>>While it'll no doubt be unpopular I'd argue that terrorism is the 'legitimate' (in a certain sense) response to 'illegal' warlike acts.
I'd have to agree with that.
And also disagree with the notion that it's in anyway less 'honourable' to be a terrorist than a sodjer.
A terrorist organisation is, by definition, a group with far less power and resource than a national army, so of course they'll turn to guerilla tictacs (they're the Camo coloured ones) and 'soft targets' to maximise the impact of what they /do/ have.
By which I'm not saying I think terrorists are honourable, but rather that armies are not (unless in existence purely for defence and never ever used for first-strike/agression/securing oil reserves. More a peoples millitia than an army, really).