[jfengel]

That is the near-universal definition, but I don't think it captures the essence of it.

The difference between terrorism and warfare is the degree of top-down control. Warfare is done in uniform, by people in a hierarchy.

The reason for the distinction is that there is somebody taking responsibility. You end a war by agreeing to a treaty with the top level. You can hold the top level responsible for violations of the rules of war.

Terrorism, by contrast, is harder to stop. There is no authority to end it. Even state-sponsored terrorism need not end when the sponsoring state agrees; they can find a different sponsor.

That doesn't make one morally worse or better than the other. It's just a distinction worth drawing, because it governs how you go about bringing an end to it.

The US law for terrorism is about attacks against it, and they combat those differently from how they'd go about fighting a war against a conventional enemy.

What the US is doing to Iran is almost certainly unlawful, but I think that calling it "terrorism" obscures the fact that there is an authority to end it. The attack is legal in its own terms -- it at least has a law, which terrorists do not.

Again, not better. Arguably, much worse. Which is why I find the definition problematic.

[foldr]

You're conflating terrorism with irregular warfare. The Oradour-sur-Glane massacre was terrorism committed by regular forces; the French resistance blowing up a German supply train was non-terrorist action by irregular forces.

[ModernMech]

The US has constantly been at war for like 250 years. How can you conclude war is easier to stop than terrorism? Can we make the USA stop waging war? Because that would be a nice change.

Just take Iran, they agreed to a treaty with the top level of the USA. But the next top level ripped up the agreement and now is threatening total destruction of their civilization. Should Iran sign a new deal with that guy, and what's to stop him from tearing that up and bombing them again?

[jfengel]

The US stopped individual wars. They went on to attack somebody else, but the host of the previous war was happy to see it over. That's why they negotiated a peace treaty, and the US mostly respected that. (Except with the native Americans.)

There is nothing to stop the next guy from changing his mind, but it generally doesn't happen.

It certainly could, and yeah, there's a really strong case that with the current administration the US has gone completely off the rails. My last comment was speaking generally about civilized countries. It doesn't account for rogue states, and the US is increasingly fitting that definition.

Can a rogue state commit terrorism by my definition? Not with a uniformed army. That's another part of my definition of terrorism: it puts civilians in jeopardy by hiding its combatants among them. Uniformed soldiers are legitimate targets, which means it's possible to fight back only against legitimate targets, even if those legitimate targets are committing acts that would otherwise be terrorism.

I don't think targeting civilians is a sufficient definition for terrorism, because militaries have been doing that since forever. It's basically part of war, even if we wish to pretend otherwise.

[ModernMech]

> The US stopped individual wars. They went on to attack somebody else, but the host of the previous war was happy to see it over.

Right, until they come back and attack again though. USA has invaded several countries multiple times including Iraq, Haiti, DR, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua... Seems to me "terrorist" is just something states call the warriors of the people they themselves are terrorizing.

Frankly, the current administration is just recycling the propaganda and playbook of the bloodthirsty Neocons, so I don't see how this current administration is an aberration.