I would challenge you to provide examples of US gov't supported terrorist actions. Note, I'll ask you stick to the commonly held definition of terrorism which i

I would challenge you to provide examples of US gov't supported terrorist actions. Note, I'll ask you stick to the commonly held definition of terrorism which is the intentional targeting of innocent civilians in order to incite terror. I think this hinges somewhat on the meaning of the word "innocent". What I think you mean is innocent in the sense of "uninvolved", rather than in the moral sense. It's no secret that the CIA (among other US agencies) captures, kills, and torturers people in other countries. But it's my understanding, at least, that the US does not purposefully do so to "uninvolved" citizens of those countries. These actions are done against violent members of the ruling class actively opposing US interests, and their allies. None of these people are "uninvolved" in the sense that charges of "terrorism" would require. To put it more bluntly: the US does not attempt to incite "terror" in uninvolved citizens in any country, ever. It just not how our government works to achieve US goals abroad. Whether the US policy of intervention abroad is good or bad is certainly open to debate, and the reality of "collateral damage" is ever present. But I don't think that US intervention abroad counts as "terrorism", under the standard definition of the word, which is why arguments that try and equate the two tend to fall on deaf ears.