War is supposed to be between armies not killing innocents.
Ofcourse i have no idea what islam advices regarding infidels .
A 'war' is mostly a philosophical construct or 'state of mind'. It means a state of hostility between parties.
The word 'combat' is when there is physical contact between hostile parties.
A 'state of hostility' or 'state of war' exists between North and South Korea, but no real combat.
From this understanding, who is a 'combatant' depends on one's personal philosophy on what is a 'war' or when a 'state of hostility' exists between parties. The current formality is that my country is at war, but unless I join the army, I cannot be a combatant. The corollary is that unless you join your army, I cannot see you as a combatant for your country. So as civilians, we cannot kill each other. We can stare angrily at each other all day long, but we cannot take up arms against each other.
Ideological terrorism is when the formality of war is discarded.
If side A believes there is a separation between a 'soldier' and a 'civilian' and that there is a sanctity on the 'civilian', any combat actions against civilians constitutes 'terrorism'. It is violence against that which is-not-allowed-to-fight in order to effect policy changes.
If side A responds by changing its own philosophical construct of what is a 'war' and who is a 'combatant', then there will be unrestrained warfare. Literally everyone is a combatant and therefore a legitimate target. The word 'legitimate' here is not to mean measured against an extraordinary standard, like a law book that you have to consult before you do anything. The word 'legitimate' under unrestrained warfare is to mean to be measured against one's own standards.
Unrestrained warfare is what we had in WW II and in many lesser conflicts today. The horrors of WW II when states rallied national assets to kill is when we formalized the separation between the 'soldier' and the 'civilian' and placed sanctity on the latter.
This is why what is happening is extremely dangerous. The government does not have to print out a declaration to the effect of: " Citizens of A, from now on, all of us are official combatants. And same for Citizens of B of which we are hostile against. " Collectively, citizens of A can change their minds regardless of anything the government may or may not say about their status.
If this continues, it will be inevitable that there will be combat in the streets of European cities where Muslims and non-Muslims will not see each other as 'civilians' but as hostile agents supporting diametrically opposing ideas.
