I'm trying to sort out the bickering between Allahpundit and
And then there's the old it's terrorism and they won't call it terrorism rant.
I think some people want to bounce political arguments off the incident, but they don't want to look unseemly doing that, so they need to say that somebody on the other side said something first. It's quite farcical.
ADDED: To the extent that what Stack did is terrorism, it's completely ineffective terrorism. When a single act of violence kills a terrorist who is acting alone, what are we supposed to feel terror about? There's no threat of something else happening. Al Qaeda is effective because there's a whole organization, with more individuals ready to go on suicide missions. The Unabomber was an effective solo terrorist because he mailed his bombs and, uncaught, represented a continuing threat. Solo + suicide ≠ terrorism.