Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?

[lewisnotmiller]

Terrorism is the use of violent acts to create fear in order to accomplish political ends.

Okay, I can live with that definition. Generally the classical definition includes something about the legality, or otherwise, of an act, which I suspect is mostly a way to differentiate between government and non-government actions.

While I would not label the Allies as terrorists (no, the overwhelming strategy of the Allies was simply to wage war), I would say that i.e. the bombing of Dresden would fall under the definition of terrorism. We just didn't have a concept of terrorism back then.

Funnily enough, we did. I'm not saying this as part of any particular argument on points, but just in case you're interested in the topic.
Terrorism had been used since the late 1700's, but it's meaning couldn't be conflated with modern meanings. There was a specific and literal description of agents of Robespierre (and his Reign of Terror) as terrorists. And the word terrorism in a general sense was largely non-political, meaning to deliberately instill terror.

As the word became more tied to politics in the early 1800's, it was used mostly to describe politically-inspired terror constituted by governments. Refer some of Jefferson's writings. The apparent genesis of that meaning was from France, so still related to Robespierre and his agents.

By 1813, John Adams and Jefferson were using the term in correspondence to refer to forces acting AGAINST the government.
And by 1934, the following definition was included in the Unabridged Websters dictionary;

Act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; specif.: a The system of the Reign of Terror. b A mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation. c Any policy of intimidation.

What I take from your comments, though, is that you see acts as terrorism...so Dresden could be described as terrorism, without describing the Allies as a whole as terrorists.
So, leaving the Allies out of it in general terms...does that make Churchill specifically a terrorist?

So for example, when Hamas fires rockets into Southern Israel at civilians so that the fear it generates destabilizes Israel, with the idea of collapsing "the Zionist entity," THAT is terrorism. When Israel fires BACK at Hamas, at Hamas (military) targets, in response, this is a defensive act of war, not terrorism. I'm not saying that everything Israel does is angelic--I can be pretty hard nosed in my criticism of what Israel does. I'm saying that this is what things are in this one example that I have given here.

Okay, that seems to further support the idea that particular acts are terrorism, so I'm happy to leave your example here for what it is (an example) and not start picking out examples that might talk against this. I get what you mean, and I'll accept that you criticise Israel (or whomever) when you believe they deserve it. No reason to doubt you. Mostly I'm just interested in how you define terrorism in such a clear fashion, and where Churchill would sit based on that. I've never had any luck at all being able to clarify it, and am (frankly) sceptical it can be done, but I'm happy to converse openly on the topic if you're interested.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, leaving the Allies out of it in general terms...does that make Churchill specifically a terrorist?

While I think that Churchill can and should be taken to task for the terrorism used in i.e. Dresden, the use of terrorism was not his typical strategy. He by far and away targeted military structures, military persons, and infrastructure that furthered the military of the Nazis. So, no I would not classify him as a terrorist.

I think that today, such blurred lines are found much less often. Non-terrorist entities such as modern democracies almost never commit acts of terrorism now that consciousness has been raised, and terrorist groups tend to specialize in such tactics. What do you think?