Fred Bauder wrote
We could say that in war sometimes the tactic of
terrorizing the civilian
population or governmental authorities is used. See [[Shock and awe]]
which
is, I guess, intended to terrorize military forces. It
would seem by this
operational definition that the 911 attack had that intent, at least the
Trade Center Towers portion with respect to the American population.
In writing history on the basis of intention, one is stuck with trying to
justify inference of that intention. That's a general problem, though.
Even to call someone a 'reformer' moves from the idea of change to the
supposed purpose; even to say a government introduces drugs legisation in
order to deal with a social problem assumes something.
I'm not one who has any great problem with the 'terrorist' term. The
inference that the 9/11 attacks were by terrorists seems stronger than that
Osama wanted to take credit for ordering them; the inference that Osama
wanted to take that credit seems stronger than the inference that the
attacks were by or on behalf of Al-Qaida; and the evidence that the attacks
were (in some way) Al-Qaida seems very strong, by now. The inference that
the subsequent anthrax attacks in the USA were also terrorist in intention
also seems quite strong; no one I think can say just what those were
intended to do, though, with any degree of certainty. I mention this
contrast to keep a perspective - could 'just' have been a deranged person.
To return to the integrity issue - I wouldn't use the Wikipedia articles as
reference for contemporary history, except as casual reading. That's
because 'caveat emptor' applies here. I don't think that the arguments
brought forward really argue a lack of integrity, as things stand. Which is
not to say that there aren't too many POV edits.
Charles