Quote Originally Posted by AdamG View Post
Rhetorically, why is that?
It certainly was stated at the conference's opening, but Raffaello Pantucci (RUSI who was not there) in December 2014, in a commentary after the Sydney siege, has written with my emphasis in bold:
Lone actor (the preference by governments is to not use the term “lone wolf” as it is seen as glorifying) terrorism is not new. Right wing extremists have long liked the idea, drawing back to Cold War thinkers who were keen to prepare America for the possibility of an invading force that would require loyal survivors to take to the hills to wage an undercover insurgency against invaders. Initially developed under the concept of “leaderless resistance” in the 1960s by a US Army Cold Warrior called Ulius Louis Amoss, the ideas were further advanced by a Ku Klux Klan member called Louis Beam in the 1980s. For Beam, the concept of single man (or small cell) fighting units was a perfect way around the need to fight a strong and pervasive state – because there were fewer opportunities for security forces to intercede.
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-actor-attack

Maybe helpful:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulius_Louis_Amoss

Given the history, which is new to me, perhaps it was seen as best to separate the current description from the past? It does resonate with some ideologically.

Just how a "Lone Wolves" is seen as glorifying escapes me, but in terms of media imagery wolves can be portrayed quite differently, e.g. the film 'Dancing with Wolves'.