Terrorism or Euphemism?

Why do the madia and their political masters consistently refer to any act of political aggression as a “terror” attack and the perpetrators as “terrorists”?
Firstly, the word “terror” implies that we, the public, are terrorised. The definition of terrorised is; create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in someone. So by referring to the aggression as a terror attack and the perpetrator as a terrorist they are conceding that the perpetrator has succeeded in his objective.
Secondly; I am yet to see one single person, group or nation running around in an extreme state of fear and distress. Even after an attack people are indignant, outraged and even in some cases hysterical, but in an extreme state of fear and distress? I don’t think so.
 
Then there’s the constant political refrain (lie) that there is some sort of war going on against the so called terrorists.
If there was a war on terrorism I am afraid to tell you that we lost. The so called terrorists are stronger than ever; they have even managed to create a fully functional state, complete with parliament and army. And the thousands of tons of bombs that the “coalition” has rained down on them has only made them stronger and their recruitment drive more successful.
 
So it seems to me that to win a war you must throw away your expensive planes and bombs, you can park your drones and follow your enemy’s example – use terror.
 
Oh, and by the way; perhaps it would be a good idea to stop meddling in the affairs of Allah and to ask the Islamic nations to stop supporting “terrorists”.