So your comments are more legitimate?
Given that my assertions are supported by facts and not opinions, yes, they certainly are more legitimate. University 101.
terrorism has a definition. it is the adroit manipulation of fear.
Interestingly, there is no absolutely accepted definition of terrorism. Despite that, here is how the following parties define it-
US Department of State
“Terrorism is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine state agents, usually to influence an audience.
FBI
“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Encyclopaedia Britannica
“The systematic use of terror (such as bombings, killings, and kidnappings) as a means of forcing some political objective. When used by a government, it may signal efforts to stifle dissent; used by insurrectionists or guerrillas*, it many be part of an overall effort to effect desired political change.”
What can we deduce from that? Acts of terrorism all have 3 common components-
1. Motive
2. Violence
3. Message/Communication/Influence
Simply, terrorism is a method of communication.
Now tell me, what do you think the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were aimed at? Before you go looking for military targets, i suggest you do some research on the 'Potsdam Proclamation' to find out exactly what the US was promising Japan. How different is that from what Al Qaeda demands of the West?