You can't help but wonder if religion was related based on the location, but even if it's not, the fact that this individual decided to murder innocent people, in a church of all places, where you specifically come to thank and pray for life, is really sickening.

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....

America just feels like a train wreck. Sad.

I agree with this one because it is correct. But I have a question. Let say:

1.  There is a random shooting attack.

2. The shooter is a Muslim

3. But his motives are personal

4. Will he still be labeled as terrorist?

I'm pretty sure that's what happened in that Orlando shooting. 

Dude is a conservative ISIS follower but was also frequently gay nightclubs for several years and was on gay dating websites? Yeah that doesn't really allign. 

I think he had anger/identity issues.

But it is a terrorist attack, well at least according to Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting

My point is, given the current climate in the US, it will be hard for any Muslim shooter with personal issues to not be identified as terrorist. While we can't say the reverse to white people.

People go and get diagnosed because they want help. If someone doesn't want help they go undiagnosed. They walk into a gun store:

"History of mental illness?"

"Nope" 

*Searches, finds nothing*

"Alright that'll be..."

And as I mentioned a doctor can only give their opinion, when it comes to mental health one doctor may say someone definitely has schizophrenia and another doctor can disagree. There isn't some test that can be done to prove it. 

Fixed

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.

You would need to elaborate on the point 3 for be to answer that.

If he personally feels like he will further the objectives of some sort of clash of civilizations between muslims vs non muslims. Then yes, I would say that's terrorism.

If he personally feels like the upstairs neighbours are too loud and picks up a gun and shoots all of them... well then no... he's just some crazy violent fuck who decided to commit murder. Not a terrorist.