I'm talking common-sense meanings of language, not legalities. It's possible that the legal definition of murder stretches to encompass the accidental death of persons engaged in criminal activity, but to ordinary understanding that's a weird quirk of the law.

After all, the legal issue here is dead. We're concerned with a moral issue, and how we should regard what they did. If you want to include serious criminality in the analogy, say that the victim was driving while intoxicated. It's still not murder.

Very well. I can go with arson. That probably avoids false connotations of triviality which "vandalism," however technically correct, conveys.

The implication of the above two sentences is that the bombs they planted in buildings killed people. This is false. The only people who were killed by their activities were themselves. A fully correct statement would be: "They bombed buildings. In the course of their criminal enterprise, several of them accidentally killed themselves."

If they were, I SHOULDN'T see it that way. I'm as human as anyone, and we don't have an example before us. In the future, should I come across one, I shall keep this discussion in mind.

Yes, you are correct, it was three of them, not two.