They cannot be substituted because they themselves are not terrorists. Just because Israel said PLO are, doesn’t mean they are. And ANC were never terrorists. But that’s going into another whole tangent.I am not referring to legal definitions.
My argument is that the Viet Cong are, by all intents and purposes, a terror group by our current definition of the term. It doesn’t really matter what they were referred to back then.
The ANC and the PLO are examples of organisations that were referred to as terrorists yet could easily be substituted into your argument.
Leaving legal definitions behind, as I said above they were recognized as one of the two legal governments of South Vietnam equal to the South Vietnam regime in the views of the world community.
Of course a state can be defined as terrorists. There is a whole definition for it.A state cannot fit the definition of terrorism as it requires politically/ideologically motivated violence against the state by a non-state actor.
A political entity can.
State terrorism,
By that definition, the United States are a terrorist state in how many bombs and atrocities they committed in Vietnam. And is not fighting Communism for Capitalism, an ideology?State terrorism has been defined as acts of terrorism conducted by governments or terrorism carried out directly by, or encouraged and funded by, an established government of a state (country) or terrorism practiced by a government against its own people or in support of international terrorism.