Like I said, a case can be made. It is a weak case, however, because it stretches the definition beyond usefulness. For example, a person who kills a homosexual because he wants them to be afraid to appear in public can also be considered a terrorist under this definition. A gangster who shoots another gangster over a territorial dispute can be considered a terrorist fighting over geopolitical ideology. It is simply a useless way of looking at it, and it is simply an emotional response because labeling something as "terrorism" sounds like a bigger deal than just a hate crime.
But it is important to keep the two separate because of how each should be handled. The ideological drivers of terrorism must be taken very seriously in our cost/benefit analysis of the response. In this case, such analysis is useless as the "motivation" is not legitimately political. With Irish terrorism back in the day, the English were forced to weigh their actions in Ireland against the cost of IRA terror. With Muslim terrorism, we are confronted daily about how to neuter Islamist movements and re-evaluate our involvement in the region. With this, what can be gained by taking the ideology seriously in our formulating a response? Are we to consider re-segregating in order to prevent future incidents? Will we form an anti-race war militia? No. The ideology is rooted in self delusion and thus lack the numerical backing to be taken into consideration.
