Terrorists are criminals whose main motivation is political. The main motivation of other criminals is not. One term is more specific, so they are not interchangeable, and the term terrorist carries useful information when used properly.
Of course, diseases are not politically motivated, so that analogy is not great.
I'd really prefer more specific (and disrespectful) terms like "violent troll". "Terrorist" helps feed the phenomenon it's naming.
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/9/9b/Bes...
Can you imagine?
But yes, American political dialogue could do with more multi-polarity, and less us vs them dichotomy.
> The word entrée maintained this meaning of a substantial meat course served after the soup/fish and before the roast in Britain, France, and America until well after the first World War.
Look at the bombing in NYC recently. "we do not think this is terrorism" said our idiot mayor. It is terrorism if someone detonates a bomb in a street! Period. If you mean "we're waiting to see if he's part of a broader network of terrorists working together," then say that! Words are powerful and in America we are pretty bad about using them incorrectly (see: entrée as a main course!).