"And BHL to wonder what GWB wants to achieve in Iraq....
That's not where the danger lies, but in Pakistan."

The main difference is Pakistan (the govt) has demonstrated it's commitment to fight terror, oppose to sponsoring it.
This also the problem with Palestine (it's not that it has terrorists) it's whether the govt is committed to fighting these terrorists.
All countries have terrorists- all terrorist are ruthless, that's one part that makes them terrorists- the *question* is, are these terrorists given state power. An anti-abortist who kills an abortion doctor can said to be a terrorist- if the intention is to cause other abortion doctors to be afraid, then it's terrorism. Terrorism can be individual, local area, subject, racial, national, and international- torture can be individual terrorism- if the intention is to control that person by overwhelming a person's rationality by the fear of death or severe pain [also known as brainwashing].
Whether a "cause" is just or unjust has nothing to do with whether something is or is not terrorism. War is not terrorism, though war may employ terrorism as a tactic, generally speaking using terror as a sole tactic in warfare in not effective. If terrorism was an effective technique to use in warfare, then it would be used- regardless of how horrible people might consider it, terrorism is "bad" but it's ineffectiveness in terms of winning a war is the main reason it's outlawed. Terrorism, of course, is an easy way of making *some* effect of people and if your purpose was to make everyone more or less insane, then lots of terrorism is one way of bringing this about.