I was having a discussion at work the other day about the Ft. Hood killings. One of my co-workers said, “He’s a terrorist.” I disagreed with him and stated my definition of terrorism. Primarily, it deals with the motive of the act being designed to terrorize a populace into forcing a political change. Israel, Northern Ireland, 9-11 all qualify. But I think of Hasan as being more like a proverbial postal worker.
My co-worker went into a big explanation about how he shouted Allah Akbar before he opened fire. Now let’s set aside that that part of the story may have been made up out of thin air (like the “fact” that Hasan had been killed and that he had been shot by the female guard). He explained to me that this is what terrorists do. They shout “Allah Akbar” before they commit their act of terrorism. Another co-worker pointed out that he had seen a movie where Allah Akbar was essentially a blessing given to terrorists before they go off to kill and die. Seriously?
Personally, I think those arguments are a whole lot of hooey. If the guy had said “Peace be with you” to people would we assume he was a terrorist? Isn’t it just as likely that the guy was CRAZY? In fact, this is even more likely, as there was no claim of responsibility. I am sure that bin Laden was happy to hear about the tragedy, but he would have been happy if Bush had choked on a pretzel. It wouldn’t mean that Utz was part of a conspiracy.
The problem is that we don’t really have enough information about what happened, but I don’t feel any less safe than I did a week ago. They guy shot up the place he worked. It is a tragedy for everyone involved, and I have no doubt that the punishment will be severe. But conflating every violent act made by a Muslim as terrorism is a losing strategy.