Also, terrorism as you're defining it has always existed. The difference is that now the USA military-industrial complex and its servants in media and politics have decided to base most of their marketing on the "threat" of terrorism. Bathed as we are in a boiling soup of constant media manipulation, we can't trust our gut reactions to anything that the MIC care about, especially terrorism. As a bias check, consider all the many causes of death that have caused and do cause far more deaths than terrorism.

If you think the uptick in anti-immigrant, and more largely anti-minority, discrimination and violence has nothing to do with our politics I'm afraid I've got some bad news for you...

In the case of e.g. Iran they've basically been brought to the negotiating table by economic and political pressure. They're still far from clean, but at least they're tractable. IS on the other hand is functionally a state but politically and economically intractable. We and several Middle Eastern nations are at war with them. However their terrorist activities carried out outside their territory are still criminal activities best dealt with as law and order issues.

Terrorist acts are crimes. Very rarely does the definition of a crime include specific criteria on the nature of the perpetrator. In other words the crime committed only changes based on who committed it in pretty specific ways. For example there's a crime and there's conspiracy to commit the crime. Unless the definition of terrorism explicitly defines it as a crime committed by groups, I see no reason to exclude acts committed by individuals acting alone.

The KKK were terrorists. White bigots in the south were not. They were just bigots. Every stupid, angry, bigoted and violent person is not a terrorist.

To me an almost classic example is that couple out in California that shot up those folks. They had planned for weeks, bought gear, posted online. They were even shooting video in order to publish of the attacks as they occurred. That's terrorism.

In that case, I would argue that this attack fits your definition of terrorism.

The political ideology is white nationalism clothed in Islamophobic garb.

The immediate political desire is, in the attacker's own words, "get out of my country!"

It's hard to argue that killing someone (and by extension making people like them fear for their safety) is not a deliberate and planned way of getting "them" -- both the individual and the group that individual supposedly represents -- out of your country.

I believe you are conflating "having a political desire" with "...an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further.."

If a man loved Nazis in 1938 and blew himself up in Times Square?

Not terrorism. There's no use of stealth in a pre-meditated way to instill fear to enact some political change. It's just some Nazi schmuck blowing himself up.

Apologies if I'm responding to what I think you are saying instead of what you are, but fuck me. There's a huge difference in talking about what people feel and what they do, right? I feel a bunch of damned fool things, Never thought that this was some sort of topic for political debate.

The problem is that a bunch of disparate unorganized attacks can have the same effect as a coordinated intentional terror campaign. At that point, you have to decide whether terror is defined by intent or effect.

One Nazi in times square? OK, not terror. A dozen Nazis all across America, even if uncoordinated? Terror.

I default to intent but am also liberal in allowing effect to stand in for intent.