Is this not affirming the consequent?

Violence for A ends is Terrorism

Intimidation for A ends is terrorism

∴ Intimidation for A ends is violence. <--- does not follow

Does it serve a similar purpose? Sure. Is it a threat of violence? Sure, but words have meaning.

No, that’s a misread. I’m not collapsing “intimidation” into “violence”. I’m pointing out that psychological and coercive violence are legally and medically recognised forms of harm. The distinction you’re making is rhetorical, not substantive. The state can’t redefine violence narrowly to exclude itself while criminal law already accepts non-physical violence as real. The argument is about consistency, not syllogisms.