It seems to me that someone may commit an act of terrorism solely or partially
because of their target's nationality.
But simply the act of murder, even if motivated by the targets nationality or race, is not
necessarily terrorism.
In most cases, it would simply be murder, motivated by nationality or race.
In my mind, only if said act was performed with intent to cause terror among similar individuals would it be terrorism.
Yes, that's a definition that most would agree on I'm certain but there are many other definitions to the act.
Is that the only one you follow?
Well, I will further define it, but in general, yes...
Terrorism is
usually committed with a political goal in mind, using the terror created to push whatever your target group is towards actions you desire.
But that is not always the case - I think it possible that a terroristic act might be committed with no political motivation in mind.
Of course, that depends on how you define "political" and "motivation".
Some might consider hatred and a desire to harm a specific nationality as a political stance.
Regarding terrorism targeting civilians:
I think that restricting the definition of "terrorism" solely to attacks directed against civilians (not to mention defining the term "civilian" in the first place) is to stringent a definition.
Simply because the target of a terroristic act is a military or other "non-civilian" person does not eliminate the
intent to cause terror.
For example, if terrorists intended to kill (
because they were
Jewish)several Jewish US military members by some means, perhaps blowing up their vehicles.
If successful, and if it were known after the fact that these terrorists were targeting Jewish persons
because they were Jewish, would the fact that the attack only killed Jewish military persons reduce the terror factor among non-military Jews by much, if any?
Or apply any other group that people are lumped into, same deal.