To any extent that any sort of armed conflict is justifiable, so is terrorism. To the extent that terrorism CAN be justifiable, the question MUST be answered in the affirmative.
I am not justifying what currently constitutes as terrorism, but merely that terrorism as a tactic is a valid means of forwarding political interests, and is something that the US specializes in through the CIA.
Most people believe that the arabs are terrosts. I believe that this is a racist view. Furthermore, the reason they are called terrorists is that their enemy (USA and israel) control all the media and thus the peoples opinions. By calling them terrorists usa is justified in killing them and taking their oil and lands.
Conflict in of itself is not unjustified, and is in fact inevitable, but the means in which we resolve conflicts either diplomatically or by force is up for moral judgement. Two questions come to mind; The first is conceptual: What is terrorism? The second is moral: Can terrorism ever be morally justified? Terrorism is understood as a type of violence with the experience of terror or fear as the proximate aim of that violence. The term primarily focuses on violence against innocent and/or common citizens, intended to intimidate in order to achieve some further end. This method of intimidation is undiscriminating between the people directly involved in the conflict, and those indirectly involved. Thinking of entire populations as equally responsible in a conflict regardless if their own degree of participation is utterly ridiculous. Bin Laden, for example in an interview following 9/11 attempted to justify the killing of American citizens due to the fact that they pay taxes and vote. Even if we granted that such people as Bin Laden as well as other combatants were right in their condemnations of their enemies, not every degree of involvement justifies the use of deadly force.