In the twenty-first century, terrorism has become a common term in the day-to-day political vernacular. However, despite its prevalence in everyday conversation, the term terrorism is not easily defined. First, there is the question of target. There is a large debate over what the target of terror must be. Many writers believe that the targeting of "innocents" is a key component of terrorism. Douglas Lackey writes, "... the common soldier is not a terrorist, because the majority of his victims are soldiers, and a minority of his victims are civilians." All bombs kill things in their target radius regardless of military status; they are indiscriminate by nature. Lackey goes on to argue that what makes a bombing campaign constitute indiscriminate killing is the targeting of an area with a high ratio of non-military units to military units. Thus, discrimination is not in the weapons used, but in the targets decided upon. A second controversy is that of circumstance; that is, whether or not terrorist acts must be performed in times of peace, or if they can include acts perpetrated during war. Some believe that even in a war, such as World War II, terrorist actions can be undertaken. However, there is a viewpoint that in war the right to certain types of attack expands, making actions that might be considered terrorist in other contexts (such as surprise attacks or raids) justified. The final controversy is that of perpetrator size. This debate largely manifests itself in the question of whether or not state actors can be accused of terrorist action. While Ariel Merari acknowledges the possibility of state sponsored terrorism, he decides to narrowly define terrorism as a body of violence perpetrated by sub-state insurgent groups. He does so because, "if the definition of terrorism is equally applicable to nuclear war, conventional war, and guerrilla warfare, the term loses any useful meaning." Unlike some theorists, Merari does not reject state actors because of a pro-state bias, but rather concludes that the broader the term becomes, the less useful it becomes in a dialogue.
Lackey and Merari would be most likely to agree on what judgment regarding terrorism?

(A) That an individual soldier in a country's military would not typically commit terrorist acts in the course of duty.
(B) That an attack that targeted primarily civilians, rather than members of a military, would necessarily be a terrorist attack.
(C) That the term terrorism is very difficult to define. (D) That terrorism can only be carried out during peacetime.
(E) That a member of an elite branch of a given country's military could not be said to commit a terrorist act.