You know, that's fair from a linguistic standpoint. But from a legal one it's total and complete bunk, with broad and indistinguishable definitions serving to legitimize the abject demonization of people who already fit into pre-existing legal definition. You don't want the government doing the whole in-group out-group thing with application of the law - of course it's going to happen anyway, but this is where people start turning around and pointing to times when the police use the systemic use of violence or intimidation to coerce, with ideological aim.

Do we really want to call the police terrorists? They more closely fit the definition because the police (say, in Oakland) will use terror tactics on specific groups in the populace, whereas black bloc is using terror tactics on institutions. It's not even intended terror - i.e. they are not attempting to incite terror in the police force. Though they have ideological aim, they are attacking to incite anger instead, to provoke a response that galvanizes the populace against the police (highly misguided, I'm sure), to distract. Kind of besides the point, I suppose, but terrorism used to be something discussed in terms of civilian susceptibility. You don't call warfare between soldiers terrorism.

But in any case, the problem is that it's a new legal definition with high headroom for punishment and no special nuance of application.