Can you answer why that is a proper term?

Maybe you could do in instead of a snarky smilie for example.

You know it to be something else?

Remember that "war" has been defined as merely the extension of political will.

I think "terrorism" is highly vague and thrown around to the point where it almost has no meaning (similar to the term "imperialism&quot . The US uses "terrorism" as a regular Emmanuel Goldstein as anti-US states use "imperialism" as their Emmanuel Goldstein.

In the context of politics I think it would be useful to call the attack in Benghazi terrorism. It was done by non-state sanctioned belligerents, against a diplomatic entity, in a preplanned and focused attack.

Were the attacks on the embassy in Kenya terroristic?

They are a Yemen based group which the US designated as such Oct. 4th. Earlier Benghazians stormed their HQ in Benghazi and ousted them.

Since that point they've been disbanded in Libya (officially, obviously they're going to still try to exist, but they were ousted by the people, not by the government, so they'll think twice now).

It is completely wrong and has nothing to do with my question.

I always thought was called an assassination. Therefore shouldn't they be called assassins and not terrorists?

My problem with the term terrorist is that it removes any meaning from the term.

They're on the wrong side, no doubt, but, yeah, I wouldn't call it terrorism... if any revolutionary action was terrorism, then what were our Founding Fathers, seriously?

Oh well, history is written by the victors...