# Is the Ft. Hood shooter a terrorist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478 "2009-11-13T20:40:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/21 "2009-11-14T01:05:50Z")
> [@janeslogin](#): > > The US marine who beat up the Greek Orthodox Priest because he looked like a Muslim was a terrorists. I don’t know about the Fort Hood shooter. Okay…so in other words, a mass shooting resulting in 12 dead, you “don’t know” if it’s terrorism, but a priest being beaten up, you know for sure it’s terrorism. That’s one fucked up definition of terrorism you have. Really fucked up. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/22 "2009-11-14T01:07:47Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > Why does something have to be “a country or [something]” to be an enemy? From Merriam -Webster: > No mention anywhere of needing to be a country or similar. Al Qaeda would seem to fit all three definitions. That’s pretty broad. By these standards, any criminal at all is an “enemy.” _Al Qaeda_ is not a serious “adversary” or threat to the US, and we aren’t at war with them. Calling them national “enemies” would seem to stretch the definition quite a bit. But if _al Qaeda_ is an “enemy,” and hasan was acting in concert with them, then the attack on Ft. Hood was a legal act of war on a military target, and Hasan should be afforded the rights of a POW. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/23 "2009-11-14T01:12:00Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Okay…so in other words, a mass shooting resulting in 12 dead, you “don’t know” if it’s terrorism, but a priest being beaten up, you know for sure it’s terrorism. > > That’s one fucked up definition of terrorism you have. Really fucked up. How so? Which one of those statements do you disagree with? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/24 "2009-11-14T01:51:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Unless he actively gave aid and comfort to the enemy, it isn’t treason. He would have to have actually worked with or aided a group like Al Qaeda to make it treason. I don’t see any evidence of that, yet. What do you call it then when someone takes up arms against the armed forces of their own country? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/25 "2009-11-14T01:57:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But if _al Qaeda_ is an “enemy,” and hasan was acting in concert with them, then the attack on Ft. Hood was a legal act of war on a military target, and Hasan should be afforded the rights of a POW. Does that apply to traitors as well ? ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/26 "2009-11-14T01:58:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s pretty broad. By these standards, any criminal at all is an “enemy.” I would guess it was used to mean an enemy of the United States government and whom we recognize as an enemy too. > [@](#): > > But if _al Qaeda_ is an “enemy,” and hasan was acting in concert with them, then the attack on Ft. Hood was a legal act of war on a military target, and Hasan should be afforded the rights of a POW. I think Hassan was a “nutjob” acting alone. But for kicks, if he was in acting in concert with a recognized enemy, then he definitely committed perfidy. If perfidy doesn’t negate POW status, then even if a military base would be a legit target, he would still in no way qualify as a POW. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/27 "2009-11-14T02:04:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Unless he actively gave aid and comfort to the enemy, it isn’t treason. He would have to have actually worked with or aided a group like Al Qaeda to make it treason. I don’t see any evidence of that, yet. Or he “took up arms against the United States”, which you could argue he did. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/28 "2009-11-14T02:18:53Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > What do you call it then when someone takes up arms against the armed forces of their own country? Someone with an untreated mental condition? eta: He shot people in his workplace. If he’d been an office worker, he might have gone and shot up his office. If he had been a person who was denied workers comp, he might have gone and shot up the worker’s comp building. Or he might have just snapped and shot up a shopping mall. He’s equivalent to any of these sorts of nutjobs. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/29 "2009-11-14T02:22:33Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Does that apply to traitors as well ? I have no idea. ---
**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/30 "2009-11-14T02:38:49Z")
Is the word “nutjob” being used colloquially here, as in, anyone who kills 12 people must be a nutjob? In reality, we don’t know what Hasan’s mental state was at the time of the crime. It’s possible that he was sane at the time of the shootings. ---
**Author:** ![Jolly\_Roger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@Jolly\_Roger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jolly_Roger)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/31 "2009-11-14T02:46:42Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Well Faux news seems to be pushing the label pretty hard I’d assume its so they can say how a terrorist attack happened on American soil during Obama’s presidency. Of course they are. Faux News is less of an news agency and more of a propanganda machine. > [@](#): > > I suppose the left wing people could be pushing that he be labeled a terrorist so they can claim to successfully capture and prosecute a terrorists. Depends on the way you define terrorist. The line is getting too thin, I think. The guy was a nutjob but I don’t think he was a terrorist. But calling him such allows the fruitcakes to claim that islam is to blame, the world has become too PC and that hey, anyone who doesn’t submit to christianity must be a threat. > [@](#): > > To me it’s political bs either way. The law clearly defines terrorism. If they thought he was a terrorist or could convict him of being one they would. Its a political football. I expect the morons to run with it. > [@](#): > > Instead we have news agencies that don’t have interest in informing people of the facts and in turn end up with a populace that doesn’t understand the laws of our country. Calling him a terrorist makes better headlines and creates a political issue where there wasn’t one. True…it saddens me. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/32 "2009-11-14T03:15:23Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Someone with an untreated mental condition? > > eta: He shot people in his workplace. If he’d been an office worker, he might have gone and shot up his office. If he had been a person who was denied workers comp, he might have gone and shot up the worker’s comp building. Or he might have just snapped and shot up a shopping mall. > > He’s equivalent to any of these sorts of nutjobs. It seems to me most of these office worker shootouts resulted from a loss of a job. In Hassan’s case, the very opposite is true. He wasn’t allowed to quit his job. He is a religious fanatic who thought he could make a pact with the devil ( US military) in exchange for a higher education. Only as fate would have it, after 9-11 he found out the price would be fighting Muslims…fighting Allah. Its one thing when you take advantage of the devil, its another thing when you fight against Allah. Check his [bio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan) > [@](#): > > Hasan joined the Army immediately after high school, and served eight years as an enlisted soldier while attending college. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1997 with a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry, and went on to medical school at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (“USUHS”).[13] After earning his medical degree (M.D.) in 2001, Hasan completed his residency in psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.[14] While an intern at Walter Reed, he received counseling and extra supervision.[15] > > Slide 49/50 of The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military, a presentation made by Hasan during a symposium of U.S. Army physicians at Walter Reed Army Medical CenterAccording to the Washington Post, Hasan made a presentation titled The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military during his senior year of residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The presentation, which was not well received by some of the attendees, recommended that the Department of Defense “should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as “Conscientious objectors” to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.”[16][17] It is pretty obvious the poor guy was in a quandry. For quite a few years. With his imminent posting to the front, it was time to pay up to Allah. You could call him a nut, if you want to call all religious fanatics nuts. Very few religious fanatics however would have inadvertantly found that they are the author of their own transgression against their God. I feel confident that if the military had let him go, all would be well. He would have been just a religious fanatic and not a terrorist or traitor or what have you. I’ll never understand workers who go postal, but I can understand this guy. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/33 "2009-11-14T03:30:49Z")
I would say he was an Islamic nutjob who was driven by his twisted religious beliefs. He claimed that Islamic US soldiers should be released as conscientious objectors “to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events”. He went around haranguing his fellow doctors to that effect, that the Army should change its policy or there would be consequences. Then he went postal and created an “adverse event” … coincidence? Was this an attempt to show the Army how serious he was, and to show the Army the dangers that they faced if they didn’t start letting Islamic soldiers be COs? Dunno … but it definitely makes Islamic sense, if no other kind. It makes enough Islamic sense that his actions were lauded by Anwar al-Awlaki, who was spiritual advisor to a couple of the 9/11 hijackers. al-Awlaki said on his website: > [@](#): > > Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges. > > Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal. > > The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal’s operation. > > The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy. > > Allah(swt) says: Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment – > Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely. (al-Nisa 136-137) > > The inconsistency of being a Muslim today and living in America and the West in general reveals the wisdom behind the opinions that call for migration from the West. It is becoming more and more difficult to hold on to Islam in an environment that is becoming more hostile towards Muslims. > > May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Ameen Unlike you and I, al-Awlaki knows Hasan. Hasan attended al-Awlaki’s mosque and exchanged a number of emails with him. al-Awlaki doesn’t buy the bullshit about how Hasan was just a poor tormented psychiatrist driven over the edge by listening to soldiers unburden their souls and describe their pain. al-Aklawi sees Hasan’s action, of killing 13 people and wounding 38 others, as a “virtuous” and “heroic” act … and Hasan believed what al-Awlaki said: > [@](#): > > Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree. > > As investigators look at Hasan’s motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California. > > Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists. So I’d say yes, Hasan is assuredly a terrorist under the definition given above, someone who attempts: > [@](#): > > (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/34 "2009-11-14T03:46:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > _Al Qaeda_ is not a serious “adversary” or threat to the US, Good grief - do you really believe that? > [@](#): > > But if _al Qaeda_ is an “enemy,” and hasan was acting in concert with them, then the attack on Ft. Hood was a legal act of war on a military target, and Hasan should be afforded the rights of a POW. I agree (I cannot abide the sophistry of the Bush government and its “enemy combatant” crap in order to avoid the Geneva Convention), but I think Hasan runs into trouble with POW status and Geneva Convention protections because he was wearing an American uniform at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/35 "2009-11-14T03:53:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s pretty broad. By these standards, any criminal at all is an “enemy.” > > _Al Qaeda_ is not a serious “adversary” or threat to the US, and we aren’t at war with them. Calling them national “enemies” would seem to stretch the definition quite a bit. Wha? So what about Osama Bin Laden? Does he not count as an enemy then? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/36 "2009-11-14T03:58:32Z")
No. Just a criminal. I think of an “enemy” as someone who is actually an existential threat. Does anyone think _al Qaeda_ is going to be able to overthrow the Untited States? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/37 "2009-11-14T04:11:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No. Just a criminal. I think of an “enemy” as someone who is actually an existential threat. Does anyone think _al Qaeda_ is going to be able to overthrow the Untited States? You may define an “enemy” like that, but the rest of the world has a more reasonable definition. After all, you’d hardly call someone who caused the death of thousands of your citizens a “friend” … and “neutral party” is clearly wrong … “acquaintance” doesn’t quite cover it … “someone who disagrees with us” is sophistry … yes, I think I’d go with “enemy”. Particularly since he wrote and signed a “Declaration of War” against the “Jews and Crusaders”, which includes the US. This hardly seems like the action of anyone but an enemy, even if he can’t threaten the existence of the US. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/38 "2009-11-14T04:11:28Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > I think Hasan runs into trouble with POW status and Geneva Convention protections because he was wearing an American uniform at the time. You are correct that he would not be a POW because he did not wear a uniform. There was no military hierarchy, ect. (reasons why the Taliban is not treated as POW’s). But another, easier reason, is this is not a “war” between two States. al qaeda can _never_ be POW’s because they are not a State. That’s just a plain reading of the Geneva Conventions. He’s just a murderer who, may or may not, have motives that makes great news. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/39 "2009-11-14T04:29:48Z")
> [@intention](#): > > You may define an “enemy” like that, but the rest of the world has a more reasonable definition. Cite? > [@](#): > > After all, you’d hardly call someone who caused the death of thousands of your citizens a “friend” … and “neutral party” is clearly wrong … “acquaintance” doesn’t quite cover it … “someone who disagrees with us” is sophistry … yes, I think I’d go with “enemy”. Particularly since he wrote and signed a “Declaration of War” against the “Jews and Crusaders”, which includes the US. This hardly seems like the action of anyone but an enemy, even if he can’t threaten the existence of the US. The Unabomber had a “manifesto” too. That doesn’t mean it’s not asinine to call him an “enemy” of the US. No, an “enemy” has to actually be worthy of the word. Not just somebody with psychotic fantasies of overthrowing the US. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478/40 "2009-11-14T04:32:29Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > You are correct that he would not be a POW because he did not wear a uniform. Yes, he did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-ft-hood-shooter-a-terrorist/517478.md?page=3)