Nicely put, from a reader (and my depleted uranium guy):

Jonah: Struggling with the definition of a “terrorist attack” has become a sport in many circles. Some seem to think that it is much like the definition of porn, “I know it when I see it”. Strictly speaking, the attack on the USS Cole was not a terrorist attack in and of itself, as it did not use terrorist means or attack a civilian target. However, when engaging in this sort of exercise, it is useful to remember what a terrorist is. A terrorist is a combatant that does not discriminate between military or civilian targets. Either is legitimate, in the eyes of the terrorist, if it advances his goals. The fact that he may choose a military target on one particular occasion does not change his doctrine. Considering this simple fact, it becomes unnecessary to agonize over whether one attack was on a “legitimate target” or if it was a “terrorist attack” or not. A terrorist attack is an attack committed by a terrorist organization. The World Trade Center was a terrorist attack because it targeted civilians. The Cole was a terrorist attack because it was conducted by an organization with a terrorist doctrine. That they happened to be a military target on that particular occasion is of no consequence. Resolved. Joe Your Depleted Uranium Guy