Not if the definition of terrorism I use is one of the 11 definitions that preclude that possibility.

Yes, some definitions are crappy.

Do we have a word for "imperialist government uses violence against people to achieve political goals"?

Because "it's not terrorism because it's a state" is always gonna stink of trying to dodge the topic on a technicality.

This is either war or war crimes depending on what exactly happened.

There seems to be a trend of calling every terrifying event “terrorism.” People sometimes colloquially refer to even non-political mass shootings as terrorism.

I believe it’s important to separate different types of mass violence. For example a gang-related mass shooting might be de-escalated by a mediator engaging the belligerents, whereas a war crime should be sent to international criminal court and a terrorist should be dealt with in a manner to minimize the earned media attention.

>This is either war or war crimes depending on what exactly happened.

Huh. Do we call operation condor a war crime?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

> Do we have a word for "imperialist government uses violence against people to achieve political goals"?

Yes, we call this "war".

> Because "it's not terrorism because it's a state" is always gonna stink of trying to dodge the topic on a technicality.

No, it's not. Nobody is trying to dogde the bad aspects of the word, it's just that terrorism specifically is, by definition, not from a state.

What is the appropriate word to use for Iran blowing up a Jewish cultural center in Argentina? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing

Note that the word "terror" appears 34 times in that Wikipedia article.

It has been conveniently memory holed by Western media but Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had deep ties with Al Qaeda.

How many Americans even know Bin Laden was hiding out in Pakistan for years after 11/9?