Except they don't have a blank check. We know where they live. They can be held accountable for their actions, terrorists can not. Yes, perhaps it needs a bit of refinement to specify a mass act of violence. That was war. I don't even consider the Nazi's terrorists. For whatever reason, if a state is involved, to me, that's not terrorism. Well, I take that back. If a state funds terrorists to sneak in and commit acts of terrorism I'd still consider it terrorism and an act of war. But if it's done by guys wearing uniforms, guys who we can strike back against, that's war. But it's not the same. When France bombs Germany, they are open to immediate counter attack. When some scumbag terrorist bombs a city, where is he? Who do we strike back against. That's why Roman's idea of a state being involved is a crucial difference. When one state attacks another, it's war. When a rogue group attacks someone, that's terrorism. It's the difference between sucker punching someone and then running away before he can strike back, and kicking someone's ass and then pointing to your house and saying, "if you want any more, I live right there." The terrorist does not really take responsibility for his actions. He hides among civilians, he attacks civilians. The state, no matter how horrible the atrocity it commits, takes responsibility for it. It owns up to it. Anyone who has a problem with what the state has done knows just who to see to do something about it. That is a crucial difference.