The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime.

To my mind, a fair amount of these within-named words can describe such a phenomenon as terrorism. First of all, we notice that these aord are terrible as this strange occurrence. No doubt that it is imbue with evil and immoral actions. They are not immoral only for people, who do not take it. But it is also impossible in the modern world which is registered.

It's strange when the notion of "a terrorist" is substituted by the term "a freedom fighter". Is it a case of political correctness? Or is it a desire to obliterate the true meaning of terrorist actions? Or is it just an opposite, subjective and unbiased viewpoint?... I'd rather agrue with those who seek a linguistic means to justify the people with no moral principles.

Undoubtedly that's a euphemism. I'd refer it to politically correct notions as far as its main aim is to conceal the truth, to justify violent actions.
And that's not a subjective opinion of the creator of the video. I've already come across this euphemism somewhere in the Net.

I define terrorism as a cruel action towards an opponent (by opponent I mean a group of people or just a single person) that can be a threat, that usually leads to someone's death.