If you must know the answer, I feel like a person who's read a dictionary and knows that terrorists are people who use violence and intimidation to achieve their political goals.
"(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"
I know it's confusing when white people are called "terrorist", but the definition clearly fits. If it helps you to understand, think about the Pune/Bombay examples I linked to above (where the perpetrators and victims are all brown).
Any army that ever participated in a war fit this.
I think there some "terror" missing from this definition. Anyway, it is a word that should just not be used today. There is no context where it clarifies anything anymore. The GP is correct in distrusting people that use it, and I add that some loss of trust should be automatic.
Yes, I left out the requirement of being a non-state actor in my comment. I don't think my comment was misleading at all. My use of the word "terrorist" fit both my definition and chinathrow's.
Since you seem to think I'm being misleading, what do you think I'm misleading people about?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f
"(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"
Rough words for a few Uber drives in France.