To Many of My Fellow Conservatives: Nope... Sorry... It Wasn't Terrorism

Sorry, folks, but those of you insisting that the Ft. Hood murders (13 killed, at least 29 wounded) qualify as a "terrorist attack" against America on U.S. soil are wrong.

9/11 was a terrorist attack...

The first bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 was a terrorist attack...

October 12, 2000 - the attack on the USS Cole - that was a terrorist attack...

Nidal Makik Hasan is a criminal, a murderer, a traitor... but as far as I can tell he doesn't fit the definition (my definition) of a "terrorist."

Was he part of a domestic terrorist cell - a "home grown" extremist group? Not that we know of.

Was he working under the control or guidance of a foreign terrorist organization or foreign government? Again... not that we know of.

If further investigation points to either of the two above scenarios turning out to be the case then yes, I'll withdraw my assertion, admit I was wrong, and label Hasan a terrorist. But until then...

(*SHRUG*)

Is Hasan a Muslim? Yes. Self-described.

Is Hasan the type of individual we refer to as a fanatical Muslim Fundamentalist, an "Islamic Jihadist?" Yes. No doubt. Again... from what we know it appears beyond any doubt that Hasan thought of himself - thinks of himself - as a "Jihadist."

Basically Hasan is a criminal. His crimes were hate crimes - violent, murderous, treasonous hate crimes. They were political in the sense of being in the service of his religious and political ideology. Still, this doesn't make him a "terrorist" in the sense of the word as I've always used it.

Does a bank robbery create "terror?" A mugging? A rape? Are these "terrorist" crimes simply because they create terror in the victim? How about a non-violent economic crime such as a scam that steals every red cent out of a senior citizen's nest egg? Certainly even those of us nowhere near retirement react in horror - in "terror" - to the thought of our life's savings suddenly disappearing... and what that would mean.

I'm not playing word games here. I'm trying to use real world examples which explain and hopefully buttress my point.

Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? Yes. I believe he was. What makes McVeigh a terrorist in my eyes and Hasan simply a nut... a murderous nut, but still just a nut?

Recall... McVeigh worked with others - Terry Nichols, James Nichols, Michael Fortier and Lori Fortier - in the conception, planning, and ultimately the execution of the bombing of the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995. McVeigh was involved in a conspiracy... an anti-government conspiracy.

A self-describe Catholic/Christian fundamentalist assassinating an abortion doctor... is that terrorism? Does it matter if the killer works alone or whether he is part of a conspiracy? How about if the motive is personal - say the doctor has performed an abortion on the killer's wife without his, the husband's, the father's, knowledge or approval? What if religious tenets have no bearing on the decision to murder the doctor?

Oh... and of course there's this: What if "anti-government" sentiment has nothing to do with the "terror inducing" crime of murdering an abortion doctor or even bombing an abortion clinic...??? Can terrorism be defined separately from its component as a political act?

See where I'm coming from? Again, I'm not playing word games. Is all arson "terrorism?" No. Is some arson terrorism? Yes. How about assassinations of political figures? Is Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme a "terrorist?" Sarah Jane Moore? John Hinchley Jr.?

Listen... I could go on like this all day and so could most of you reading this. My point is...

While I can see where people are coming from when they refer to Hasan as a terrorist, those same people should bear in mind that others of us don't believe Hasan's murderous rampage was "the first successful act of terror on American soil since 9/11."

Those of us in the "it's not terrorism" camp aren't trying to downplay the horror of what Hasan did; at least I'm not.

We're not - at least I'm not - trying to "ignore" that Hasan considered himself a practicing Muslim and viewed his act a religious act of Jihad.

What I'm saying is that Hasan was a nut...

What I'm saying is that Hasan was a Muslim nut...

What I'm saying is that I expect Hasan to be tried, convicted, and executed and in my view this is exactly what he deserves.

All this said... while I certainly see Hasan's crimes as treasonous - thus marking Hasan as a traitor by definition - I view it as a mistake to label his criminal behavior "terrorism."