In YOUR mind, is a "lone wolf" terrorist who claims allegiance to an organized group part of that group?
Example: A person...
- acting alone,
- self-admittedly influenced by an organized group (ISIS, as one possibility),
- acting to further said group's goals,
- but, never met with or officially joined said group,
...part of said group?
A soldier is someone who is directly affiliated with an organization and who, militarily, participates in that organization's conventional warfare tactics under direct orders.
A terrorist is someone who is directly affiliated with an organization and who, militarily, participates in that organization's terrorist warfare tactics under direct orders.
Whether or not a "lone wolf" engages in tactics more befitting a soldier or a terrorist does not carry the same meaning as it does when he is carrying out direct orders from an organization with which he is directly affiliated.
This is because, historically, it has always been about the organization, not the behavior of an individual in that organization, that has carried meaning in attaching associated labels to the organization for
politically definitive purposes, associated labels such as "a terrorist organization".
Individual "lone wolves" who commit atrocious mass violence, like in Oklahoma City, Orlando, San Bernardino, and the like, no matter what they cite for "reasons" are simply not acting on direct orders from the organization, and, are simply not terrorists any more than a "lone wolf" descending on some country's military base with a helmet and an assault rifle is a soldier.
Without direct organization affiliation and acting under orders, a person is simply neither a soldier or a terrorist in the true and appropriate meaning of the terms.
When we attempt to inaccurately assign word meaning, we reduce and distort the original and meaningful intent of the word, and we lose sight of perspective.