> A terrorist, I seem to remember, is someone whose main political tool is the spread of terror. The definition has shifted, especially after 9/11, but for the

> A terrorist, I seem to remember, is someone whose main political tool is the spread of terror. The definition has shifted, especially after 9/11, but for the sake of discussion let's use the one you've proposed. > A bombing is not terrorism unless used in the pursuit of political gain. The point is that only certain political goals (the ones that the US wants to de-legitimize) can qualify an act of violence as terrorism. If Pakistan were to conduct drone strikes against the US, you'd bet they would be considered "a terrorist state" by the US, even if they never hit a single civilian (which is more than the US can say for its drone strike program[0]). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Civilian_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Civi...