of land.

Terrorism is practiced by hidden groups of guerilla fighters, by hidden criminal gangs, and by uniformed and official armed forces of nations, and even by uniformed police on occasion.

Governments in the World have tried to dodge this issue by attempting to give the impression through their largely controlled media that only people out of uniform and not acting for a government can be deemed "terrorists".

That's a lie. Plain and simple. All organized killers who seek to terrorize are committing terrorism.

And the only way to stop it is to first stop doing it yourself and then seek a better way of resolving problems with your neighbours.

Endlessly pointing out how evil the "other guy" is will not solve the problem.

- LH