What is a "terrorist?"

First, "hear, hear" on your last.

As to the subject line ... this conversation, on a personal level, began on the phone with Jambo. It has become somewhat of a national discussion now, especially after Joe Lieberman's public statements. What to "call" Major Hasan has become a story within the story.

So I ask, by murdering 13 US soldiers and wounding 30 more did Hasan commit an act of terror? Jambo immediately declared that he was simply a "nut." A nut that snapped rather than a terrorist. And his initial reasoning was "he didn't use explosives." Now that may sound odd, but I think that a lot of people probably had that initial reaction. Terrorists plot in dark rooms together with temperamental explosive ingredients and a man watching the door, awaiting instructions from their terror masters just moments before Jack Bauer bursts in and clears the room with extreme prejudice. But is that so?

In other words, can there be a terrorist of one? Can there be a "self prompted" act of terrorism? Is it terrorism if Hasan was inspired by Al Qeda rather than having direct orders or even contact with such groups?

Let me put it another way - if an Irish Catholic detonates a bomb on Downey Street, and it is concluded that he has no other conspirators, never even met an IRA member, does MI-5 refer to the perpetrator as merely a "criminal", "nut" or would they opt for "terrorist", and "act of terrorism?"

Is poisoning a water supply to a controlled group (say a university, etc) is that not an act of terrorism? No "explosives" were employed.

Everyone knows McVeigh was a domestic terrorist, but is a sniper that assassinates abortion "doctors" (my own editorializing there by flanking that word with quotation marks), is he not a terrorist? If so then wasn't the recently executed DC sniper a terrorist?

Seriously, what separates a criminal act from an act of terrorism? (by the way, how many times will this post be flagged by one government agency or another given how oft I've used that word? Hey guys - we're on your side, I'm simply making a point, and one I'm sure you'd agree with .... big smile)

For help I went to the experts - I went about looking for the Webster's & Britannica definitions of the word "terrorist" (which is usually cited as "one committing an act of terror or terrorism", ya, thanks, real helpful) or "terrorism", but I came across perhaps the most useful source of all in this scenario - the official FBI definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Now that last bit seems to be the necessary and common component among the various twists on the definition - violence with a political or social goal/gripe. So lets accept that portion as paramount in labeling each of the mentioned perpetrators above, shall we?

First, the Irish bomb maker - yep. The Downey Street location is a clear intent to coerce the government into changing political policy. That hits in all categories.

The abortion sniper - yep again. He is violently objecting to a social phenomena, clearly within the realm of terrorism. The same applies to the DC sniper - he had a cadre of written social and political gripes for which he was exacting "revenge", and "punishment."

The poisoned water? Only if it is accompanied by a list of political demands or grievances against the government or civilian population either before the poisoning or there after. So this could be yes or no depending on the intent behind the method.

And that brings us back to Hasan. He murdered with a hand gun, but as we've established the method is but a vehicle, be it explosives, poison or pistols it's all "unlawful use of force or violence" and is thus irrelevant. So, the real question in discerning whether this was an act of terror or not then becomes - what was his intent?

I will leave it to the capable professionals at the FBI to give a final, detailed answer, but let us go with what we know so far. He was wearing Islamic ceremonial garb during the murders. He handed out Korans the morning of the shooting. He screamed "Allah Akbar" as he fired the weapons and murdered the soldiers (all of that will become relevant in a moment). The target, the target wasn't a civilian population, nor individuals within his personal circle, but rather government employees at a government facility. Every bit a federal facility as was the Murrow Building in Oklahoma. The target is key - he attacked the government itself. We also know that he had demonstrated very openly to fellow soldiers his dislike in a military policy of not allowing a US soldier of the Muslim faith to refrain from fighting/killing other Muslims on the battlefield (you're either a conscience observer or you're not, you can't be conscience about only one group). His sentiment in that regard has been reported repeatedly, and denied by no one. He also openly expressed a desire for regional Muslims in both theaters to "rise up and throw the invaders out", as he put it. This was a clear objection to our presence there, our foreign policy. Also he had made over 10 attempts, its been reported, to contact organized Islamic extremist groups such as Al Qeda. Just a quick aside, I'm curious if during the Cold War had a Major in the US Army attempted to unofficially/privately contact the KGB, and subsequently committed an "act", say voluntarily copied secret documents and was caught on his way to offer them to the Soviets, do you think the word "traitor" and "spy" might have been employed even if he had no official contact with the Ruskies neither at the time of the incident nor after? Just a thought. In addition to Hasan's attempts at contact, his Imam in the local Mosque he attended was linked, although never charged, with conspiring amongst the Somali/Fort Dix plot in New Jersey.

So lets go over the final tally ... he targeted the government in specific - one check mark on the FBI's list. He used an unlawful act of violence as the means of assailing his target - that meets a second criteria. And finally he objected to both the government's foreign policy and internal military policy (a Muslim clause in the conscience observer standard) & desired them both changed based on his being Muslim; and given he then inserted that Muslim faith into the act of violence itself AND given he targeted troops preparing for deployment (remember the objection to our presence in Iraq & Afghanistan), that demonstrates the presence of a clear "political" agenda in my estimation.

So someone explain to me why in hell every government official and media personality within electronic ear shot, save one Independent Senator from Connecticut, is so hesitant to use the word "terrorism?" Are we all hostages to our own language? I submit that in a post 9/11 world politically correct speech is only going to get more people killed until it is abandoned. For God's sake, if we can't even properly NAME our enemies, how can we properly fight them?

I'd say if one were to make a judgment based on the evidence thus far that Hasan is a domestic Muslim terrorist that committed the most lethal act of terrorism since 9/11 itself. Not hyperbole, not reckless emotional reactionary rhetoric, just the most plausible conclusion based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the act.

What say you?