was the african national congress a terrorist organization?
were the sons of liberty terrorists?
was gandhi a terrorist, as he had millions of followers who could (and did, though of course he opposed it) use physical violence at any time, and who certainly could terrify the livlihood of tens of thousands of english citizens with his boycotts?
were abolotionists terrorsts? was john brown?
the word "terrorist" has to mean something big - like "treason" it must be very narrowily defined or risk being abused by government to legitimize monstrous oppression - clearly the folks who did this latest arson need to have their balls nailed to the wall for it, but to call them terrorists paves the way for the government further trampling our civil liberties in the pursuit of the ultra-mega-evil-doers. these guys are criminals, not terrorists, unless you wanna start calling dope-slingers terrorists too, and why not?