{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020100502512562814, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.264150943396227, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Understanding, and Misunderstanding, State Sponsorship of Terrorism

Abstract The U.S. government list of state sponsors of terrorism is dated, politicized, analytically muddy, and in general not useful for distinguishing which states truly sponsor terrorism and how aggressively they do so. A better list and process would identify different criteria that go into sponsoring terrorism and, in so doing, create multiple de facto lists. Lists would distinguish important factors such as the use of terrorism in war and the problematic criterion of states using their own clandestine agents for terrorism-like violence. Different forms of passive support would also be assessed, particularly because state passivity is often vital for jihadists and white supremacists, two of the greatest terrorism dangers today. The political and analytically flawed nature of the state sponsor list and process, however, is as much by design as it is by accident, and change is especially difficult as a result.