Terrorism can be justified

The framework for this debate is Just War Theory. Just War Theory says it is unjust to kill non-combatants or civilians. Terrorism is defined as the "deliberate use of violence against non-combatants or civilians in the pursuit of some political goal." If we remain within the framework of this debate (provided by my opponent), then terrorism cannot be justified. It is, by definition, incompatible with Just War Theory.If my opponent is to show that terrorism is justified, my opponent will have to provide a reason compelling enough to override Just War Theory. To do this, my opponent would have to show (1) that the "political goal" of terrorism is good enough to justify the killing of non-combatants, (2) that the "political goal" will necessarily follow from acts of terrorism, and (3) that the "political goal" cannot be achieved in any other way. The burden is on my opponent, if terrorism is to be justified, to prove each of these three points, neither of which has been argued yet.Just War TheoryJWT establishes a very clear distinction between combatants and non-combatants. A combatant is armed, prepared to die, and therefore an immediate threat. A non-combatant (or civilian) is unarmed, not prepared to die, and therefore not an immediate threat. The moral status of civilians and soldiers is therefore "categorically and conceptually different": soldiers are armed, trained, and expected to kill other soldiers, whereas civilians are unarmed, untrained, and prohibited from killing (if a civilian kills someone it is generally considered murder). As such, JWT does not permit the killing of non-combatants. A soldier who turns their weapon on a civilian is the equivalent of a non-combatant who kills a civilian: an act of murder (rather than an act of war).Re: Civilians and Responsibility(A) TaxesThe "categorical or conceptual difference" between a citizen who finances a hit man and the hit man himself is the same difference between a citizen who finances a soldier and the soldier himself: both citizens are unarmed and untrained (and therefore not prepared to die), whereas the hit man and soldier are armed, trained (presumably a hit man has been trained), and therefore prepared to die. True, a citizen who finances a hit man is held partially responsible for acts committed by the hit man, but partial responsibility does not justify killing the citizen. The government does not condone the killing of its own citizens just because they financed a hit man; instead, the government arrests and prosecutes citizens for their crimes. If found guilty, they are imprisoned (and in some rare cases where the citizen is responsible for murder, given the death penalty). In no way does financing a hit man justify the out-right killing of the financer. In our society, civilians and non-combatants have a basic, fundamental right to life. This right is inviolable, unless the civilian chooses to become a combatant.There is thus clearly a difference between civilians and soldiers - civilians are non-combatants whereas soldiers are combatants. JWT does not permit the killing of non-combatants, so any action taken against non-combatants during war would be considered murder. Terrorism, as such, is the equivalent of murder. It cannot be justified, even during war.My opponent claims a situation could be conceived where deliberately killing civilians to achieve a political goal (terrorism) would be "necessary." Yet my opponent has not provided such a scenario or even hinted at what such a scenario might look like. The burden is on my opponent to prove such a scenario exists. If an act of terrorism is necessary, then it would indeed be justified. But I maintain that no act of terrorism is ever justified because there is always an alternative. It is never necessary to kill non-combatants to win a war, as non-combatants don't pose a threat. If an opposing nation's military is destroyed, the war would be over. There is never a need to kill non-combatants.My opponent says nothing I say should be accepted without "evidential or logical reasoning." I'm not sure what this means. If I say that killing non-combatants is not necessary, the burden is on my opponent to prove a single case where it is necessary. JWT clearly states that non-combatants should not be killed during war, so the burden is on my opponent to prove killing non-combatants would be necessary. I don't really see what kind of "evidential or logical reasoning" my opponent is looking for here.(B) Civic RepresentationMy opponent agrees that “not all policies acted out by a government will represent the will of its people.” Thus, my opponent claims it is only civilians who "actively" support war who are morally responsible. My opponent writes: “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.”The problem with civilians who lend financial assistance to war is that (1) not all citizens who pay taxes support war (many of them continue to pay taxes because it is illegal to not pay taxes), and (2) there is no practical mechanism to determine which citizens support war simply by asking whether they pay taxes or not (some people who do not pay taxes support war while some people who do pay taxes oppose war).The problem with targeting civilians who support war through voting, persuading, giving public support, and other such things, is that they nonetheless remain non-combatants. It is a democratic ideal to preserve the freedom of speech, and if we are allowed to kill non-combatants because they voice their opinions publicly, then we have effectively negated the freedom of speech as a democratic ideal. This is not only unacceptable on a political level (what "political goal" achieved by terrorism could outweigh protections on free speech?), it is also unacceptable because non-combatants pose no immediate threat by voicing their opinions. If it was seriously thought that voicing an opinion publicly posed a threat, then governments around the world would immediately censor speech. This is obviously not the case.ConclusionI remind my opponent that the burden is on him to prove that JWT should be abandoned in favor of some other framework. It is also my opponent's burden to show (1) that the "political goal" of terrorism is good enough to justify the killing of non-combatants, (2) that the "political goal" will necessarily follow from acts of terrorism, and (3) that the "political goal" cannot be achieved in any other way. This means my opponent must justify terrorism theoretically and empirically - it must not only have a political goal that overrides the killing of non-combatants, but it must also guarantee that this political goal be achieved and that it cannot be achieved in any other way. I personally don't see how this burden can be met, but I look forward to hearing my opponent's arguments otherwise.