Terrorism commonly targets fear
Terrorist violence often attacks civilians or symbolic targets in order to frighten a wider population and influence political behaviour.
States possess legal authority
Governments may lawfully use force in policing and defence, but legal authority does not make every use of force moral.
Civilian targeting remains central
Deliberately attacking civilians is morally wrong whether the perpetrator is a clandestine group or a recognised state.
Scale and capacity matter
States often possess far greater destructive power, surveillance capacity and control over public narratives than non-state groups.
Intent and foreseeability both matter
Directly intending civilian harm differs from unintended harm, but knowingly accepting excessive civilian deaths may also be gravely wrong.
Labels can conceal inconsistency
Similar acts may be described differently depending upon political allegiance. Moral analysis should apply the same standards to allies, enemies, states and non-state actors.
Evidence notes
Evaluation should examine targets, intention, proportionality, precautions, legal authority, accountability and whether violence was designed to terrorise or coerce civilians.
Ethical questions
Does state authority morally transform an otherwise identical act?
Can indiscriminate bombing be morally distinguished from terrorism solely by the identity of the attacker?
Should the same standards apply to allies and enemies?
Conclusion
There are legal and institutional differences between terrorism and state violence, but neither label settles the moral question. Deliberate or reckless harm to civilians remains wrong regardless of who commits it.