OK. Why?

paulh
a/not a legal organisation b/dont represent a government c/not in uniform d/not opposing foreign invaders. e/not representing a majority of citizens f/not opposing a repressive/tyranical regime

Russ
This is interesting. Unlike me (in which civilian targets is the key part), according to you a group could never kill or injure a single civilian and still be terrorist.

Let's look at the factors:

paulh
a/not a legal organisation b/dont represent a government c/not in uniform

Russ
These should be excluded because they cover virtually every irregular or guerilla group.

paulh
d/not opposing foreign invaders.

Russ
This should also be excluded because an abused minority should have the right to resist with violence (i.e. a hypothetical armed Jewish resistance against Nazi Germany or French Resistance against Vichy France)

paulh
e/not representing a majority of citizens

Russ
This is perhaps too constrictive. I'd revise it to must have a reasonable amount of popular support.

How about this as a definition of terrorist group for you: An violent irregular or guerrilla group that does not have a reasonable level of popular support and is not opposing a repressive or tyrannical regime.

See, that wasnt so hard. And I don't have a problem with it at all.

Plug various groups into that definition and see if it works consistently with your views. You may need to tinker with it, but I think you have something to work with there. For example, in another message you indicated that a car bomb, in all circumstances, was terrorist. So an addition to the definition might be "...and does not use certain (defined elsewhere) illegitemite means."

If this is in line with your thinking, under this definition, the IRA and the Palestinians groups would be properly caused terrorist groups because they use certain proscribed means (i.e. car bombs, suicide bombers, etc.)