How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

[rajpoot]

I tried reading through, but since the pages are long, I'll stick with replying to the questions of the first post.......
The terrorists are soldiers, in a sense.....they do not belong to any 'official' army, but are usually the members of some terrorist group.....a better word for such soldiers would be 'militants'.....that's what we call them here anyway.
When a terrorist fights a proper soldier, it's just a skirmish, it's not actually terrorism. But more often than not, these skirmishes happen when these militants are trying to propagate terrorism.....when they attack civilians.....that now is a terrorist attack, and that is shameful.

And no soldiers don't fight to die. They fight to win. Death of some is an inevitable outcome, but it doesn't mean one get's cold and uncaring about it. Just because your family knows that you have some deadly disease and are going to die within a few months, does not mean they won't mourn you when you finally die.
Death of the terrorist fighting for the opposite side is something only a party neutral to both sides can worry about, but that does not mean that anyone is being unfair......to state an example, if the people would have had their say, the chap captured after Bombay attacks would've been lynched......yet, they're going through the legal procedures even for him......what does this say? That even though one we might hate someone, that does not necessarily prevent us from treating them justly.