Quote Originally Posted by js207 View Post
It's not about "civilisation", but a simple matter of linguistics: 'terrorism' is an English word used to describe a particular type of act, the instillation of terror.
Linguistically speaking, you are right. An act of terror can be a legitimate military tactic. But I maintain that a terrorist is a label which may be applied differently by the perpetrators of the act and its victims.

yes, 'the entire city' was targeted, and legally the city as a whole was a valid target. A target was prohibited only if completely free from military value.
I imagine the citizens of Dresden would question the legality. As would the citizens of London, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What about Nanking, then? Would the atrocities performed there be considered a "legal" act? They were, after all, supporting the enemy.

It's a bit more selective than that: not 'hurt the enemy' but 'hurt the enemy's military'
Exactly! It's doubtful that the bombing of Dresden, for example, did anything to "hurt" the German military. They were already hurt badly, and the actual area of the city destroyed had little or no military significance. It can be argued that it was, indeed, an act of terror. And I will agree that the acts perpetrated on 9/11/01 were acts of terror as well, by anyone's definition. My only point is that those who committed the acts, whether in New York or Germany, were considered patriots by their own people.