My view is that what we call "terrorism" is a tactic and can be used by any NGO (non-governmental organization) or any government regardless of their ideology or professed religious beliefs.
Allied Forces used "terrorism" during WWII when they fired bombed cities like Dresden and Tokyo and when the United States dropped two atomic bombs on a civilian population.
Today we throw the term around loosely. The United States has had its fair share of mass killers for many decades. A sniper in a tower killing fellow Americans. A young man walks into Virginia Tech and guns down fellow college class mates. A gay man runs around the country on a spree killing until killing himself.
I would confine the term "terrorism" to NGO's. Al Qaida today and the KKK during Reconstruction and Jim Crow would be or have been respectively, terrorist organizations.
I see where the KKK was a Christian terrorist organization (and once listed so by the U.S. Government - when I guarded tactical nukes in the early 1990's the U.S. Government had the KKK listed as a domestic terrorist organization and enemy of the U.S. Government) but I fail to see where this connection is drawn so clear with Breivik. His motivation seems to have been political and cultural and not doctrinal.
"At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised [sic] and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church," the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. "I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian."
My understanding is that most Norwegians even if they're atheist are members of the Norwegian State Church because it gives them benefits like free burial.
But he also fiercely disagrees with the politics of most Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church.
This statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Any Christian not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant, and Protestant denominations last I read some years ago numbered 30,000 (as opposed to most Muslims belonging to one of the 2 major Muslim faiths: Sunni and Shi'ite). And within that 30,000 of denominations are beliefs as far stretching in doctrinal differences from Puritans (Calvinists usually) to Anglicans that will ordain lesbian women.
"Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man," he writes. "I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."
He's a logician terrorist? That does not make academia and the field of philosophy (to which logic is a branch of) look good.
I would also press him and inquire of him as to what a "monocultural Christian Europe" is? The Flamenco? (which has Moorish and gypsy influences) Blood pudding? Is it the Spanish, German, French, Italian, or the English language?
During the 19th century in the City of Milwaukee you had Irish Catholic Priests that refused to allow Italian Catholics enter or become parishioners of their Church. The Irish did not like the Italians culturally. So, even within one stream of Christianity you had different ethnic cultures and ethnic cultural tensions.