Um... there was this thing called "September 11". It was after 1990. Out of the three named groups, 520 killed does not put them at the top.
The left only killed 15% as many people as the right. That is noteworthy. But saying that "Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than... radical Islamist extremists" has to be massively cherry-picking the data.
But I suppose it might depend on the point of the study. If the point is "what dangers should people in the US be worried about", then it's absolutely a cherry-pick. If international terrorists kill you, you're still just as dead. But if the point is "where should law enforcement focus its efforts", and if international terrorism is not the responsibility of the same people, then the distinction matters.
Note "not a responsibility" is different from "not primarily the responsibility".
In fact, that point of view is interesting because the argument for the police state since 9/11 is 'but domestic terrorists!' (although nowadays it's back to 'think of the children').
If domestic islamic terrorists aren't as active as everyone think, maybe we can do with less surveillance, no?
To be honest in my country, domestic islamic terrorism killed more than any other terrorism since 2014, and even more than police, and I still don't like the surveillance state we have, it's still to much.
The left only killed 15% as many people as the right. That is noteworthy. But saying that "Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than... radical Islamist extremists" has to be massively cherry-picking the data.