I dunno, i think lying to the faces of family members whose relatives died and blaming a "movie" is much worse
This is a non-sequitur, but a juicy one ripe for the picking so I will address it.
You do realize that prototypic terrorists have emotions and motivations, right? Questionable ones not based in reality, but still in simple terms they feel emotions such as anger and motivations such as wanting to fulfill the magic prophecy. They are still humans who respond to stimuli.
Religious fanatics with a history of committing atrocious violence being provoked by a video condemning that which they are fanatical sounds like a pretty plausible explanation in the absense of known organizational ties.
The semantic complaints come from attempts to explain that in the absense of confirmed knowledge it seemed likely that these terrorists were not actually afiliated with terrorist organizations but rather fanatical assholes who were incensed by criticism who went on to commit terrorism in retribution. Problem is that the prototypic image produced when you say "terrorist" is "al-queda member" and implies organizational affiliation contra to the denotation of committing acts of violence or intimidation with the goal of enacting political change. When trying to make this distinction people who don't understand linguistics got upset that it wasn't referred to as simply "RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM" (some of those people also want to additionally conflate Islam and terrorism even further, perhaps so no one realizes how close to Sharia law those people actually are, but that's another topic) and thus here we are.
Does that make things a bit more clear?