Perhaps in responding to Jason, I wasn’t clear about why I don’t think we have grounds yet for calling Nidal Hassan’s act an act of terrorism. Let me try once more, and let me make one thing clear: I am not ruling out that it was, and I don’t require that he admit it was. Let’s go back to the question of motive. When you uncover a motive, you uncover an intention that an action have certain results. In this case, we want to know what Hassan Nidal wanted to accomplish by his act. If he wanted to revenge himself on soldiers who had taunted him, that was not an act of terrorism. If he wanted to force the United States to reconsider its foreign policy, that was an act of terrorism. It was using terror to accomplish a political end. If he was acting on behalf of a political group, it was an act of terrorism that calls for the FBI to step up its surveillance programs. If he merely imagined that he was acting on behalf of a worldwide movement, that suggests a mix of madness and politics. Yes, terrorism, but not of the straightforward variety.
It remains, however, we don’t know what he wanted to do. The fact that he killed soldiers and not the civilians at a 7-11 or shopping center isn’t conclusive in the least. If he had set off a bomb a shopping mall, that would have been as suggestive of an act of terrorism as his going on a shooting rampage among his fellow soldiers. We know he was against the Iraq and Afghanistan war, and we also know he was bothered by what he saw as anti-Muslim sentiments among his fellow soldiers. Take your pick. These facts argue for different kinds of explanation, and we don’t yet know what the correct explanation is.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (7)
I was going to say that this topic deserves its own blog, but on second thought I believe it deserves its own social networking site.
Members ("Hoodies") could post pictures of their sister's wedding, polls on Nidal Hassan ("Dreamy or Droopy?"), etc. Instead of giving each other a "poke" there'd be some other synonym for passive aggression..."pistol-whipping," maybe.
It would be easy to remember each other's birthdays and solicit contributions for surviving family members and chat about jihad (but not in a way that would pique the interest of FBI lurkers, of course).
Not a good idea to celebrate Nidal Hassan's birthday, though. Like always, everybody will RSVP Yes but only a third of them will ... view full comment
I was going to say that this topic deserves its own blog, but on second thought I believe it deserves its own social networking site.
Members ("Hoodies") could post pictures of their sister's wedding, polls on Nidal Hassan ("Dreamy or Droopy?"), etc. Instead of giving each other a "poke" there'd be some other synonym for passive aggression..."pistol-whipping," maybe.
It would be easy to remember each other's birthdays and solicit contributions for surviving family members and chat about jihad (but not in a way that would pique the interest of FBI lurkers, of course).
Not a good idea to celebrate Nidal Hassan's birthday, though. Like always, everybody will RSVP Yes but only a third of them will actually show, the rest faking H1N1 or something, and you'll be left with a big bowl of guacamole turning brown.
I just want to know the basic mechanics.
This guy shot 43 people in a relatively short span of time and in a relatively limited venue before being interdicticted.
Am I the only person who wants to know how he managed this?
I just want to know the basic mechanics.
This guy shot 43 people in a relatively short span of time and in a relatively limited venue before being interdicticted.
Am I the only person who wants to know how he managed this?
If he had set off a bomb a shopping mall, that would have been as suggestive of an act of terrorism as his going on a shooting rampage among his fellow soldiers.
Actually, killing civilians would have been much more suggestive of an act of terrorism than shooting soldiers. Soldiers are, by definition, legitimate military targets. In fact, doesn't the deliberate targeting of uniformed soldiers on a military installation by definition exclude Hassan from consideration as a terrorist? A guerilla, perhaps. Maybe an enemy mole or infiltrator, which depending on circumstances could be a war crime. But if in setting out to attack an enemy state, you take care to target your attack at t ... view full comment
If he had set off a bomb a shopping mall, that would have been as suggestive of an act of terrorism as his going on a shooting rampage among his fellow soldiers.
Actually, killing civilians would have been much more suggestive of an act of terrorism than shooting soldiers. Soldiers are, by definition, legitimate military targets. In fact, doesn't the deliberate targeting of uniformed soldiers on a military installation by definition exclude Hassan from consideration as a terrorist? A guerilla, perhaps. Maybe an enemy mole or infiltrator, which depending on circumstances could be a war crime. But if in setting out to attack an enemy state, you take care to target your attack at that state's uniformed military personnel on military property, then what you are engaged in is war, not terrorism.
If it is fair to call someone a terrorist for attacking uniformed military personnel on a military base, then one of two things must also be true: 1. "Terrorist" simply means "anyone who attacks the United States"; or 2. The Goldstone Report is right and the IDF really is a terrorist organization. Because #2 is not true, and #1 should not be, therefore Hassan ought be regarded as a "terrorist."
Rhubs, for this crime to meet the definition of 'war', we need evidence that Hassan is part of a larger organization or country; I don't know that a single person can constitute an entire enemy in war.
Regardless of this crime being taken as an act of terror or an act of warfare, it is necessary that evidence proves Hassan to be part of a larger network. Absent this evidence, it really is all guess work. Got to go with Judis on this one.
Rhubs, for this crime to meet the definition of 'war', we need evidence that Hassan is part of a larger organization or country; I don't know that a single person can constitute an entire enemy in war.
Regardless of this crime being taken as an act of terror or an act of warfare, it is necessary that evidence proves Hassan to be part of a larger network. Absent this evidence, it really is all guess work. Got to go with Judis on this one.
Is it possible this will never be established definitively?
Is it possible different people using different criteria, defining words in different ways, embracing different political agendas, motivated by different goals and aspirations can come to hopelessly conflicting assessments about the Ft. Hood massacre?
Not to mention every other controversy involving moral and political value judgments?
Isn't it possible we live in a world where stuff like this will forever remain just a point of view?
Scary, isn't it?
So it has to be a world where these things can be definitively established.
Right?
george
Is it possible this will never be established definitively?
Is it possible different people using different criteria, defining words in different ways, embracing different political agendas, motivated by different goals and aspirations can come to hopelessly conflicting assessments about the Ft. Hood massacre?
Not to mention every other controversy involving moral and political value judgments?
Isn't it possible we live in a world where stuff like this will forever remain just a point of view?
Scary, isn't it?
So it has to be a world where these things can be definitively established.
Right?
george
I think it entirely depends upon whether an act of individual rampage constitutes terrorism -- some people might believe it does, some not. But basically I agree with RP above -- I want to know more about this and labeling doesn't help, it obscures.
This time, unusually, we also have a live shooter.
I think it entirely depends upon whether an act of individual rampage constitutes terrorism -- some people might believe it does, some not. But basically I agree with RP above -- I want to know more about this and labeling doesn't help, it obscures.
This time, unusually, we also have a live shooter.
rhubarbs, if this guy was an infiltrator, he was wearing the Uniform of an American soldier, according to the rules of war he is subject to being executed immediately (as we did the German soldiers in the battle of the bulge)
rhubarbs, if this guy was an infiltrator, he was wearing the Uniform of an American soldier, according to the rules of war he is subject to being executed immediately (as we did the German soldiers in the battle of the bulge)