Words have meaning. When sloppy language is used, it gives unnecessary openings for your opponents, both to discredit your argument and to deflect, to redirect, the entire argument.

An example that often arises is when the word "anti-semite" is used with regard to arabs. The response has often been "they can't be anti-semites, since arabs are a semitic people." The original argument is derailed, when a more precise phrase "Jew hater" instead of "anti-semite" (and despite any honest debator knowing what is meant) would not have allowed such a cheap trick.

Thr same is happening here and now, and not only with regard to the Oklahoma animal who beheaded an innocent woman. The word in dispute is "terrorist" in this case. Was the Ft. Hood murderer a terrorist? Is this cockroach a terrorist? I think not. Their aims were not to cause and escalate a sense of fear or terror among their enemies or the larger population. That's what a terrorist does.

Their aim was, rather, to fulfill the dictates of their "religion" as they see it. Call them jihadis, call them active muslims. But call it accurately, so that their defenders cannot deflect or obfuscate. They may not be "terrorists" but just islamic murderers.