My only quibble is that, while no country is perfect, Allied bombings of non-military targets in WWII was very much the exception rather than the rule. Even in Dresden; Wikipedia notes (and cites; they didn't pull it out of thin air) that claim is disputed on the grounds that "several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre. " That's fine if you want to believe the Allies deliberately ignored significant military targets just to inflict suffering on the civilian German populace, but since the Allied commanders probably knew better than anyone that the German populace had little say in the war by then it seems dubious. All of that said, however, a case can be made, and if one accepts that case then I agree it would qualify as terrorism. Deliberately targeting civilians as an end in itself is reprehensible whoever does it, but if you insist on zero civilian casualties then every invading army will mount babies on the front of their tanks.

Whether we can sell our agreed upon definition of "terrorist" and "guerrilla" remains to be seen....