In Reply: "Terrorist is not defined as 'Muslim who commits or attempts to commit murder.'"

In reply to this post, and the following comment in particular:

Dana said...
To say that it is an act of terrorism carries some baggage with it: it leads people to infer -- even though it doesn't necessarily imply -- that this was part of some larger plan by our enemies.

At least so far, this looks like the action of a disgruntled soldier, very displeased with his orders, who finally went off the deep end. Maybe with more information later, that will change.
---

Interesting... I'd go further than Dana and say that the guy's understanding of his faith almost certainly played a role in his dive off that deep end -- much the same way an abortion clinic bomber's understanding of his faith plays a part in his actions -- but, because there is nothing to suggest collusion with any other person or cell, and no note, video, or manifesto claiming he did this in the name of any cause or group (any/all of which may be discovered later, changing my assessment), I'm not ready to label this a terrorist attack. Terrorist is not defined as "Muslim who commits or attempts to commit murder." (And since when is "devout" a synonym for "fundamentalist" or "radical"? Are there no devout christians anymore, and isn't being called one generally seen as a positive thing, especially by one's fellow christians? So why is it some view his being called "a devout muslim" by his brother considered a bad thing--apart from the fact that he obviously wasn't, I mean?)

Posted November 7, 2009 1:17 PM (AmPow blog time)
---
Blog Links:
American Power: Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? More Deadly Political Correctness on Fort Hood Massacre
Common Sense Political Thought