there is a huge difference then a common criminal case and a terrorist. When a terroists goal is to maximum pain and damage to a community, there is no way that it is equally comparable to the robbery of a convient store or even Grand Theft Auto. What truly matters is the intention and the action that actually happened. Murder is comparative to terrorism, depending on the intent put behind it. The definition of terrorism is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation especially against civillians, in pursuit of politial aims," (FBI, 2002). Violence against another citizen under this definition could be held as a terrorist attack. Yet our knowledge that terrorit attempt to hurt the max amount of people possible should also defend the same principle. Where do you think the line of terroism starts and the line of strictly violence label begins?