"The definition of terrorism is the unofficial or unauthorised
use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims. He was a cleric who held strong ideological views in regards to his religion and the events unfolding in the Middle East. He knew exactly what he was doing. There is zero evidence this guy had a mental illness and he was completely aware and in control of his actions. Labelling him as mentally ill is an insult and removes his accountability. I suppose Russel Brand would say the individuals who killed 132 Pakistani children
were mentally ill as well…"
From a friend of mine
Russel Brand uses his large vocabulary to fool people he is intelligent
He certainly seemed to suffer delusions of grandeur, as a self appoint sheik and as someone who felt had more affiliations with ISIL/ISIS than he actually seemed to have. What he did that day was premeditated yet disorganised. Yet despite all that he is fully accountable and responsible and to diminish that, as you said, is an insult. Do I personally think it should be labelled a terrorist attack on Australia - No as I think that is what he wanted as a part of him feeling more important than he was.
As for Russel Brand I have tried watching him a couple of times to get what others see in him, but I struggle to get it.
The reality is the world changed after September 11 2001, and whilst we cannot and should not live our lives in fear, nor label anyone who looks a certain way a terrorist, it is necessary for government to do things to protect the citizens of a country. I liken it to the following - I could walk home from the pub drunk through the alleyways, as in an ideal world I should be safe. But we don't live in a perfect world so I chose to catch a cab, as it may still have its risks, but seems like a safer option.
Just my 2 cents worth