I have to disagree.  If you define "terrorism" as an act designed to inflict terror upon many people, then yes, he is a terrorist; but the term "terrorism" implies a political motive, and so far, the details that we (or at least I) have been made aware of do not suggest such a motive.

That doesn't make his evil any lesser, of course.  I don't believe any of us internet commenters would disagree about that aspect of this monster.  Certainly I wouldn't disagree.

I also have to say that you're being unfair to John and trying to shoehorn his semantic disagreement with you into a veiled racism accusation.  He explained right off the bat that terrorism requires a political motive, as commonly accepted, and you just blithely ran past that and made your charge anyway.  Just because you want to take a more expansive definition of "terrorist" doesn't make people who refuse to use your definition a racist.  Good grief.