Good points, and the editorial 'we' will probably never agree on what constitutes terrorism because it depends on your POV. Everyone likes the word 'terrorism' because it's so loaded with emotionalism. However, it's not fair anymore, I think, and I guess you agree, to stick to the strict dictionary definition. 'Racism' is another one that has broadened to include and recognize new forms of colour discrimination we didn't acknowledge or even realize before, but it's not the same as a lynching. So calling someone who said 'coloured people' a racist is way different from calling a lynching racist. When I was growing up we used to talk about 'prejudice'; it was attitudes and beliefs, and we applied 'racist' to actions. We have lost that nuance in public discourse; Matt Damon left Twitter after being 'canceled' by Alyssa Milano and Minnie Driver who took umbrage at his delineation between a butt grab and a rape.

At this point in history, I'm ready to start calling right-wing aggression like the Capitol attack 'terrorism'. It's ideologically driven by frequently armed mostly males, with striking similarities to ISIS, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups that came to our foreminds after 9/11. I called certain Christian fundamentalist groups 'terrorists' much earlier when they began behaving rather a lot like the traditional 'terrorist' groups of the '60s and '70s: They blew up buildings and assassinated abortion doctors. No different than the IRA blowing up a government building or assassinating two Ghandis and Menachem Begin.

But I'm open to new ideas for how to articulate various types of bad actors and aggressors. Terrorism has 'evolved' since the 1970s as has political protest; maybe we need new language, but with boundaries. Because you know the left will destroy its real meaning in fifteen minutes.