Without prejudice.
Based on my assessments after years of analysis. One reason they wont openly define it may be because '
terrorist' means:
Those who use military authority or take a military-style action who are not under the control of the United Nations or New World Order pundits. Another set of favorite polispeak words that are related: rebels, militants, guerillas.
Basically seems that those who do not engage in a "sponspored" military action that is offensive in nature and perhaps who are also subject to their jurisdiction seems they would define that as 'terrorism". It may be that they dont define the term so clearly because, it would reveal too much?
To reiterate:
Send by United Nations to shoot people in Indonesia--probably not a terrorist by their definition.
Sent by United States to shoot people in Iraq--probably not a terrorist by their definition.
Offensive military-style action by someone not under control of United States, United Nations, United Kingdom or not favored by them--branded at terrorist.