This is a clear yes as there is no law of physics that puts some kind of energy shield against those who plan and commit violence for the purpose of influence through terror, even if they are under occupation

@Stralor Curious where you think the line is between terrorism and armed resistance/self determination? How long can one group occupy and control the movement of another group before it becomes collective punishment? Obviously difficult questions but it seems the answer is probably highly correlated with whether or not you are a member of a group that has either occupied or been occupied. For example, the US is overwhelming in favor of Israel while Ireland is the strongest supporter of Palestinians probably anywhere in the world but certainly in the West.

@BTE My position: terrorism is a tool of the oppressed. Its purpose is in the name: to instill terror as a deterrent or as a message. Terrorism isn't designed to usurp the powerful, but rather to break the will of the common people who support them. It's to be the dangerous rabid wolf backed into a corner, "Don't come near me or you'll regret it even if you win." I don't think of it as on a spectrum with armed resistance or self-determination, but rather as one potential path for those to manifest.

As a contemporary term, however, it's wielded with abandon, used insincerely to mean any action that scares people and goes against a narrative of decency.

I'd argue that the corollaries for the powerful are warcrimes, genocide, and general "crimes against humanity".

A nation can commit total war; a resistance is by its nature guerilla and the tactics available to it are inherently different.

@BTE

How long can one group occupy and control the movement of another group before it becomes collective punishment?

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. Are we talking about the sensation of "we are being punished, we have accepted our fate", or as an idea that occupation naturally leads to collateralization of a wider populace? Or some other sense?