Except that it isn’t reasonable. At all. It IS reasonable to call it “terrorisim carried out by a Muslim” or “terrorisim carried out by a self-identified Muslim” or something along those lines. But unless it’s carried out on behalf of the leader of [group] then it’s not reasonable to call it [group] terrorism.
The different might seem minor (“islamic terrorism” vs “terrorism callied out by a Muslim”) but semantically it really isn’t so minor. On the one hand you are ascribing the terror to the religion, while the other you are ascribing it to the individual who also happens to have other characteristics. He is a terrorist who is a white male, though.
Let me put this another way. USAF pilots flying USAF aircraft and releasing weapons as directed by their chain of command are acting as representives of the US (and I am not calling USAF pilots, or the USAF in general terrorists. That should go without saying, but this is BoingBoing, and popobawu, for example, is reading this thread). Some rando American tourist who blew up a nighclub in Toulon is - hopefully obviously - not, and it would be unfair, unreasonable, and definitely unhelpful to label the murder “American terrorism”.
Or to put this yet another way, think of other characteristics that could be used, according to your “perfectly reasonable to call it islamic terrorism” rubric:
Male Terrorism
White Terrorism
White Male Terrorism
I am a white male. I don’t partake of terrorism myself, and I’m damn sure that Robert Lewis Dear does not speak for or act on behalf of me, whites, males, or white males. He is a terrorist who is a white male, though.
