i would argue, if any party, group, organization, state intentionally blows up civilian infrastructure, it is either a terrorist attack and/or a war crime. if

i would argue, if any party, group, organization, state intentionally blows up civilian infrastructure, it is either a terrorist attack and/or a war crime. if it is by a state, then it could be considered 'aggression' -- the 'supreme international crime'. as for the no direct / immediate civilian casualties part ("dubious") -- we can think of myriad examples of terror attacks and war crimes where the vast majority of civilians dying as a result of said attacks came later, even from 'indirect' causes -- dresden, hiroshima, nagasaki, al-shifa, etc. but whether you decide to classify it as a terror attack, terrorism, war crime, or something better or worse, i think we should be consistent, regardless of who the perpetrator(s) is/are.