2SecondsFaster.com

There’s a LOT of talk lately about whether or not Nidal Hasan committed a terrorist act, of if he was just a lone lunatic. 

What is a terrorist?  What makes him different than Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the kids that erupted at Columbine?  Or Scott Roeder, the man who killed George Tiller?  Was Scott Roeder a terrorist because his reasoning for killing George Tiller was ideological, and he was part of a larger group?  Does it matter if the group itself denounces him? 

Or, if you believe he was a lone lunatic, what makes him different than the men who flew planes into the World Trade Center?   Is it because  you think he is mentally unbalanced?  Do you think the World Trade Center men were NOT mentally unstable?
Does killing 13 (14 if you count the unborn child that one of the victims was carrying) people, or thousands, not by definition, mean a person is mentally unstable? 

Here are some excerpts from an interesting article by William Hawkins, from Family Security Matters:

Hasan’s political statements and contacts with foreign Islamic fanatics who have been urging acts of violence against the United States and its allies. Only the day before Hasan opened fire on his unsuspecting Army comrades, Nasir al-Wahayshi, leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, called for jihadists to conduct such “simple” attacks against a variety of targets around the world. The psychological impact of many small attacks, spread over a wide area and conducted in a seemingly random and unpredictable fashion, can do more to break down the civilian will to resist than a few spectacular actions spaced months (or years) apart.

What makes an action, an “Act of Terrorism”?

Terrorism is a tactic used in a war waged for political ends. It is not an ideology in itself, but a weapon in the hands of an ideology or cause. It is this political aspect that separates what Hasan did at a military base from what a disgruntled employee may do at his workplace as the result of only personal grievances. Those who want to downgrade Hasan’s actions to that of a postal worker who has snapped due to the pressures of his job are trying to avoid their own uneasiness about the connection between ideological beliefs and violence. The issue is larger than whether Hasan’s increasingly militant interpretation of Islam led him to kill. The disquieting question is whether the advocacy of any ideology that expresses hatred for one’s own country can lead to what Hasan’s real crime was: treason.

So….was Hasan a “Terrorist”?

Hasan is said to have shouted the jihadist battle cry “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) as he opened fire on his Army comrades. But it was his earlier alleged claim that he thought of himself as a Muslim more than an American that is the real key. It revealed a shift in loyalty and identity from which followed his condemnation of U.S. policy and the murder of those about to be deployed to carry out that policy. Maj. Hasan changed sides in a war, just as Gen. Arnold did, but from a different motive.

And it is the motive that drives the American left to seek ways to explain away Hasan’s actions. Hasan was born and raised in the United States. He joined ROTC in college and made a career in the military. He did not start out an enemy of his country. Somewhere along the line he was converted to treason by the “free expression” of ideas that liberals claim is healthy for society. He was allowed by our open system to communicate with avowed enemies of America both at home and abroad He started to criticize the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not because he thought they were bad for America, but because they were an unjust war against Islam. His view is a patently false notion, but a mainstay of jihadist propaganda.

So, what are your thoughts?  Was a he a terrorist or a loon?