How can this be compared to terrorism? Because of our double-standard. If terrorism is an act, against civilians, intended to strike fear into the hearts of the populace, then I would generally say the events of 11.9 qualify. I would also say the nuclear bombings of Hirosima and Nagasaki qualify. Was that not the intention? So why don't we mention prominently in /those/ two articles that they were terrorist acts? Because we choose to restrict our in-group definition to only those acts perpetrated by people who are not part of the military of a nation internationally recognised as sovreign? Do we realise how sillily fine the line between those two categories is? The only reason we keep it separate is because we want to believe that Us attacking Them is not Evil ("terrorist" can often be used as a synonym for evil in modern American society), while Them attacking Us is. We demonise the British role in the war for American independence, yet we glorify the role of the Union in the American civil war which occurred for strikingly similar reasons. Both were cases of wars seeking to gain independence for a region, the Colonials and the Confederates were both the disgruntled, both wanted to break away, yet the Colonials are good but the Confederates are bad. Some say it's because they had slaves. Then why do we perpetuate the personality cult of George Washington who was a slaveowner?
You've just made the point that "terrorist" is POV, and yet seem to agree to its use. This is inconsistent.
I don't agree to its use. But if we continue with the idea that "terrorist" is NPOV, then why do we say "vigilante" is POV? It's a double standard, and that was my point.
Mark