Which makes it sound as though the FBI definition must be extra-stringent. But is it? I'm sure you can judge for yourselves.
"Terrorism," according to the official FBI definition,
is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. — Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)In this instance you have a pair of obviously devout Muslims--the wife wore a niqab, for heaven's sake-- armed to the teeth, and cooking up IEDs in their home bomb factory based on instructions from an Al Qaeda magazine. It isn't exactly going out on a limb to say that the "political or social objectives" of their "unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property" was intended to "coerce" government authorities" and instill terror in the hearts of civilians for the sake of furthering the aims of Islam/sharia/the jihad.
It seems to me that there's no doubt that this meets all the criteria--and then some--as set out by the FBI. It is Obama--and not the need to check off all the boxes in the FBI definition--who is the barrier to an official acknowledging of terrorism, all the while blaming the delay/hesitation on the FBI.
That should come as no surprise when you consider that this is a man for whom everything is about gaining the political advantage, and who has spent his entire presidency trying to put Islam in the best possible light (and claiming that "unexceptional" America is the worst).
That would be his problem, not ours, but for the fact that he happens to the leader of the free (for now) world, and has the power to obfuscate, mislead and misrepresent situations whenever he so desires.