If America invades another country and causes immense suffering I cannot call America a terrorist country, can I?
Hamas and/or Hezbollah are what?
Terrorists or Insurgents?
And when Israel attacks civilians and kills them?
What should I call the Israeli soldiers?

"...but I can guarantee you have never heard of an Israeli strapping on a bomb and blowing up a bus at a shopping mall."

But is it on moral grounds they don't resort to those terrorist tactics or because the time has not yet arrived to do it?

Well, that is an interesting question. It points out one thing which is worth some consideration. Specifically, that a too simple definition will never be adequate as one can always come up with examples that stretch the definition beyond what it is really meant to encompass.

So if the example definition was “Targets civilians without regard”, then what of WW2? Were the winners the nation that had the best terror targets? I have the London Blitz, the fire bombing of German cities and the British Dam Busters in mind here. Or why was 9/11 a terrorist act and Pearl Harbor not one?

Personally, I see the label of terrorist as something that is attached after the fact, not one that is inherent to the act. Of course, even that is probably going to have counter examples. The idiots who attacked the cruise ship in the Mediterranean during the Reagan presidency can't be anything other than terrorists as far as I can tell.

Against that, in the 60's, there were anti-organization protestors who would bomb buildings in the USA. As far as I know, they were not called terrorists (at least not at the time). Perhaps it is somehow a lesser criminal act if you phone in the bomb threat a sufficient time before it goes off to evacuate the building? (well if everyone gets out safely ten minutes before the bomb goes off, then DUH! But that is not part of my point).

What about this definition [from another forum]:

"Insurgents and freedom fighters are people who bravely oppose another nation invading them (like Afghanistan resisting the Soviet Union's invasion).

Terrorists are people who bravely oppose another nation invading them (like Afghanistan resisting the Unites States's invasion)."

 The question reminded me to reference a book of mine called Encyclopedia of  the U.S. Military, copyright 1990, Harper and Row.    On page 335 under "insurgency" it reads "A struggle between a constituted government and organized insurgents frequently supported from without, but acting violently from within, against the political, social, economic, military, and civil vulnerabilities of the regime to bring about its internal destruction or overthrow. Such wars are distinguished from lesser insurgencies by the gravity of the threat to government and the insurgent object eventual regional or national control. [ Army Dictionary, p. 144] "

  On page 675 of the same book under "terrorism" it states " 'The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political , religious or ideological objectives' [Approved definition for future volume of JCS Pub 1 in Joint LIC Final Report, Vol. 1, 1 August 1986 ] "

  I have no idea if the above military / governmental definitions have been altered or revised ( eg, enemy combatant )  from the time the source was published and events following 911.  

   The seems to be a lot of overlap in meaning.  Confusing...what we need are some experts on defining concepts.   Perhaps when Blake and jcgadfly are through examining the atheist / agnostic quagmire they could pop in on this thread and clear away all the disinformation.