When one acknowledges the existence of state terrorism (though I curiously want to know which states English has in mind), but does exclude it from his analysis when dealing with non-state terrorism. One does not certainly see the interaction between the two types of terrorism (nor can one be able to broaden the concept and practices of "terrorism". I know I am probably passing a premature judgement on English's take, but that's the impression I get from the reviewer and the quotes.
Nagel, on the other side, believes that Bin Laden and his colleagues "had stimulated the invasion of Iraq" (!!) That says it all.
"By Any Means or None"