Hugh Hewitt, and evidently many others, think the attack by the Pakistani-American on the Jewish Center in Seattle was an "act of terrorism."
I must respectfully disagree with Hugh, although I understand where he's coming from. He is right that the media will try to gloss over this event or excuse it as an aberration, but I think it's very important that we use the term "terrorist" very, very carefully. Used too broadly, and it can quickly become meaningless in this age of the 30-second soundbite.
In a sense, what the man did was an act of terrorism -- he deliberately attacked Jewish people in order to create a sense of fear in the community (and other similar communities all over the country), but this man was pretty clearly acting alone.
I think we need to draw a distinction between people acting alone like this, who head for the nearest target of opportunity in a rush and act out of irrational anger -- and the planned, organized, funded, and calculated operations of terrorist organizations.
Frankly, I don't know how to make that distinction. Maybe someone will suggest something? In any case, Hugh is right insofar as we shouldn't allow the media to simply dismiss this as the act of a madman. However, let's not committ the opposite error of equating it with the acts of Al Queda, Hizbollah or Hamas.
