[ttyprintk]

Within USA, legislation differs significantly between terrorism originating inside versus outside the country. This is because some terrorist groups’ right of assembly is protected by a Supreme Court decision. So, it’s not that terrorism has controversial definitions, but that terrorists are legally permitted to gather peacefully in public. This condition is not important enough to grant to non-USA-citizens outside the country.

If part of the media coverage of mass violence is that the perpetrators intended to “send a message”, I usually conclude its terrorism. Your news source might/might not distinguish this from violence that seems inspired to simply spread chaos.

So, your news source might describe an act of terrorism as the work of a “lone wolf” but my news source might connect his rhetoric to a particular movement. And vice versa.

But in USA, the criminal sentencing is unambiguous: if swept up in a terrorism sting, sentencing minimums are not mutable by the judge.