[asinclair]

Part of the name-calling is that the people making the statements are biased. Part of the problem is that "terrorism" is not well-defined. The origin is French and Latin, and a rough translation is "I frighten." There is another take:

"In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act 'intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act'."

So, according to that UN definition, we had two sets of terrorists facing off at each other. Both groups were composed of (arguably) non-combatants, both threatened death or bodily harm, members of one group actually caused bodily harm to a citizen (tazaring) under reportedly questionable circumstances. (I wasn't there, so I don't know for a fact that's the case.)

Isn't the military-style arming of our police a form of intimidation?

[Pollster1]

Interesting contrast between the UN definition (your post 4), and the US definition (my post 5). Under US definitions, a lawful action cannot be terrorism.

[Mechanicos]

The only terrorists there were the armed government agents who engaged in an act ‘intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population... to do or abstain from doing any act’.

The fact is the civilians were doing “acts” they had been doing since the 1800’s. Self-defense by default cannot be terrorism.