Term Paper (feedback desired)

[Sam Spade]

I am extremely picky on details, but don't expect that much on content, because it looks pretty good already (ie, I'm not going to think up counter-examples unless they're pretty obvious).  I am also not going to dot your i's and cross your t's either.

The strategy of terrorism uses acts of violence against civilians and threats of future acts against civilians of violence to compel those civilians to cease supporting their governments and its policies.

Better wording would be:

"The strategy of terrorism uses acts of violence against civilians and threats of future acts of violence against those same civilians to compel them to cease supporting their governments and its policies."

In more recent history, American and British use of strategic bombing during World War II, particularly British use of strategic bombing which took place at night and had no serious chance of being precise whereas American planes bombed during the day when the target was still visible even when this meant higher rates of casualty for US pilots than their British counterparts, can be described as a terrorist tactic. 

This sentence reads badly and I would suggest spliting it into two parts, getting rid of the American line which weakens the overall point:

"In more recent history, American and British use of strategic bombing during World War II, can be described as a terrorist tactic.  In particular, the British use of strategic bombing which took place at night and had no serious chance of being precise was precisely utilized as a method to drive terror into the hearts of the German citizenry."

The chief example of this use of fear as a weapon of war is the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Japan. 

I might refer back to WWII, adding this and also changing verb tense to relate to the first sentence above and the sentences below:

"The chief example of this use of fear in World War II as a weapon of war was the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Japan. "

We can also deduce that because, at least in the cases of Sherman in the Civil War and the Allies in World War II, those committing acts of terrorism are in fact fighting for freedom that a terrorist and a freedom fighter are not necessarily different things, as will be elaborated upon later. 

Get rid of the "as will be elaborated upon later", even if it's meant to be there to pad the paper length. 
That's all for now.  I'll get through the rest of it tomorrow.  Content looks fine so far.

[Sam Spade]

By onvincing the foreign force, these African leaders, like Mao before them, achieved a military victory by achieving a political victory, a point to be elaborated upon later.

Now, guerilla tactics in the modern age have been less successful against non-foreign forces.

Once again, the "point to be elaborated upon later" is not needed.

The "Now" in the second sentence is also unnecessary.

No resistance effort could succeed there as Vietnamese resistance efforts had before in large part because the Communists had nowhere to retreat to.  

This sentence confuses me.  I think I know the point you're trying to get across, but the language is rather tortured here.  Needs a rewrite.

This difference between terrorist and guerillas re-proves what was already shown above.  It was shown that terrorism and guerilla warfare are not the same because it was shown that non-guerillas do use terrorist tactics and have been doing so since Rome, and if non-guerillas were using these tactics then terrorism and guerilla warfare are not the same.  Now, by showing that there are guerillas who do not use terrorism, we again show that they are not one and the same.

I get what you are saying here, but it needs to be rewritten so it doesn't sound so circular in logic by the constant use of "show".  You shouldn't have to show us what is being proven "true", it should simply be asserted as such.

Ever since Mao Zedong proclaimed his guerilla warfare "People's War" and Marxist insurgents throughout the third world mimicked this linking of guerilla tactics with anti-colonial resistance, guerilla soldiers have been euphemistically called freedom fighters (They have typically fought for national freedom, not individual freedom)

Not needed.  Especially since you repeat the sentence three paragraphs below. 

[Sam Spade]

After all this blurring of lines, indicating that a terrorist is a guerilla and a guerilla is a freedom fighter, therefore a terrorist is a freedom fighter, and after all the debate about what defines a terrorist and what defines a guerilla, we have not yet defined the most important term in the debate, but Bennet hints at it here. 

This sentence should be rewritten (my suggestion below):

"After all this blurring of lines, from the assertion that a terrorist is a guerrila and a guerrila is a freedom fighter leading to the conclusion that a terrorist is a freedom fighter, and after all the debate about what defines a terrorist and what defines a guerrila, we have not yet defined the most important term in the debate.  Bennett hints at it in the passage above."

Certainly bin Laden is not a freedom fighter, but perhaps the most convincing reason he is not one can't be found in a comparison of guerilla warfare to terrorism (Though that is a distinction that must be drawn nonetheless, for this debate and for others).

Suggested rewrite:

"Certainly bin Laden is not a freedom fighter, but perhaps the most convincing reason for this claim can't be found in a comparison of guerilla warfare to terrorism (though that is a distinction that must be drawn nonetheless, for this debate and for others).
Otherwise, that is all.  Good paper, btw.