... because a failure to define terms has lead to sloppy thinking (or no thinking at all).
"Terrorism" has always been defined as an act of violence against civilians to promote a political purpose. If it is not an act of violence, it is not terrorism. If it is not against civilians, it is not terrorism (government military personnel and government employees are presumed to be competent to fight against violence). If it is not to promote a political purpose, it is not terrorism (promoting religion if it is to get a society to adopt that religion universally would be a political purpose, but we have to know this is why the act of violence was done).
If a gang member from the Crips attacks a gang member from the Bloods, it is not for a political purpose and is not terrorism. Today, people have "dropped context" in that they no longer think about what terrorism really is versus other acts of violence. Much of what people claim to be terrorism isn't even terrorism.
Let's look at the OP examples:
"Egyptian Hesham Mohamed Hadayet killed two Israelis at the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles airport..."
Is this terrorism or murder? Might be terrorism, let's give it the benefit of the doubt. That's 1 (maybe).
"Abdulhakim Muhammed killed one soldier at a recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan killed 13 soldiers during a shooting rampage in at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009."
These attacks were against military personnel. Not terrorism.
"Five died from anthrax attacks (2001)..."
Might be terrorism, but who did it and for what purpose? Unknown. We are up to a grand total of 6 (maybe, or maybe 0 since we don't know details).
"two died in an attack on a Knoxville church (2008); two are suspected to have been killed by members of the Minutemen American Defense group in Arizona (2009); an abortion provider was killed in Wichita, Kansas (2009); a guard was stabbed to death at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., (2009)..."
These may have been murders, but where they terrorism?
"two died in Austin when a man crashed his light plane into a government building over a dispute with the IRS (2009)..."
Violence against government is not terrorism, because they presumably can defend themselves (even the EPA has a swat team).
"and a neo-Malthusian terrorist was shot by police during a hostage incident at the Discovery Channel in Silver Spring, Maryland (2009)."
That's police killing a kidnapper, not an act of terrorism.
"That adds up to a grand total of 30 Americans killed in terrorist incidents inside the United States in the last 10 years."
It's really far less. And if we take a look at the incidents we are told were terrorist plots that were stopped, virtually all of them were conducted by the FBI, except for the Boston Bombing which was conducted by the CIA (or both FBI and CIA).
The reality is there is virtually NO threat of terrorism, other than by rogue elements of various governments (including the United States federal government), while men and women are being put in harm's way through military intervention with the psychological toll that takes, and they return depressed or mentally dangerous to society, not to mention the corrupting influence it is having on government employees everywhere (police acting like military, TSA agents acting like sex offenders, politicians acting like tyrants), and freedom being destroyed ... in the name of "defending freedom."
It is time to stop the bullsh&t and to call a spade a spade. We have to start by defining terms, such as "terrorist," and "national interest," and "constitutional powers," among others. Otherwise, it's just one emotional whim followed by another emotional whim, which is what tyrants thrive on.