Which One's the Terrorist?

I've been resisting linking the terror attacks in Mumbai and the war in Gaza (putting all acts of "terrorism" under the same umbrella seems to over-simplify the matter almost as much as declaring a "war on terror" itself), but Reza Aslan's article for the Daily Beast got me thinking about what makes a terrorist.

In "Which One's a Terrorist?" Aslan parses the differences (and, it turns out, there are shockingly few) between acts of war and acts of terror, in terms of motive, intent and collateral damage. The obvious argument is intent. Terrorists intend to kill civilians. Soldiers do not.

So, what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Cities that were leveled in mere seconds by bombs stamped USA, killing over 200,000 civilians instantly?

The US, apparently, claims the difference between soldiers and terrorists lies in matching uniforms. And : remorse. Ergo, if the "collateral damage" caused by state-sponsored acts of violence yield civilian deaths, so long as the perpetrators are wearing camouflage and offer somber apologies after the fact, they are righteous and justified in their actions.

The men who killed hundreds of civilians in Mumbai on 11/26 are terrorists. There is no justification for their brutal acts. But in this shape-shifting war on terror, maybe we can learn something by applying Aslan's arguments and trying to define clearly and unconditionally why they should be labeled terrorists as opposed to guerilla fighters or non-uniformed soldiers.

Thoughts?

READ: Reza Aslan, Which One's the Terrorist?