Of course this is a conspiracy of the Hillary Clinton administration.

He doesn’t fit the profile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So the guy goes into a rampage to kill people because he feels like it... and you wont consider it a terrorist  attack because you believe it should be tied to a political reason? It is the hypocrisy of defining the things the way you see it fit.... (and I know it is how it it defined in WIKI), but who decided so? using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians should be considered a terrorist  attack because it terrorizes civilians regardless of the motive. Wouldnt you be afraid and terrorized if you have been in the middle of something similar? Would you think about he political motive in the middle of this or you just want to survive?

IRA is irrelvant to discussion by the way....

You are confusing the real meaning of the word terrorism, to the new age use of this word that basically labels everything a specific group of people disapproves of as terrorism.

Terrorism IS only when the goal is to act some specific political or ideological change through the use of violence. Governments usually label as terrorists all kinds of groups that are fighting them, though in my personal oppinion, if these groups go after soft targets, then yes, I would label them terrorists. If they go after military or government targets I would rather call them enemy combatents.

Terrorist acts have a goal they want to achieve. A rando just shooting people in a crowd with no specific ideological goal only makes him a mental case (no matter how scary that thought could personally be)

The IRA was labeled for several years as a terrorist organization. How is that irrelevant? They wanted political change and used violence to achieve their goal. That is terrorism.

On a last note, you seem to be making some sort of emotional argument here, which missed the whole point of when something is or isn't terrorism.

I remember making a thread pointing out r/The_Donald users were calling the vegas shooting a conspiracy AFTER seeing he's white. Prior to that, they were having a fiesta on how muslims must now be removed lmao

Not sure if I can find the thread, but it was a goldmine. Some people criticized me for it as well 

This time, the identity of the shooter was already revealed very quickly, so that's why no one is saying he's a Muslim.

The guy is obviously an Antifa member:
http://yournewswire.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/

You do realise YourNewsWire is well known for posting fake stories? It's a propaganda site. 

You are confusing the real meaning of the word terrorism, to the new age use of this word that basically labels everything a specific group of people disapproves of as terrorism.

Terrorism IS only when the goal is to act some specific political or ideological change through the use of violence. Governments usually label as terrorists all kinds of groups that are fighting them, though in my personal oppinion, if these groups go after soft targets, then yes, I would label them terrorists. If they go after military or government targets I would rather call them enemy combatents.

Terrorist acts have a goal they want to achieve. A rando just shooting people in a crowd with no specific ideological goal only makes him a mental case (no matter how scary that thought could personally be)

The IRA was labeled for several years as a terrorist organization. How is that irrelevant? They wanted political change and used violence to achieve their goal. That is terrorism.

On a last note, you seem to be making some sort of emotional argument here, which missed the whole point of when something is or isn't terrorism.