Problem: Attacks against civilians are acts of war of done by a government entity, but terrorism if done by an independent entity. That being said, I don't believe that acts of war and terrorism are mutually exclusive. You can have a terrorism attack that is an act of war. So, to the next question, yes the attacks on civilians we acts of terrorism, yet acts of war. These acts were not justifiable terrorism, there is no such thing. The only thing that makes it "acceptable" as noted in the video of Mr. McNamara, is if the side who committed the act wins. He raises a very good question, "but what makes immoral if you lose, and not if you win?" Terrorism is malum in se, there is no call for killing innocents. The act of total war should only be committed by countries and trained militaries. Small time militias who fight using guerrilla warfare are dangerous to everyone around them, due to a lack in proper training. Militias tend to make rash decisions. That being said, so do government leaders. However, small militias are able to disappear and reappear in random places making them more dangerous due to their erratic patterns and unpredictability. Need Assignment Help?