Just wondering if certain acts of rebellion couldn't be construed as terrorism - or does the term "terrorism" strictly refer to the taking of hostages? Even so, history shows some instances of "rebellion" that, if looked at from a different perspective or if they would have had a different outcome, could have been referred to as terrorism by some definitions.
What really determines a "just" government? Protection of personal freedom is a given, but this right is abused even on some so-called democratic societies. So what is to be the recourse for objections to unfair government practices if there is no system that makes government criticism approacable? We are allowed to be critical here without fear of disappearing in the night - and we can elect our officials (for the most part anyway - for those who care enough to vote - yes JD - even the women!) but some countries have a much less approacable system.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating terrorism - and hostage taking is an act of cowardice - I'm just raising the philosophical question as to the boundaries between rebellion and terrorism.