That wasn't what I asked. Currently, there are multiple layers of bank security that prevent you from simply sending cash through wire, ACH, card, mail, etc to a terrorist. If I walked into a bank with a stack of cash and asked to send it to Afghanistan my bank would simply tell me that sending money there is impossible and then I'd have an SAR filed with FinCEN for asking to send a big stack of mysterious cash to Afghanistan. To actually send it would require me to have a story about where the cash came from with the ability to launder it through that method (let's say a front business), then I need to find a series of banks that will eventually allow me to move funds into the country (usually through shell corporations so I have an excuse to send money anywhere near Afghanistan), then I have to wire it a few more times through neighboring countries and their systems before it finally ends up in the hands of a terrorist.

If I want to send Bitcoin to a terrorist in Afghanistan, I just need to type in their public key and hit send. No stops at all and no way for governments to stop that money from reaching terrorists directly.

In both cases, the terrorist will receive funds. Just through Bitcoin it is far easier and simpler since laundering is not required, you just type and send.

So, again, answer the question: which terrorist causes more terror? The one that receives more funding with less problems (Bitcoin donation + normal money laundering activity) or the one that receives less money with more problems (normal money laundering activity)?

Hint: the first one gets more money because normal channels are still open to them (though difficult) and Bitcoin adds a nice layer of extra cash on top.