And in an attempt to find a universally accepted starting point, a definition: "terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"
I'd hope that everyone can agree it's worthwhile having a dedicated branch of the DoJ looking at incidents of lawbreaking that meet that definition, even if perpetrated by legal residents of the US.
The term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
Follow up question - with thousands of hours of footage of the events, has anybody been charged with any murders?
Last question, why would you post an intentionally misleading statement like that, do you think it helps your argument or hurts it?
Interesting side effect of this definition is that because the main effect of terrorism is not material or human casualties, but terror, it's usually less damaging way of waging a war than conventional warfare. There are typically more civilian casualties in conventional warfare where civilians are just collateral than terrorist campaigns that target civilians.
Six Rather Unusual Propositions about Terrorism https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/6PROPS.PDF
> The costs of terrorism very often come mostly from the fear and consequent reaction (or overreaction) it characteristically inspires (qualities stoked by the terrorism indus- try), not from its direct effects which are usually comparatively limited. Therefore, policies designed to deal with terrorism should focus more on reducing fear and anxiety as inexpensively as possible than on objectively reducing the rather limited dangers terrorism is likely actually to pose. Doing nothing (or at least refraining from overreacting) after a terrorist attack is not necessarily unacceptable, and, despite U. S. overreaction, the campaign against terror is generally going rather well because, no matter how much they might disagree on other issues (most notably on war in Iraq), there is a compelling incentive for states to cooperate to deal with a common problem
‘terrorism industry, an entity that includes not only various risk entrepreneurs and bureaucrats, but also most of the media and nearly all politicians.