That's a great question. I'm not sure.

I'm very concerned about the use of the word "terrorism"/"terrorist". It appears to be a catch-all term for groups that "the state" considers "an enemy".

Would an American "Hillary supporter" with two knives be considered a terrorist if Trump was attached? How about if Hillary was attacked? Bernie?

Would a bankrupt business owner who has lost everything and decides to go on the run and "go postal" be considered a terrorist?

How about the Waco Texas incindent? Would they be considered terrorists? As the tanks drove into the building and the FBI set it on fire... Can you be considered a "terrorist" for defending your property and community?

Should Afghani's/Iraqi's who are defending their community from the US invaders be considered "terrorists"?

Should drone strike operators who are targeting people living in their own country without a trial or any court proceedings? Extrajudicial assassinations. Are they terrorists? If not, then how would you classify this activity?

Would delusional individuals with mental issues be considered terrorists; even if they say and do crazy things?

Should mass/school shooting hoaxers be considered terrorists? Here's a great example. If any of these mass shootings are drills (or hoaxes), then the organizers should be prosecuted as terrorists. They are creating an atmosphere of terrorism. That's terrorism.

I don't have any definitive answers, but I am certain that it's extremely important that were paying close attention to where/how this "terrorism" label is being used, and why it's applied in the way that it is.

By the way. This London bridge terrorism is another drill. Most of those involved were wearing training lanyards. including the police and the "terrorist". Here's strong evidence.

I wonder what the motivation for this is? Seems like they might be trying to make white Londoners into potential terrorists...