Somebody asked why did Trump *choose* to refer to this incident, instead of to a far bloodier one recently committed by a white native-born American.

Maybe because Trump is talking about terrorism, and he distinguishes between mass murder and terrorism, unlike  a certain Globe and Mail columnist?

If a Globe and Mail columnist proclaimed to you that all acts of rape are terrorism and should be reported with the word "terrorism" in the headline, would that columnist's proclamation be sufficient to get you to swallow the radical new definition of terrorism?

How about child kidnapping? Are you prepared to have it reported under headlines of "Terrorist Attack" as well?

May we add carjackings? How about setting forest fires?

Where does your expansion of the word "terrorism" end, now that you have decoupled it from needing any manifesto, stated or implied, toward a wanted political policy change?