There's a difference in goals that can't be overlooked, even if the difference between a gang and small-time terrorists can be blurry.

Terrorism requires a political (or ideological) goal for the term to mean anything distinctive. The KKK has the stated goal of achieving or maintaining "white supremacy" in the US and the manifest willingness to use violence and the fear of violence to further its goal. There is no better way to describe them than as a loosely organized faction of terrorists.

Goal or not they both cause violence.

No reason to hold them to be equivalent. One seeks to dominate a neighborhood for the purpose of committing crimes with impunity. The other seeks to dominate a nation for the purpose of enslaving or exterminating others not like them.

But both could be called terrorist organizations in a way because of the acts they commit.

Only if you're willing to dilute the term "terrorist" so much as to rob it of the important part of its meaning. Terrorists commit or threaten violence for a political (or ideological) aim. I'm in no way excusing gangs. They and their members are just as despicable. But let's don't muddy the waters by pretending the KKK is anything other than what it is, domestic terrorists.

At the basic level terrorism is one group committing violent acts for their own purposes against other groups...thus gangs fit. I said KKK do violent acts but if they're terrorists then so are gangs.

I don't buy that definition at all. It's useless, because it draws no distinction between the causes of gang violence, organized crime, and terrorism.

Then believe what you will. I say they fit perfectly.

OH and by gang I don't mean some disorganized street riffraff but REAL gangs with long criminal records.

I've only sat in on a few classes on terrorism studies (with a friend so I'm no expert) and they defined terrorists by their method of attaining their goal. Terrorists attack civilians of government A who pressure A to either comply or retaliate. If they comply, the terrorists win. The terrorists exist among the civilians of government B. A can retaliate against B or elements of it but this results in sympathy of civilians (B) towards terrorists which increases recruitment necessary for the next, bigger attack. Terrorists attack on a larger scale and the process repeats until victory. This is not perfect but can be applied to most scenarios. The whole graph is a little more complicated.

It's not like the Bloods and the Crips have unions and local chapters.

They still advocate wars against rival agangs for "turf" and "cred"...etc.