It basically just means "designated enemy of the state"

That’s how it’s used but that’s not what it means. We seem to fundamentally agree; my point is mostly that “terrorist” is a noun that we, as people, have allowed to become a proper noun with a universal adapter.

It’s become a buzzword that gets thrown out to delegitimize opposition of any sort. I figure this is where you’re coming from when you say it has no meaning because we’ve allowed the word to be cheapened.

A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).

A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals

That describes the current US government perfectly. It describes the Israeli government and military perfectly. It’s actually pretty spot on with a lot of government action at various points across the globe.

Once citizenry react to a government “that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals”, I think we’d agree, they are not terrorists but in fact anti-terrorists.