Oh, you mean you actually want to talk about the substance of the article instead of merely parrotting a few lines of text from the handbook?
I agree
in substance that a definition of terrorist would be useful. The problem, of course, is that the definition would provide something for those who regard "Group X" as "freedom fighters" to quibble over with those who regard them as terrorists.
Can a state commit terrorism and disguise it as collateral damage? If the Palestinians confined their attacks to Israeli military forces, would they cease to be terrorists? Don't see how a definition is going to clarify much.