if you did that then the attacks would not qualify as terrorism for the simple reason that they are handled under local criminal law not international law the attacks do not qualify under 'international law' for the simple reason that they were undertaken by individuals acting as criminals and not a state acting against another state so to hold this page to that same standard is obviously disingenuous moreover terrorism itself is not an idea that is limited to international law the idea is much larger than that and in fact its usage predates any attempts by the united states to impose a legal definition the idea goes back to terror tactics which is an idea and phrase that goes back at least to the late part of the th century so really what you personally are suggesting in this instance flies in the face of all established usage scholarship and understanding