> Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope
All terrorists feel justified, or they wouldn't do what they do.
> the label of terrorism in the eyes of Western political discourse necessarily connotes violence of an unjustifiable or unsanctioned by the majority nature
That's not true. There's a definition for terrorism, and it's the use of violence against non-combatants to create fear for the purposes of political change. Most people don't actually know the definition, so they're easily confused.
> Would the secession and war waged by the Southern States
How would secession qualify as terrorism? The battles were mainly among two military parties. Also, the term "Civil Warm" is a misnomer. The most neutral correct term is "War Between the States." Military conscription and execution of defectors, while terrible, also not terrorism, just despotic.
Didn't say anything about definitions. I'm speaking in a descriptive sense of the "way-of-life" that the word has become a nominative signpost for. That frequently differs from the strict dictionary definition; and those that stick strictly to the dictionary are not the vast majority of the populace. It doesn't make them 'wrong' either. Language flows like a river; and at best one can end up in the same spot one came to before, but the overall state and meaning are constantly evolving.
>RE: Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/War of State's Seceession
Eh... The folks who's ancestors were among the victims of Sherman's March to the Sea may beg to differ that the conflict was largely constrained to being between just the military. Again, very fluid and slippery if you're going to allow Hiroshima/Nagasaki as being an act of terrorism. The entire concept of terrorism is so murky and ambiguous that I'm of the opinion it is evolving to become the rhetorical boogeyman of our generation; something kept around to scare people into falling in line.
I don't like it... And I try to make sure kids understand it when they seem capable of it. It's just such a damn complicated swamp to navigate through.
All terrorists feel justified, or they wouldn't do what they do.
> the label of terrorism in the eyes of Western political discourse necessarily connotes violence of an unjustifiable or unsanctioned by the majority nature
That's not true. There's a definition for terrorism, and it's the use of violence against non-combatants to create fear for the purposes of political change. Most people don't actually know the definition, so they're easily confused.
> Would the secession and war waged by the Southern States
How would secession qualify as terrorism? The battles were mainly among two military parties. Also, the term "Civil Warm" is a misnomer. The most neutral correct term is "War Between the States." Military conscription and execution of defectors, while terrible, also not terrorism, just despotic.