Terrorism can be justified

As the value upon which this debate will rest on is Just War Theory (JWT), I think it would be prudent to provide a short summary of what it actually supports. Just War Theory can be divided into two main parts, Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello or the rules of when to go to war and the rules of how to conduct war respectively. Just post bellum posits the rules for ending a war but seeing as this debate is concerned with activities during war specifically, I don't feel as though they are especially relevant. Therefore, I'll only go into detail regarding ad bellum and in bello rules.Jun ad bellum deals with the rules of when one may be justified in going to war. The rules include the requirement of just cause, your side must have incurred greater injustice by the side going to war against then your side incurred against them, only just public authorities may wage war, one must go to war for the right reasons, one must have a possibility of success, war must only be in self defense, and war must always be the last resort. Just in bello contains the terms necessary for the proper conduction of war. The rules include the distinction between combatants and non-combatants and the rule that non-combatants are to be spared, expected death must be strictly proportional to military advantage, as little force as possible must be used, POW's must be fairly treated, and intrinsically evil weapons (e.g. nuclear weapons) must never be used.=================================Outline.My argument will show that terrorism does not intrinsically violate most of the terms of Just War Theory and that there is sufficient reason to bypass any reasons wherein it might. Since terrorism was defined narrowly as the use of violence against non-combatants, I will assume that the principle of combatant/ non-combatant discrimination will be the term of JWT which my opponent will primarily draw on. Therefore it will be this aspect of JWT which I will spend the majority of my case defending against. If my opponent brings any other criticisms in his rebuttal, I will also focus on those. Contention. Civilians are indirectly responsible for the acts of their country's military.(A) Taxes and financial support. By paying taxes, civilians are serving to sustain the hostilities and wars perpetuated by their government. It is only through funding of some way that a government can afford to do anything after all and this would include going to war. My point is not to argue that anyone who pays taxes contributes to the military adventures of the State however. It is only those who pay taxes which then go towards the wars perpetrated by their government that are in any way morally responsible for such wars. By helping to fund military activities of the government, citizens are binding themselves morally to the actions committed using those funds. Just like the person who actually pays an assassin is held partially responsible for subsequent actions of the assassin, citizens share some moral responsibility in helping to fund their government's military.(B) Democracy and Civic Representation.One of the cornerstones on which the concept of liberal democracy rests is that it is representative as opposed to monarchical wherein a single person or family simply asserts their will over the nation. Under liberal (representative) democracy though, the government is conceived as being a mechanism with the purpose of putting the needs and wants of the populace into action. The government is posited as the will of the people embodied. So whenever the State acts, it is supposed to be acting under the directive of its citizenry and this would include war. So under democratic theory, whenever the State goes to war we can assume that it is the general will of the people. If this is true then there is clearly a flaw in JTW conceiving of citizens as not having a hand in military conflict. If it is only through the general consent of the citizenry that a State goes to war then the citizenry (who consented) cannot be defended as morally innnocent in the matter.Conclusion.For these two reasons it can be sufficiently shown that civilians are not necessarily innocent in military conflicts and that under sufficient conditions they actually positively sustain such conflicts. JWT argues that civilians ought to be spared from military activities because either they had no part in starting such conflicts or because they aren't strictly speaking responsible for the acts of their government. But as I have shown, by either actively supporting their government financially and through the fact that government acts mostly as a representative of the will of the people, they are not necessarily innocent in any morally relevant (JWT) sense. Looking at the other aspects of JWT, I don't think there are any other rules which terrorism runs into problems with vis a vis targeting civilians. If my opponent believes it does then I invite him to make those known in his argument.