Are you implying that if cloudflare kicked a nazi off their services, that would murder them?

No. Clearly you're having trouble understanding basic logic so I'll spell it out for you:

1. Terrorism is not a judgment of the target but of the action.

2. The OP classified DDoS as terrorism.

3. DDoSing Nazis is thus terrorism.

By parity of reasoning, I pointed out that murdering a Nazi is still murder, regardless of the fact that the target was a Nazi. The nature of the target is immaterial to the classification of the action taken against them.

> 2. The OP classified DDoS as terrorism.

This is begging the question.

DDoS is not terrorism. Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Inconveniencing a people, by taking down a website is not violence or intimidation.

Without that tenant, everything you've argued on this thread is a moot point.

Keep in mind who you're defending here. The site in question doxxes trans people so they can be harassed and sent death threats. That IS terrorism.

Who is being defended as a consequence of being against DDOS is completely irrelevant, as it should be. Attempting to boil it down to Oxford's definition is quite reductionist, especially when literally anything can be a political aim(even a rejection of politics can be seen as a political opinion) as well as violence not being that set in stone either. Encyclopedia Britannica said it best: "Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma."[0]

But even under your definition I fundamentally disagree that this instance of it doesn't fit. It is an unlawful attack on infrastructure with clearly political aims against a service used by civilians, it is clearly being used to intimidate hosts to drop them so that the DDOS doesn't create more collateral damage for their other customers as well.

It's fine to agree with terrorism, one man's terrorist is another freedom fighter and all that, but I doubt most people would agree that it isn't terrorism.

[0]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism

> Inconveniencing a people, by taking down a website is not violence or intimidation.

The intent of the DDoS in question is very clearly a form of intimidation. DDoS in general does cause real economic harm and not merely inconvenience.

> Keep in mind who you're defending here.

That's irrelevant. Murdering Nazis is still wrong and illegal.

> The site in question doxxes trans people so they can be harassed and sent death threats. That IS terrorism.

If it were they would have been charged. You're imputing intent and actions without sufficient evidence, because if that evidence existed we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Extra-judicial actions of this sort, no matter how plausibly justified, are not how society works. We have laws and a justice system because mob "justice" is wrong.

You spend an awful lot of time defending actual nazis. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you feel the need to do that?

Having principles can be prickly

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think the ends justify the means. After all, you can only despise Nazis due to some underlying principles, and yet you seem to have trouble understanding that other principles may also matter.