>But what made it a terrorist attack, as opposed to an act of revolutionary war, is that it was intended to be very public and to frighten the populace.
This was true of many of the events leading up to the American Revolution too. Tarring and feathering of tax collectors, the Boston Tea Party, etc. At the time, the vast majority of Americans were Loyalists and would have been made afraid by these acts (and in fact that was the point, this is why many of the participants of the Boston Tea Party dressed up as Native Americans, to instill fear through their "savage" appearance).
If you want to say all these are terrorism too, then fine, I agree. Most people's definition of terrorism is a political one, where they can denounce acts they don't like and support those they do, and there's little consistency applied. If you're one who applies consistency, more power to you!
>Consider: murdering a witness to stop them testifying against you. That has a primarily tactical objective. Not terrorism.
>Killing someone who owes you a debt, on the other hand, is terrorism because it serves no tactical purpose (you definitely won’t get your money) it is only meant to instill fear in your other debtors.
To play devil's advocate, isn't there a tactical objective primarily in the latter example as well? By instilling fear in your other debtors, you increase the profits of your lending enterprise.