#, when you consider the dictionary definitions of terrorism, Roof's act could be described as terrorism in line with the first definition, but not the second or third:

1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.

2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.

3. A form of psychological manipulation through warfare to the purpose of political or religious gains, by means of deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants of a specific geographical region.

Having said that, I guess terrorism is usually used to describe the premeditated acts of a group with a particular set of aims in mind. However, was Christopher McVeigh a terrorist? Was the Unabomber? Was the Shoebomber? They all worked alone to create terror, so if they were, I suspect Roof is. My own use of the term earlier in the thread was deliberate, but I but I think racist murderer would do just as well, if not better. Whatever, you call him, the murders were clearly planned for maximum impact and media attention.

I'm genuinely interested in why you're uncomfortable with the use of the term in this context. Is it about how it's been captured by the warriors on terror as their word? Frog, I get what you mean by the term almost dignify in his stupid act.