Terrorism can be justified

Just War Theory.Con's counter that civilians conceptually can never present a threat is wrong as presented in my points regarding tax support and civic representation. Not only do civilians finance their governments wars (thus being at least partially responsible for the acts committed in them) but in many cases the will of citizens is embodied in the policies of their government, especially in the case of modern liberal democracies. I will respond to Con's counters against these arguments specifically below. Also, Con's point regarding the invoking terror as a method to pursue war is moot in this debate as terrorism was defined strictly as civilian attack. While many terrorists have that motivation in mind, it's irrelevant in the scope of this debate.On Con's slippery slope counter, the argument can only be made by failing to recognize the reasoning I have made in favor of terrorism being permissible. Terrorism is permissible only because civilians are in many cases partially responsible for the acts of their government. This means terrorism is justified as a means to defend against the actions of a specific government. For instance, if the U.S. is engaging in an unjust war (by JWT standards) against some country then terrorism may be justified in defense against those actions. But it's clearly incoherent for a State to use violent force in an effort to defend itself against itself since it is the civilian's relation to a government's policies that make them legitimate targets. I have no idea how my opponent conceives of the logic being the same in these two cases.Contention. Civilians and Responsibility.(A) Taxes.The main counter to the financial support contention is that no civilian ever directly threatens life in war, thus they never forfeit their right to life which if why soldiers are able to be killed justly. The problem with this point though is that Con fails to justify any categorical or conceptual difference between a citizen financing the killing actions of a soldier and someone financing the actions of a hit man. Sure the exact details might be different, but in both cases we still have someone paying someone else to go out and kill. Just like we would hold both the hit man and his employer responsible for such acts, so should the civilian who finances war be held responsible along with the soldier who carries it out. Con's point that targeting non-combatants is never necessary is unsubstantiated since he never provides argumentative support. One can certainly conceive of a situation where attacking civilians who finance a war causes financing of that war to drop, plus there is no a priori reason to suggest killing civilians could never be necessary in war. At this point it is only an assertion by Con and should not be accepted without evidential or logical reasoning.(B) Civic Representation-Non necessity of representing the people's willI can certainly agree with my opponent that not all policies acted out by a government will represent the will of it's people and that this applies just as much to war. However, it was never my contention that it did. The only point argued was that in many instances the government does represent the will of at least some of it's people who are not themselves members of the military or who are the ones fighting the war. Therefore where war is an enactment of general will (or really the will of any civilians who actively attempt to enact it) there is justification for acting against the people who's will specifically it represents. -War and representing minority viewsThe next point Con makes in counter is similar though distinct from the previous regarding civic representation. Con argues that in many cases there is not even a majority opinion needed to enact a given policy. He points out that in liberal democracies we see things like 40 o 30% support being sufficient to enact a policy even with substantial and majority opposition. From this Con posits that there's no reason to hold the "citizenry as a whole" responsible. But that was also never my case. It is only those who's will is being represented and who actively supported such a thing (by voting, persuading, giving public support to, etc.) that are morally responsible for the war. Just like a tax dissenter is not responsible for financing war, neither is a dissenter responsible for the views of others. My case only posits that (A) some civilians are justified targets of terrorism and (B) that those civilians are ones that either lend financial assistance to the war or who are part of the general will which the government seeks to represent in waging the war.