You've neglected the whole point of total war and the total war argument. You think that somehow anything goes in war between soldiers, but when someone targets civilians, oh no the world is collapsing. Again, you're saying what we do is ok, what anybody else does is terrorism. In war, there is a blending of breaking the rules, including targeting civilians. They all are on the same gradient. This is not an example of a slippery slope argument. What you are doing is being arbitrary and exclusionary. Anything that doesn't target civilians is ok, while the moment you target civilians, its automatically considered not acceptable in war and not allowed.
Targeting officers, ambushing marching soldiers is "terrorist-like". You can make the comparison. Just because one doesn't target civilians, doesn't mean you can't make any comparison. They both are under-handed and defy the rules of war and they both were frowned upon in their time-periods.
I'm not going to retract my defense of justabubba, because I think he was trying to make a valid point. If you think he's baiting, you're a mod, warn him. No excuse for flaming and baiting yourself. I don't think you should be a mod.
You're out of line. You're not interested in the facts, only in calling what other people do terrorism, and exonerating whatever the Revolutionaries did.