I could go into the propaganda by deed period and stuff...
which is interesting as often the comparison is made with
modern groups like Al-Quaeda.

Except the Anarchists actually assassinated heads of state.

The real issue is: morally, what is the difference between
an organisation (loosely) with no (more: the removal of
foreign forces from holy ground WAS 'achieved') clearly
definable aims which thrives on the mass killings of entirely
random civilians; and the deliberate targeting of particular
individuals from a distance by military powers, in the name
of an unwinnable-war-by-definition?