I say yes, just based on the fact that if this happened in America by someone who is Muslim the media and many ignorant Americans will have a field day calling it terrorism. Personally i don't think he's a terrorist. But if having a president whose father was Muslim makes him a terrorist and building a mosque in NYC is a terrorist act then by definition this guy is also a terrorist.

I don't think either of those things happened.  Though if they did, not in an amount in which you can claim "Many".

The mosque move was a bit distasteful, and meant to be distasteful if you follow what's been said by the mastermind behind the mosque however.

Additionally, while not optimal, issues with muslims in the US i'd say are actually lower compaired to Europe and FAR lower then the Middle Easts hysteria with Jews/Christians.

Also, the first part of your post isn't really something i'd consider an equitable situation.

1) How would this happen in the united states?  There aren't any middle eastern troops over here for peacekeeping missions, and espeically none in real life combat situations overhere.

2) How many US based christian terrorist groups are trying to send agents into middleastern countries to blow stuff up?  None that I know of, unless you want to give a cute, but obviously trolling answer here anyway.  I mean, what group would sneak him into the army, to shoot up civilians in afghanistan....

and note, that if you think he was ordered to do this by the army or goverment, that's not terroism, that's a war crime.

The closest example to this is the Fort Hood Shooting where people aren't really sure if it was terrorism or spree based killing.  Though, the big difference there was there was actual evidence point to terrorism other then "He was a different color then the people he shot!".

Even then I believe most go with the "Mentally ill" arguement.

Really the best "Terrorist or just crazy" argument is Anders Brevik.

Now as it is a US soldier, soundness of his mind is questioned. Surely, law exempts people of unsound mind from punishment of offences they commit. This is perhaps a way to save him.

But I wonder why nobody questioned the mental soundness of Bin Laden or other persons they labeled 'terrorists' in several occasions. So, I guess mental soundness only matters when you are not a muslim.

As I said: the term terrorist is completely up to politicians. If you want to know, ask your local government. They may have another decision than other countries, but hey, they're your government. For me he is simply a killer, like other killers.

If he was considered to be mentally ill prior to this incident, then why did he have access to firearms ?