> "one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter"

yes, but only to weak-minded cultural relativists.

I don't mind stating a definition explicitly. If you would consider killing nonviolent civilians, merely to send a message to others or to prove yourself to your "god," you're a terrorist.

Note: The only real complexity in the definition is that during war, embedding military equipment among civilians happens sometimes, and when it does, it's the ones choosing to do that, war criminals by definition, who bear the responsibility for those innocent deaths when those locations then become legitimate military targets.

I'll omit giving examples to avoid triggering those who like to "bothsides" some of the more well-known terrorist groups lately.

Mild terrorist sympathy right here.

Just look up mass casualty events across the middle east it's very obvious what a terrorist is.

> If your definition of terrorist is "person on the news involved in some FBI entrapment scheme", then yeah they're probably not that bright.

That's a great example of selection bias: if they were intelligent enough to be capable of causing harm at that scale, they would have immediately realized the new guy suggesting targets and offering to buy them explosives was an FBI agent.

Boko Haram is not a mentally disabled person tricked by the FBI they are real terrorists who attack schools to stop children from learning. They're the epitome of stupid and backwards.