Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).
Yes, soldiers...as in plural, with the intent of reducing the ability of the Iraqi army to fight back. That is different than attacking a single soldier and than waiting to be taken into custody while making statement to a crowd of people.
Right. So, had this guy killed at least two soldiers, he'd no longer have been a terrorist? Or perhaps making statements is the sign of terrorism. Being arrested? I'm not sure what your point is here.
No, he's a terrorist because he only killed one soldier, he's a terrorist because his intent was to scare the civilian populace into submission. If he were specifically targeting soldiers for the sake of damaging the British military and its ability to fight, that wouldn't be terrorism. However, because ultimate target audience was civilians, it's terrorism.
I think that's reasonable, though it still includes most warfare.
Most warfare aims to knock out the opponent military's ability to fight, especially when the end goal is something that doesn't involve conquest. Not that it doesn't happen at all in conventional warfare (terror bombing, for example), it's just not as common as the more direct approach.
That's total war, sure. You murder enough civilians, trash or occupy enough cities and factories to destroy the enemy's ability to fight. Most conventional war is aimed at destroying their will to fight- this was the strategy of both sides of Vietnam, and Korea- which fits firmly within your definition of terrorism.
