[throwawaysocks]

The term "terrorist" doesn't have a single fixed meaning. It's context-dependent. Pretending it's not context-dependent willfully misinterprets the speaker.

A lot of words function like this. E.g., "believer".

When a christian asks me if I'm a believer I might say yes.

But then I'd probably say no if a wiccan asked me the same question.

Obviously, that doesn't mean that everyone (or no one) is a believer once you fix some additional context.

So in summary, according to the sense in which the USFG is using the term, you're simply not a terrorist.

Everything else about your post is just a slippery slope argument, which may or may not be valid, but certainly isn't well-substantiated.

[lovich]

Being a context dependent term is what makes questions like these from the government a big problem. Its like Nineteen Eighty-Four where "we have always been at war with EastAsia", only now the changing term is what constitutes a terrorist, or some other group the government has decided to not like

[throwawaysocks]

Meh.

Terms of art will always borrow and re-define colloquial language. Do programmers aspire to 1984 because they re-appropriate the word functional?

Defining an explicit list of "terrorist organization"s may or may not seek to redefine the term terrorist, but it is not tantamount to willful restatement of established historical fact (a la "always been at war").

No one would seriously would assert that the term-of-art definition of terrorist == the dictionary denotation of terrorist. That is the meaningful line in the sand between mere rhetorical ploy and outright democratic totalitarianism.

[lovich]

I was referring to the fact that the word terrorist seems to have expanded to mean "whoever I have decided to fight currently" whenever the government uses it

[Karunamon]

While slippery slope might technically be a logical fallacy, it seems to be the MO of every government everywhere.