Terrorists.

Anyone, individual or organized, who uses violence outside of a designated battle field or warzone for the purpose of political gain, intimidation, and/or ideological purposes. It should not be confused with acts of sabotage and unorthodox warfare committed against combatants on a battlefield.

How the term is applied is also a matter of perception. Self righteousness aside, one governments covert actions, assassination, and/or financial/logistical support of revolutionaries/counter revolutionaries in a foriegn country or at home can be percieved as terror by the victims.

The organization only definition does not hold water. Timothy McVeigh, for example, did not act as a member of an organization but was undeniably a terrorist. He had accomplices and loose ties to the Michigan Millitia, however, his eventual actions were not affilliated with any organization.

I'd argue that carpet bombing of a populated area is a form of terror. Its become an acceptable method of combat in the last century (I believe we can thank Hitler), but it really does not alleviate the sheer barbarism of it.

Is it possible to launch a terrorist attack against a military target?

Yes. Kobar (SP?) Towers, the USS Cole, and the Pentagon on september 11th all are millitary targets that were attacked by terrorists.

It depends on what you mean. Certainly guerilla warfare, which is usually branded "terrorism" nowadays, has put its practitioners at the bargaining table, and sometimes in power, more than once.

Yitzhak Shamir once used guerilla tactics against the British in Palestine--indeed he used "Michael" as his nom de guerre in honor of Michael Collins of the original IRA. (Here's a nice account of that period.)

So though he, Gerry Adams, and probably George Washington himself could conceivably have been called terrorists when they ran insurgencies, they have later been called statesmen when power shifted in their direction.