Terrorism has been defined in several ways, but the general consensus is that terrorist tactics are violent acts performed either by or against non-combatants whose symbolic significance is greater than their death toll.
Terrorism is a modern bogey-man — a term that can be applied to any crime in order to make its consequences multiply (even beyond the realm where ‘civil liberties’ apply) without popular push-back — and we have even begun to see the term “terrorist states” applied unironically. But, even so, ‘terrorist’ is always a term that applies to the underdog in asymmetric warfare — to the side that, barring a miracle, is doomed to lose.
Terrorism is usually employed by non-state actors. This is pretty natural: by definition, things done by armies to other armies are not terrorism, and all forms of violence outside of that is (by convention) fair game. Of course, we tend to only apply the term to symbolic actions. A video-taped beheading is terrorism; so is the bombing of a “safe place” like a shopping mall, or the assassination of a popular leader like JFK. If a church is bombed, it is considered terrorism, even if the church is empty. This is also a natural fit for non-state actors. Conventional infantry warfare requires a lot of manpower and resources — manpower and resources that only a state can organize (particularly if the cannon-fodder is being mowed down rank by rank); bomber planes and directed missiles, while safer for those controlling them, are only available at scale to technically advanced…
