Beasts and freedom fighters

Terrorism is such a menace that no one can assume to have immunity of any sort. It is not like having influential "friends" at some key governmental or judicial posts to escape fraud of all sorts, the examples of which have been so abundant around the globe. When a beast decides to blow him or herself up, scores of innocent people totally unaware or unconnected to whatever cause the brute might believe they were serving fall prey, lose their lives or survive but carry a very heavy residue, the physical and emotional impacts of the heinous attack, for the rest of their lives.

Were the people in the Paris theater, the Brussels airport, Istanbul's ?stiklal Avenue or any of the three venues of Ankara's deadly blasts responsible for anything for which they had to pay with their lives? No?

They were innocent victims of deadly beasts taking lives indiscriminately with the claim of serving either a "holy religious cause" or a contributing to the "struggle" of an ethnic minority. As long as this "your beast, my freedom fighter" hypocrisy continues, no effective international struggle might be waged against terrorism. Yet, what is the description of terrorism? Is it possible to accept the use of force as a legitimate tool in "defending" the rights and liberties of a group of people or at what point is the use of force no longer legitimate but an act of terrorism? Years ago while researching an article on terrorism I was shocked to come across 68 different descriptions of the menace. Why can't the international community simply agree that, other than the official army and police of a state, and excluding "individual licensed possession of weapons," there can be no armed group or community in a country? That, including state forces, no one can use lethal...