The definition of terrorism, 'The unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.'[Oxford dictionaries].
Any organisation that seeks to kill people based on personal conviction may as well be labelled a terrorist group, although it may be best to explain this in details. If a movement, org, group has as a mantra kill n#gg#rs, or kill the cops, or kill all of those who insult God/Allah, and they act on their dogmatic view that they'd be justified in this action, then they're a terrorist as far as I'm concerned.
When we see attacks by lone gunmen in America, and they were convinced to act on murderous impulses by an extremist ideology, he is a kind of terrorist, one who is using violence and intimidation to try to create political change. Fear is a tool of such people, kill one to scare one thousand, send a message to create change. Often they're not the most mentally sound, after all, whether it's ISIS or Al Qaeda the idea of cutting off a head or blowing up a family isn't something that a rational and sane person can do, well not without brainwashing to shrink one's reason and limit sanity to an extreme ideology. We shouldn't care what ideology is at work in labelling a terrorist, a white supremacist on an unofficial mission is still a terrorist like the Muslim extremist who has a whole organisation backing him from Syria or Iraq.
We have had the call from many on the left to make clear that mentally ill killers get called 'terrorists', they have a point to a degree, a person, even if unstable, if affected profoundly by an ideology to act in an extreme manner is a terrorist. However, the reason why the mainstream media doesn't call such a person a terrorist is often because they're known to be mentally ill, and the charges pressed against them are murder or gross bodily harm, not a law that relates to terrorism as such. Thus, the term 'terrorist' is deemed unreasonable by the educated journalists and editors for most respectable outlets. It's a distinction that doesn't prevent us from saying they are indeed terrorists. In the eyes of the law a mentally ill man killing a Labour politician and he is influenced by far-right ideas, although those ideas didn't call for murder, he is not a terrorist as such. The dictionary seems to disagree.
We now have a story in the press that states a man who was closely linked to the hate group, Black Lives Matter, had killed law enforcement officers in the belief that he was justified to do so. There is a large amount of footage of young, often middle-class and wealthy, black college students in the United States, chanting 'kill the police', while regularly blaming any and every white cop for violence that most of them have no part in. They try to provoke violence in protests, yelling at cops, in a few minors cases even reaching for their guns, not a clever idea, and physically assaulting people. Oh, and claiming that Black people cannot be racist.
The conundrum you need to figure out is why lefties think BLM murderers, who are directly inspired to act by ideologies that demand violence, should not be called terrorists while they plead for the right-wing versions to have that label. Surely, if a man from a right-wing neo-nazi belief is a terrorist, then so is a man from another extreme group that has actually chant for violence.
If you can't see a double standard by arguing the point that white right-wing mental cases are terrorists and black ones who are meant to be on the left are not, then you may be confused.
Black Lives Matter are a group that wants to spread it's opinion that black people are oppressed, they bleed lies into the minds of newly political young people, and claim whenever a black man dies it's due to the police being full of racists. They use selected data, much like any Klan would, to fool enough people, unlike the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups they focus on marxism and other selected views, because collectivist reasoning means a rich black student living on daddy's money can still claim his is a victim. They play professional victimhood as their game, inciting violence and creating conflict, so they can share their clip of a cop fighting back after being punched and call it evidence of all they claim to be true, even though they edit out the ten minutes of getting toe to toe and hitting the police officer. After all, how you can create good propaganda if you don't make things up.
Real crimes against black people don't happen on camera so much, so to fill this gap they will create what they need to demand that society sees all black people as victims, that in any crime a person of pale skin must be wrong, and if it isn't done they get more recruits on many college campuses, mostly because from a slanted perspective it looks like oppression. It's only when you don't look from an ideology, instead looking at the facts as objectively as you can, that you will see that major of BLM claims are nonsense or huge exaggerations. And, I need not state the obvious trouble of real world racism to make clear that making up claims and exaggerating are not practical tools for a rational discussion.
For anyone who thinks they know better than me, you may be right,
but let us consider the facts before all things.