"Most people's definition of a terrorist attack" is any violence they don't believe in. It's a pejorative, not a description. Lets not do that fake objectivity thing here.
The somewhat objective definition of terror attacks is no longer in use.
A question: are the double taps which allegedly end up killing rescuers meant to cause terror? I've seen these referenced by some sources claiming this, but I have never seen an alternative explanation, which makes me slightly skeptical.
It's one thing to kill people you are at war with(even if it's an odd war), it's another to intentionally terrorize civilian populations to not help your targets. The later, if it's actually what's going on, would be terrorism by most people's definition and very distressing.
Possibly. That's not directly related to my point though. I'm not saying that these drones strikes should (or shouldn't) happen. I'm just talking about the word. I don't think it's helpful these days to people who want to have a rational discussion. There is no "most people's definition" that we rationally
But fear has always been used in war. Civilians have always been affected by war. Our armies aren't champions that go out and duel to decide our quarrels.
The somewhat objective definition of terror attacks is no longer in use.