If he kills one soldier - it's a murder. If he kills 13 soldiers, it's terrorism. Don't forget wounding 2 civilians as well. I'll go further - a Christian extremist who kills a soldier, or Jewish extremist, or a Hindu extremist... same thing.
So mass murder due to a religious reason is terrorism to you?
Where in the definition of the FBI does it say it has to be tied to a specific group? You're claiming an individual cannot carry out an act of terrorism without being backed by a group -- and I'd urge you to rethink that, i.e., Oklahoma City --- and let's not forget the Unabomber. Kaczynski called his own acts terrorism and belonged to no group.
I never said it couldn't be a singular individual
Ted Kaczynski specifically did his actions in hopes of using fear to send a political/ideological message, of which was made obvious by his letters he sent, thus in my mind making him a terrorist.
The Oklahoma City bombing was done against a decisively non-military government target for reasons that it was come to discover that were clearly and singularly aimed at trying to send a political message to the government through immense destruction and death.
I fully consider those terrorists acts. On the contrary, I don't consider the DC Sniper terrorism. There has been absolutely no clear cut obvious evidence that he was doing those attacks for a reason associated with sending some form of defined political or ideological message through the use of fear, with murder and or financial gain through extortion seeming to be the key goals. While it definitely "terrified" the population, I do not believe that in and of itself makes something a terrorist act. If a neighborhood store gets robbed it can cause "terror" in the population, that does not mean the robbery was an at of terrorism.
Likewise in this case the evidence thus far has not indicated fully that this was done for clear and calculated reasons in hopes of sending a political message through fear. Instead if it appears to be the desperate act of a mentally disturbed man brainwashed by an extreme sect of a religion in hopes and beliefs that it would better serve him to kill those around him he viewed as wrong and die a martyr while doing it than to actually deploy to a war he felt went against his very beliefs. To me, that is not terrorism, its psychotic mass murder performed due to insane extremist religious beliefs.
Too much people want to say "Look at the facts, its CLEAR". No, its not clear, its only clear if you look at the facts you want.
People try to quote Col. Lee's comments about Hassan's comments Arkansas shooting and american aggressors as "clear evidence" it was simply and completely religious. And yet they choose to completely ignore Col. Lee's comments that other officers would routinely harass him, calling him "Rag head" and other sort of derogatives towards his race and religion that could lead one to conclude that there was an emotional and mental part of this incident.
People tried early on to point out his brother stated he was always a muslim, not a convert, when the news first broke that he was a convert as proof he really always was a muslim yet ignores the fact his brother stated his Hassan always seemed to be a peaceful man.
People point out reports coming out about the power point that he did saying how the army needs to allow Muslims to become conscientious objectors or bad things will happen as proof to their point, but ignore reports coming out that Doctors overseeing him during training felt he was "psychotic" and "capable of killing fellow soldiers" which would support the notion that his mental state came into play.
They point out business cards he hands out with SoA on it as proof it was all his Islam, while failing to acknowledge the fact that the reason he (against muslims practices) stated he visited a local strip club was specifically because his fellow soldiers didn't go there leading to further evidence of a man that felt ostracized and separated from his fellow soldiers.
People continually want to focus ONLY on the evidence that supports THEIR view that helps THEIR political cause and base their conclusions solely on that
rather than on the facts as a whole.
They point out a radical imam that he spoke with as proof it was all about radical islam, but fail to acknowledge the fact he did not do this until it was nearing his time to actually be deployed in the conflict.
When you take the facts as a whole, this seems to not be a case of terrorism, but rather a mentally disturbed individual brainwashed by an extreme sect of a religion stuck in a position where in his twisted mind killing his fellow servicemen in the name of his perverted contortion of his religion was better than going to war against those he felt were his ideological brethren.
That's not terrorism, that's murder.