Traitor?

Now we can agree that what happened with this bugger was horrible and traitorous and insane. But it was -not- terrorism and he was not a terrorist because he was targeting military personnel. This does not a matter of excusing his behavior; this is a matter of using words correctly.

Now as to what he was? A nutball? A fanatic? A murderer? Yes definitely. I think you could call him a guerrilla or a militant or even a saboteur but not a terrorist.

terrorist: no unless you have a really wide definition of terrorist. don’t make we find the quote by jonah”dumb as a bag of hammers” goldberg about this. if even he gets that not every evil act is terrorism then there is no excuse for anybody else.

None so blind as those who will not see: “Finnell said he did just that during a year of study in which Hasan made a presentation “that justified suicide bombing” and spewed “anti-American propaganda” as he argued the war on terror was “a war against Islam.” Finnell said he and at least one other student complained about Hasan, surprised that someone with “this type of vile ideology” would be allowed to wear an officer’s uniform.

But Finnell said no one filed a formal, written complaint about Hasan’s comments out of fear of appearing discriminatory.” http://www.northjersey.com/news/national/69500262.html (from Jaybird’s post, above)

It seems you want to justify your suspicion of Muslims and blame your feelings on them.

“makes it impossible not to suspect law-abiding, patriotic, and honorable US Muslims, against our better nature. This unfair suspicion is not the fault of Americans. ”

your [sic]responsible for your own emotions and thoughts.

I’m not justifying anything. Really, it’s just the opposite, if you’d read beyond your own prejudice. I’ve said over and over again that Muslims are the target of unjustified suspicion. But, like I say above, such suspicion, however unjustified, is impossible to avoid, given the nature of the enemy, for example his use of asymmetric warfare, secrecy, deception, etc etc.

Let’s see if you can understand this based on an analogy: AIDS affects only a very small minority of people. The vast majority of sexually active people are clean and merit no suspicion at all. However, since we just don’t know beforehand who has AIDS and who doesn’t, we suspect everybody. If we don’t, then we’ll certainly get AIDS sooner or later.

Change the above to read: Jihadism affects only a very small minority of people. The vast majority of Muslims are law-abiding and merit no suspicion at all. However, since we just don’t know beforehand who is a jihadist and who isn’t, we suspect everybody. If we don’t, then we’ll certainly get attacked by a jihadist sooner or later.

No, muslims [sic] are not dangerous, any more then [sic] any other group. it is the behavior that is a problem. he was a gun toting maniac, [sic] that is the problem.

Gun-toting maniacs will always be a problem. But, unfortunately for you and your PC-drivel-spouting friends, Muslims are a problem in the US and around the world. They are the group responsible for the worlds’ wars, conflicts, terrorist acts, etc etc. today. They attacked us, after first given us two declarations of war (in 1996/98).

The above does not mean that I hate Muslims in general, have any special animus against Islam (I think it’s as ridiculous as any other religion), or want a so-called crusade against Islam. But it does mean that I assign the blame for the situation Muslims find themselves in in the US to Muslims. Specifically, it’s the fault of the jihadists who declared war, attacked us, etc etc. Americans, and the US government have gone to enormous lengths to minimize the unfair suspicion that falls on all Muslims–much more than Muslim nations would ever go to to be fair to us in their own countries, it goes without saying. There would be no unfair suspicion of Muslims if they (i.e., a small group of radicalized Muslims) hadn’t attacked us.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Try and keep up.