These are all important topics but I'm not sure that they're hanging together in a coherent manner; not am I sure that this, as a question, belongs to logic though of course it involves the use of reason: philosophically logic and reason are two different things; it appears to be a question that belongs to rhetoric (classically speaking) and by the nature of its subject also to political philosophy.
Warfare, at least classically, takes between state-actors; there are concepts such as asymmetrical warfare which accounts for a state against non-state actors which would include guerrilla warfare and policing; and in a sense, the war on terror is more akin to policing than it is to warfare.
Civil warfare generally describes the implosion of a polity through actual sustained violence (and not occasional acts), which is different from the feuding of various factions in a balance of power; such as the civil war that tore Rwanda apart, or the American Civil War.
Polities have institutions - disciplinary institutions in Foucauldian terms; this is not the same as warfare in general terms.
The word 'Terror' like the word 'Free' means many different things; and you're comparing, I think two unlike, but associated meanings of the same word; which is a subtle tactic of rhetoric (under which comes things like advertising, public relations and propaganda); the question is whether it is being adopted towards a political end that can be justified.
However, when one considers the following:
For example, incarceration rates in America for the black demographic make:
40% of the total prison population...and exceed the average in twenty states.
Whilst the States houses 4.4% of the worlds population, it houses 22% of its prisoners.
This whilst not classical civil warfare is certainly not social cohesion; and I find disturbing.
One might ask what is the proper concept to describe this.