What is really at stake in the debate about whether Maj. Hasan was a terrorist or not?

**Gadfly** · 11-11-2009, 12:59 PM

I am a liberal. I believe he acted as a terrorist. I'm not sure of his EXACT motives, and these are being investigated. Naturally it's important to know whether he collaborated with anyone else or acted under someone else's direct inspiration. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But he's still a terrorist.

But why do I see question after question trying to prove that he was a terrorist, as if that issue is in doubt? Who is saying that he was NOT a terrorist? He committed an act of terror, with the intention to terrorize. That makes him a terrorist.

Who is saying that Maj. Hasan was NOT a terrorist, such as to inspire hundreds of conservative questioners to make desperate arguments that he was? What's at stake?
Holy Cow!--All the Christians you mention were ALSO terrorists.

**freedom fighter** · 11-11-2009, 12:59 PM

When you kill and terrorize a bunch of people you are a terrorist. It doesn't matter if you act alone, or on orders from a terrorist organization. Either way, he has betrayed mankind because he was a little sensitive.

I'm starting to think women are better than men. Women get sensitive and hurt, they cry. Men get sensitive and hurt, they kill innocent people. Maybe it's the estrogen in soy milk, who knows.

**Brown9500v1** · 11-11-2009, 01:00 PM

Victory in Afghanistan depends on training Muslims, working with Muslim allies, winning the hearts and minds of a Muslim population, and turning the Muslim enemy over to our side, while in a country with a Muslim government.

However, the Republicans have been denouncing, insulting, and calling for the execution of all Muslims for the last two or three days, while at the same time insisting that we send 40,000 more troops to an area where they will be outnumbered about 100,000 to one.

I think that in the last few days, the Republicans have done quite enough damage to US/Muslim relations.

They may well have done so much damage that our troops in Afghanistan will no longer be welcome, let alone safe.

Republicans are working HARD to turn Hasan into a martyr, giving Al Qaeda and the Taliban just what they need to turn our allies against our troops with their petty bigotry.

11-11-2009, 01:00 PM

Nobody really questions whether or not he was a terrorist; the false "debate" is just a means of disparaging others. Its no different than going around saying "support our troops". Does anyone NOT support our troops? No, but what that really means is "support the war". And where are the Republicans who supported our going to war with Iraq now, anyway? Pretending they never supported it.

In short, its a GOP tactic of painting liberals as "soft on terror", when it was actually GOP policies that diverted attention from the War on terror to instead pursue Bush's hobby war with Iraq.

Edit: Red corn: the fact that he is Muslim is irrelevant in evaluating whether or not he's a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, domestic white guy that was...

**Answer the Question!** · 11-11-2009, 01:00 PM

A terrorist commits the crime with a larger goal to accomplish. They are willing to give up their lives to further their religious agenda. Right now, it appears that Hassan is just a low-life insane animal.
While all terrorists are also low-life insane animals, not all low-life insane animals are terrorists.

**thegubmint** · 11-11-2009, 01:00 PM

He's not a terrorist, he's a mass murder. There are no ideological or political motives behind his episode, only hate and anger.

Edit: And for Tom Slick, the guy who grenaded the tent in Kuwait (not Iraq) was also a Muslim.

**old_quilt** · 11-11-2009, 01:01 PM

Ignorance is bliss ! I agree with you he is indeed a terrorist !

**tomslick54** · 11-11-2009, 01:01 PM

I am a Liberal and I disagree...I have seen grown men under tremendous stress do unthinkable things, and let us not forget the Sgt. In Iraq who threw a grenade into an occupied tent...good Christian boy.

**Smart Kat** · 11-11-2009, 01:01 PM

Some are too politically correct. The feel if they acknowledge it as terrorist then that would mean Muslims are terrorists. But I think most people are smart enough to know this guy does not represent all Muslims.

But I also some peolpe just have a different definition. Although his intent is clearly terroristic, some might not want to label it a terrorist attack' if there aren't any connections to terrorist organizations. I don't think the intent is to water down the tragedy but to distinguish this situation from the systematic terrorist attacks the likes of Al Qeida supports.

**Planet** · 11-11-2009, 01:01 PM

It matters because if people are too quick to label him a terrorist then they'll stop investigating the alternative explanation....that he went postal because of conditions the Army could and should avoid for other soldiers. If it turns out he has terrorist ties that will come out in due time BUT we should all give the FBI and Army have a chance to complete their investigations before jumping to conclusions. The Army is also afraid of a backlash to their many Muslim soldiers, who are very much needed in the war effort.

There is a huge difference if a person is terrorist or a lone shooter/mass murderer...not to the dead, of course. But we don't call the Columbine killer a terrorist do we? Or Timothy McVeigh. Labels matter if we are going to prevent future events like this.