In the article “Is Terrorism Typically Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues that terrorism is not particularly wrong compared to conventional warfare. However, I argue that terrorism is necessarily wrong. To support his claim, McPherson argues that there is nothing morally relevant in making a distinction between terrorism and conventional warfare waged by states. In other words, according to the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both the two types of political violence have some common characteristics related to morality such as threat to civilian life. McPherson argues that conventional warfare usually results in more casualties and generates widespread fear among noncombatants. It focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes care about non-combatants and proportionality. This view implies that terrorists do not simply intend to harm civilians. As a matter of fact, sometimes they put civil interests first. Those terrorists who cared for the victims would not have rebelled...