It’s not terrorism if a government does it openly. It was a breach of international law but to call an attack by one nation’s military on another’s terrorism is well outside any non propagandistic usage.
So you are saying that governments can not be terrorists (as long as they are open about it)?
Funny definition is that.
So, how do you call acts of agression performed by governments against non combatants?
Since the only reason not to call them terrorism is to paint (your?) government actions with a nicer brush, I assume you call those acts "liberation events"
> So, how do you call acts of agression performed by governments against non combatants?
War crimes.
The reason not to call it terrorism is because that is not what the word means. If a sovereign nation formally declares war to another, any action covered by international convention is classified seperately from "civil" or militant violence.
Funny definition is that.
So, how do you call acts of agression performed by governments against non combatants?
Since the only reason not to call them terrorism is to paint (your?) government actions with a nicer brush, I assume you call those acts "liberation events"