Getting a Handle on Hinrichs

Mark Tapscott summarizes where we stand with Hinrichs, and why he thinks that Joel Hinrichs didn't just commit suicide, but was rather a suicide bomber, which puts the act in a completely different light.

He notes:

These four considerations add up to a conclusion that the official version simply doesn't explain critical factors that are characteristic of an extreme outlier among all suicide victims, not a conventional death by one's own hand.

Powerline also steps in and wonders where the media is on this story. They also theorize that Hinrichs may have been a freelance jihadist, much as the DC Snipers were. That is an angle I had not considered, but the theory does fit the facts such as they are.

As I reported yesterday, CBS' blog, the Public Eye has even taken note of the lack of coverage in the media.

UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin updates with some curious activity in San Diego, California and Atlanta, Georgia. Officials are still looking into the Georgia Tech bomb incident, but there are apparently other investigations ongoing into possible explosives discovered in a nearby community.

This is way to early to be connecting dots between all these incidents - nothing would indicate that they are related other than the timing being coincidental. These may simply be coincidential. However, one still needs to maintain an awareness that these incidents could be related due to the locations vis a vis college campuses. If I were a college administrator, I'd be reviewing security plans and reminding the student body to keep an eye out for strangeness (you'll know it when you see it).

UPDATE:
Classical Values cuts to the chase and wonders why the Georgia incident is being treated as terrorism and the Hinrichs suicide bombing is not. We don't know what the motives were in each, but Georgia has erred on the side of terrorism - and has the statute to back it up. Has the media decided that since the Hinrichs' incident was a suicide bombing that it was not terrorism?

Why is this story more newsworthy than the bomb in Oklahoma? Should allegations of a suicidal intent coupled with a bomb actually lessen public interest, or make it any less a case of terrorism?

Can this mean that had Joel Hinrichs simply gotten up and walked away from his bomb without exploding it, that he'd have been a terrorist?

I'd call it a distinction without a difference, but obviously, the distinction makes all the difference.

UPDATE:
Rusty at the Jawa Report presents new information about the Hinrichs case. Apparently the FBI hasn't found any links between Hinrichs and a terror cell to this point.

When asked if NIN's reports are consistent with the FBI investigation, [Gary] Johnson [who is heading the investigation from the bureau's Oklahoma City office] said, "No," then added, Well okay the stuff that's found in his apartment, I can't comment on [be]cause it's part of a search warrant that's sealed.

"As this time," he said, "there is no known link between Hinrichs and any terrorist or extremist organization group or activity or activities." Johnson said the investigation is ongoing.

Well, those comments certainly settle things.

Technorati: terrorism, suicide bomber, hinrichs, bomb.