Thoughts on Terrorism

An extract from "Who Hates Whom" by Bob Harris:

"I avoid the word terrorism, for moral and clarity reasons. For one, its common usage--violence against civilians by non-state actors as an absolute evil--subtly implies that officially sanctioned carnage is somehow more legit.

Whether an air force blows up your village or rebels bomb it from ground level, the objectives and results are the same. (The UN definition makes no distinction between state and non-state terror, but popular usage does...)

Terrorist is also distorted simply to mean "enemy." Nepalese Maoists were "terrorists" right up until they helped abolish an abusive monarchy... [Ms Yao: There is talk now to reinstate the monarchy.]

Worse, the word obliterates distinctions. "Terrorists" in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Spain, and Peru almost sound like they're teammates, but they have literally nothing in common... Instead, let's force ourselves to use specifics: "nationalist rebels" or "drug-financed paramilitary..."

Any thoughts?