[Dylan16807]

Depends on what exactly the threats were here. If you make a credible bomb threat against taking particular actions that can be terrorism.

Yes the definition is a bit broad. I thought about excluding nation states but that's not quite right either. Perhaps I could argue that the British were not bystanders in your example.

[nishonia]

Ok, so what makes a threat credible enough to instill terror? Seriously, terror. I'm not talking about a level of concern that causes people to modify their behavior around media consumption, I'm talking about the level of terror that breaks your enemy's will to fight. Again, terrorism falls within the spectrum of warfare - not criminal behavior. I'd argue that the identity and reputation of the aggressor needs to be established for a bomb threat to be considered terroristic. Even the CIA, an entity that would benefit from a loose definition of terrorist, refuses to classify a group as "terrorist" unless they have expressed intent and demonstrated capability.

It wouldn't make any sense to exempt states from the list of potential terrorist actors - because the state invented terrorism. As I said, spectrum of warfare. Now intelligent people can disagree about the ability of individuals to declare war... but then terrorism is restricted to the state. I hope you've misunderstood my WWII example, because otherwise you've just argued that civilian children, elderly and infirm were somehow not bystanders while huddled in bomb shelters. My history isn't super strong, but I don't think anybody has ever argued that the British engaged in total war - which would be necessary for children to be classified as anything but bystanders.

[Dylan16807]

I guess you and I have completely different definitions of terrorism. I wouldn't say that actual terror is necessary. Just fear. And I have exactly the opposite reaction about warfare. I think that the terror of proper war is on an entirely different level, in most ways worse, in fewer ways not as bad. Someone being attacked in a war can't give in to a political threat and make the danger go away. It's entirely different. A state can perform terrorism but it's not by dropping bombs on every city they can reach.

Civilians in a time of war aren't exactly targets but they're not 100% innocent either. It's complicated. Children don't make choices but they are affected by the choices of their guardians. It would be nice to say that any civilian casualties in war are unacceptable but that's clearly not how humans work.

[nishonia]

Terrorism is pretty well defined, only recently has the the term been corrupted. If you were to do a survey of material on the subject you'd find that the vast majority of literature is related to state military action, written decades before CNN splashed the word all over the little crawler at the bottom of your television set.

As far as war: fear is nowhere near the emotional response needed to end hostilities. Everybody is afraid in war. There are only two ways to end a war (in victory): attrition or subjugation. Look at the failed wars of the last century, see what they're missing? Actually, I can't really think of a war that was won through attrition... the western front of WWII maybe. Anyway, war is politics - when one side surrenders they have given into political threats to make the danger go away.

I'm a little surprised that I have to break it down this way, but try this: you are an Iraqi in occupied Fallujah. In one scenario the Americans only intentionally kill military aged males who openly engage them in firefights. You're afraid but you know the rules to the game and your will remains unbroken. In the second scenario the Americans publicly execute every military aged male they come across and rape every woman in your family, repeatedly on a random schedule. They capture you and torture you for days, then finally release you after they cut off your right arm. Also, they threaten to bury every Muslim killed in combat inside a dead pig - preventing them from entering heaven (as the British threatened back in the day in India). Also, piles of dead children are stacked and set fire on every street corner. This goes on for months. I'd argue that in the second scenario the population would effectively be terrorized, and your will to fight would be broken.

That is the original meaning of terrorism. What is called terrorism today is pretty much criminal activity, rebranded to justify feeding the military industrial complex. War isn't complicated by the way, it is just wrong. There is no need to tie your brain in knots trying to explain how children aren't 100% innocent in war :)