You're getting just a tad trollish. I did not suggest casting poxes at any point, though I would suggest that various diplomatic structures prevent war in a more-or-less predictable way.
There is an explicit branch of strategic bombing which is explicitly terrorism. No ambiguity involved.
I'll watch my tone. But conversely, sometimes trolls are just people that disagree with you in a manner that you find uncomfortable. I will attempt to be polite and respectful, and will apologize if I'm not. That's all I can do.
If you are using the Wiki article as an argument that due to international treaty terror bombing was illegal/immoral/defined as terror, etc then I disagree. As far as I know, the word "terror" was not used in the treaty and even if it was, it does not describe the same thing as what I'm describing. Once again, my definition is nothing but thin air, but it does describe a unique thing that this does not.
Other treaties such as the Kellog-Briand Pact did all sorts of things, like outlaw the use of war in the furtherance of national policy:
Reviewing the pact (and several others) is a good reference for the difference between diplomacy and reality, the difference between treaties that make the populations feel better and treaties that actually accomplish something. If I remember correctly, terror bombing was conducted by all sides in WWII. The Washington Post article makes a great case for utilitarianism in warfare -- trying to see fifty years down the road and doing the thing that causes the least harm overall. Does this require a conviction that you are right and the other person wrong? Absolutely. But I can't imagine conducting a war in which both sides agree that, hey, it's all kinda relative anyway. Sort of a struggle of the apathetic. There are some deep issues here, and I'm opposed to anybody that claims to be able to handle them all in a soundbite.
When I think of terrorism and western civilization, I think the best analogies are the American Civil War and the struggle on the plains with the American Indians. While I understand we have somewhat cartoonish views of both conflicts now, they have great parallels to the current situation.
You're welcome to pursue various definitions of terrorism. Another overloaded fuzzy word is the word "war", which has lost all sense of meaning in the last 100 years. It's reached the point where "war on terror" could mean anything from a land invasion of Iraq to a bake sale to collect money for preventing a motorcycle convention from coming to town. You can't have any kind of discussion without first a definition of terms, as old Socrates understood.
There is an explicit branch of strategic bombing which is explicitly terrorism. No ambiguity involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_bombing