But he wasn't a licensed terrorist

That seems to be the standard to be met before any act can be called "terrorism".

Jennifer Rubin at Commentary writes:

 

Moreover, the incident and the ensuing coverage have highlighted that there is a new definitional game afoot. The administration, in concert with the mainstream media, has begun to set up a false dichotomy: on the one hand, the perpetrators are amateurs, "lone wolves"; on the other, they are "real" Islamic terrorists. But this is folly. Was Major Hassan an "amateur" because he hadn't perfected his terror skills in previous attacks? Was he a lone wolf because he merely e-mailed a radical imam and did not receive specific instructions from an al-Qaeda operative? When we are dealing with an enemy that does not observe the rules of war and does not conduct battle operations in uniform or within a defined chain of command, these distinctions make little sense.

No, they make perfect sense.  If you're not a recognized terrorist, with the right documentation and cerfitications, then you're a "lone wolf" and we don't have to count your attack as part of the war on terror.