Osama's attack was conducted outside the structure of a declared or defacto war and was against an undefended target.
Not the way he tells it, not the Islamophobes. And that "…or a de facto war" is as big a loophole as any I've ever seen. GeorgeII Returns!
I don't think Dresden was carpet bombed (which has a specific meaning) and the mix of incedentries was about 40% which was typical for British missions in poor visibility).
OK. Semantics and SOP are supposed to make dropping firebombs from one side of Dresden to the other without attempting to spare residential areas just peachy with all concerned. Do 'splain then what was so bad about the Hun doing it?
About a quarter of the city's industry was destroyed and the streets and transport clogged with rubble stopping the effective retreat and redeployment of German forces engaged in the fight against the russians.
So quite OK to bomb civilians and destroy/damage the roads to prevent fire and ambulance getting through, as long as it also prevents a few military bvehicles from doing so? Again, I'd bet Osama would be right there with you on that. Aren't we supposed to be the not-terrorists?
Your characterization of the events seems to be off the mark.
As does yours. Define terrorist then, without the subjective stuff that varies depending which side you're on, in such a way as to include Osama and exclude atrocities like Dresden. And don't let's forget your definition wants to shelter the heroic men and women of 'our' resistance movements—ununiformed as they set bombs on railway lines, and sank ferries—while excluding guys like Khadr building his bombs.
Nothing wrong with being partisan, buty dn't let the self-righteousness blind you to facts. As another terrorist onec said, "War is Hell"