By "it," I assume you mean terrorism, as a tactic.

> These days it has been corrupted to further illegitimate, religious interests. That's out of bounds.

Why? What's specifically out of bounds about religiously inspired terrorism, but acceptable about purely political and/or ideological terrorism? And where does the boundary get drawn - Northern Ireland, for example, has had no small amount of trouble with terrorism where the political and religious motives are inextricably linked.

> So let's make a rule to only use it in cases where it applies to illegitimate political and ideological interests. Otherwise, let's call them potential freedom fighters, depending on outcome.

Or perhaps your post was merely sarcasm.

I'm not saying lets not apply moral judgement. Call them assholes, brutes, whatever.