Which multiple definitions of terrorism does it fit?

Yup, One of the secrets of the Alpha-male mentality is that the beta-males are indirectly in charge by being the ones that cultivate what an alpha male should look and act like. One is only “alpha” as praised by betas.

Often there ends up with a stalemate of sorts where leaving bad guys who aren’t causing much trouble alone is better than a constant power vacuum of people trying to become the new supplier. 

You were the one that said terrorism was to terrorize, not me. Are you saying that that isn’t the case? If so, I would be happy to agree with you!

Awww, too bad, I was hoping for a real conversation.

The reality is, most are happy to call them terrorists because they are muslim, and as long as people are willing to admit, that the term terrorism in america often means “Muslim attackers” then we have no disagreement.

Haha, ok you’re right, they’re terrorists because people were in terror, just like every gas station robbery. Congrats, all things are terrorism now!

Additionally, oh yes, not connecting all Muslim violence automatically to terrorism is indeed unpopular, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

Im still laugh at you thinking terrorism means terrorize. How dumb, but you do make a good point, words change, and if you admit in america today “terrorism” means “muslim” due to the bigotry of the last 20+ years I would agree.

At the very least lets acknowledge people’s tendency to label muslims terrorists and white people lone wolfs despite ya know, white people attacking political targets for political change and two angry murders attacking their coworkers over petty problems. That those angry murderers were Muslim was basically enough to…

Angry much? Again it’s fascinating how personally invested some are in the terrorist angle.

Less impressed by lame troll replies.

They targeted a group of people they had personal grudges with and then stopped, until confronting the police. Not very good Jihadists nor do I see how that fits any of B. The christian population that hadn’t personally pissed them off weren’t in danger besides as bystanders.

His actions did not have the effect of terrorism, targeting people they had a personal grudge against and then stopping is not terrorism.

What law?

According to this very article this very long thread is attached to,

Then they wouldn’t be terrorists as they stopped after shooting those they had a grudge against. They didn’t choose targets based on their ideologies.

Did, did you just read this? If so, I really wonder why you are so adamantly defending this idea.

No matter how unusual it may or may not be, doesn’t mean “terrorism” you are presuming terrorism and then looking for the strange things and saying ‘see it’s odd, thus terrorism” and that’s not how this works.

Well congrats you just defined almost literally all crime as terrorism rendering the word meaningless and thus pointless to use in only this case.