No this is not known as terrorism, its known as raiding. This practice was widespread and common in the Border Region of England and Scotland.
The Border Reivers was a culture with established rules for their conduct. Night time raids would lead to revenge attacks to recover stolen property, and a clearly displayed revenge attack happened in broad daylight and anyone crossing its path, regardless of nationality, was required to join in and aid the attack.
Terrorism is a specific issue, designed specifically to cause terror as its primary motive. A raid is to aquire something, generally land or something of value and occasionally future security.
Calling 9/11 a dawn raid is about the same stretch of reality as calling a toothpick a spear.
I'm not sure how modern warfare or any warfare among groups of primates above the "natural" limits of a few hundred fit into this. Most people lived in groups of a few dozen until recently. Coalitions of human groups are hypothesized to have occurred around the paleolithic revolution and there is evidence of very large group efforts in existence. But these were probably temporary, fouling on war or other activities.
The Historian Yuval Noah Harari, has some fascinating theories about cooperation, mythology and language emerging together during the paleolithic revolution. After this we see "behaviorally" modern humans. The nature of this behavior is not well known but his ideas put the ability to form larger groups held together by mythology (Gorgoot is the King. We are the Googootah nation!) as the centerpiece of this behavior. Homo Sapien-Sapien's ability to 10X the effective group size put them apart in terms of their impact as a species, perhaps wiping out cousin species like Neanderthals (the timing works).
Getting back to Gwynne Dyer's work, the basic behavior of border conflicts resulting in annihilation (dawn raids) and territorial expansion whenever a group is too weak to defend the status quo. Part of the behavior is a colorful & stylized "warfare" where few get seriously injured. These were considered by anthropologists as an alternative to "real war" but later research showed that these exist alongside the brutality of surprise attacks on weaker opponents. The stylized version acts as a display of strength and a deterrence. Failure to achieve deterrence might lead to genocide.
The deterrence aspect has analogies in modern warfare. A fight between 5 and 10 adult warriors armed with spears and axes might favor the larger group, but how many of those 10 would be seriously injured? Losing half a dozen warriors endangers the community (there are always more enemies), so it's not worth the risk.
Overall, there are communal Gwynne Dyer did a sort of meta research and some first hand research trying to determine the percentage of adult deaths caused by inter community violence (warfare) and compared it to chimp research. He found striking similarities in both behavioral patterns and population effects.
If that similarity is not coincidental, it's revealing about our history. It probably dates back before Homo-Pan speciation four to six million years ago.
Fascinating stuff.
PS, it's known as warfare. 9/11, the response to it, the response to the response, the forthcoming response to the response to the response. It's called warfare. Terrorism is a euphemism.
I guess you can make that analogy. Anthropology kind of loses some of its bite when you get into nations, perhaps also what we call religions. There is certainly a element of the same game dynamics at play, testing for weakness and the mutual deterrence of war itself. Everyone bleeds in wartime.
The outcomes though are different. Territorial gains, death counts, the percentage of lives "traditionally" ended by violence in a culture. Different outcomes breed different games.
Tangentially, this perspective tends to lead to a certain perspective on people. Things like religion are smiler to things like nationality. They're all Myths.
