When is a terrorist not a terrorist at the Red Star?

Red Star reader representative Kate Parry, the newer and squishier version of the prickly and predictably left-leaning Lou Gelfand, tries to parse the ongoing journalist dilemma of just what to call those muslim males, generally between the ages of 17 and 40, and who like to blow things up and kill women and children.

For many on the left, including 95% of all journalists, this is a difficult decision. Terrorists? Insurgents? Militants? Freedom fighters? What dizzying array of choices! Let's see, a Palestinian who blows himself on a bus of Israeli civilians is a militant, and a Saudi who blows himself up and takes out a crowd of policemen in Baghdad is an insurgent, and muslim males who blow themselves up while taking out civilians in New York and Washington are terrorists. Which ones are the true terrorists? Tricky to figure that one out [Hint: all of them]. Could politics and left-wing bias have a role here?

Scott Johnson of Powerline calls Ms. Parry's column "unqualifiedly outstanding". A Strong endorsement indeed. This quote from Ms. Parry is good:

To my mind, when a person intent on a cause straps explosives to his body and detonates himself to harm nearby civilians, he and his supporters become terrorists. Period. This is a scourge civilized people of all faiths condemned during July in blunt language.

This, not so good:

Whether suicide bombers and others deliberately blow up children and their parents in Oklahoma City, New York, Baghdad, London, Netanya in Israel or Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt, at that horrific moment the perpetrators become terrorists, wiping away all complexity and nuance regarding their cause.

Yes, Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. And the left never fails to include his name when discussing terrorists and terrorist acts. However, Mr. McVeigh represents approximately .000000000000000001% of all terrorists. Not significant. Doesn't even show a glimmer of a trend among western caucasion males. Can you make your point without including McVeigh? He's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. [Hint: Islamofascist terror is the enemy]

Sometimes the left almost gets the point, but they always have to spoil it by including qualifiers - the "buts" and the "howevers". Isn't terrorism obvious? Isn't it obvious who is a terrorist? Can we just use some common sense?