Islamic Nutwad Nomenclature
November 14th, 2009Terrorist v. Guerilla
I guess I’m going to catch it for saying this, but I don’t consider Nidal Hasan a terrorist.
To me, “terrorist” means someone who attacks civilians with no justification. This nut shot up an Army base. So I would call him a guerilla, a traitor, and maybe a spy. But I don’t think “terrorist” fits, even though I’ve probably already used that term to describe him.
I don’t want people to get the crazy idea that I approve of his slimy, despicable actions. But Fort Hood is a legitimate military target, even if this attack made no sense from a strategic standpoint. I don’t think it makes sense to compare this attack to 911. I wouldn’t call the Pearl Harbor attack terrorism, either.
Whatever he is, it’s contemptible.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:01 PM
I think he meant to commit terror and he did. So I would call him a Muslim Terrorist. The problem is he probably thinks that is a compliment. I have nothing but contempt for him. Suicide bomber and shooting terrorists in Islamic countries are bad enough, but he had every good thing this country offers and did this anyway. I could use bad words here if I were the type.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:28 PM
This situation highlights the facts that the situational awareness politically, socially, globally is changing fast. We all seemed a bit confused even when it comes to labeling what this act was. I spent some time in Saudi Arabia 20 years ago (3 1/2 years). I was a trainer on the F-15 manual avionics systems. We trained Royal Saudi Air Force personnel. I had a good rapport with my Saudi counterparts. I learned two things about them (the Arab mind-set and Saudi men): they are people like “us”, with their own agendas and dreams and they have a distinctly different way of looking at the world. It is important, at least to me, to keep these things in mind. I do not know what motivated Hasan, but we better figure it out. I also think that if there was an armed soldier or two in that building, there would have been far fewer fatalities and wounded people.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:34 PM
I figure him as a terrorist simply because he killed civilians as well as military personnel, and he seems to have wanted it to cause terror. We call ’em terrorists when they kill both in Israel as well, don’t we? Why NOT here? Either way, “Subhuman monster” fits better, irregardless.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:05 PM
He is a jihadist
November 14th, 2009 at 8:45 PM
I thought the definition of terrorist was “Someone who uses fear to get others to do what they want”
Running into a base, shouting Allah Akbar and shooting people is a lot more like a suicide bomber. Just with a gun instead of a bomb.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:49 PM
The military base gun ban is of recent vintage. It was imposed by Bill Clinton.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:19 AM
Ok, what’s the difference between the 9/11 guys who hit the Towers and the ones who hit the Pentagon?
The Towers were a civilian target the Pentagon, a military target.
Would you classify them differently?
I suppose “jihadist” would work as a blanket term.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:14 AM
As Walt says, they have a distinctly different way of looking at the world. I don’t think our leaders fully appreciate this fact. What I don’t understand is why soldiers on a military base were not armed???? I think all law abiding citizens should be armed if they so choose.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Interesting way of looking at it. I guess you could still argue it’s terrorism because they weren’t attacked in an actual war zone, but it’s a pretty murky line.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:31 AM
1. Labels are almost beside the point.
2. Got lambasted in a couple of fora making the argument that MAJ Hasan’s actions were rational.
3. The press and others are trying to make the case that the man is unhinged.
4. Their motivation is twofold: political correctness and preventing backlash against innocent moslems.
5. “Only someone who is crazy could have behaved in such a fashion.”
6. Assure you, have seen equally heinous behavior on a number of occasions by completely rational people.
7. We have yet to come to terms with non-state antagonists -at least in, enlightened, 21st Century fashion.
8. Rand Corp. report of a year or so ago recommended police and intelligence as the lead agencies in AT/CT.
9. Find little fault with that.
10. At any rate, less expensive.
11. Think MAJ Hasan will be judged in possession of his faculties and to have acted out of a variety of motives, religious and otherwise.
12. Like a large number of moslem bad actors that we have labeled as terrorists.
V/R JWest
November 16th, 2009 at 9:42 AM
He isn’t a uniformed member of some structured “Islamic army” – so he isn’t a member of a regular military opposing us. The Islamicists can’t have military targets, because THEY aren’t a regular military.
.
He is, of course, a member of our armed forces.
.
Traitor clearly works. I think that terrorist is accurate too.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Insurgent? Maybe. Traitor. Definitely. Although, perhaps spy is more appropriate, because you can’t betray what you were never really loyal to in the first place.
I like the term “jihadist.” It’s kind of come to represent sort of a catch-all for the often disconnected, often independent insurgent/guerilla/terrorist in this “trans-national” conflict.