I couldn’t agree more Tom. In the late 60s and early 70s I lived in Morocco and befriended several Muslim boys – and we did the things boys typically do I suppose. Like you, “I still find myself viewing people by a class or group,” especially when dealing with groups rather than individuals. I believe we were wrong to inter the Japanese, they were fellow citizens and their country failed them miserably. Worse, so did their friends and neighbors. While many people today would try to justify the Japanese interment precisely because we are in a situation that is “not dissimilar to the start of World War II,” I seriously hope we don’t fall into an easy way to ameliorate our fears by acting against an entire group when the problem is with certain individuals within the group.

I cannot forget the Moroccan boys I knew, you see, our parents too were friends. One couple worked in Rabat at the palatial estate of King Hassan II, the son of the Sultan who, with the Berbers, won Morocco’s independence from France. This couple strongly encouraged us to go to Ceuta with them, for a vacation… close in time to one of a couple of coup attempts that occurred in the early 70s. At great risk to their own welfare, they insured my family’s safety. These were good people, people of courage, and they and their children were people of faith. You’re right, it’s a thorny issue! On the other hand, I hope I measure up to the courage of my friends and their parents, and I hope we will “be able to resist the temptation to solve a problem with certain individuals by acting against an entire group?”

@John , @Jeff and @Mr. Grim

I’m going to do a quick rewrite of one paragraph of your comment:

The left wing criticism of Bush for not *doing whatever one thinks he should do* is just political posturing, he’ll be criticized by them no matter what he says. (Ironically, the far right are criticizing him for not being conservative enough).

It was precisely like that while Bush was in office, there is essentially no difference. As a consequence, our shared criticism in this regard becomes virtually meaningless as well. Even when it’s true, it’s value is sorely diminished for the same reason nobody believed the little boy who cried wolf. If a leader is “criticized by them no matter what he says,” then it’s hardly a stretch for the other end of the spectrum to write them off.

I absolutely agree that “events like these need to be looked at individually.” My comments to Tom outlined one of the major reasons I feel this way. I think the problem is finding a definition of terrorism that works for most people – though I think most people have a visceral reaction to any shocking violence, and therefore might easily call it terrorism. If you Google “define terrorism,” then the shear number of possible definitions brings the problem into sharp relief. By some standards, if the violence isn’t directed at civilians, then it cannot be categorized as terrorism. Others, like you, tend to believe that there must be a terrorist group involved, i.e., that individuals acting alone are not terrorists by definition. As you said, “when a minority is assaulted, it isn’t always a hate crime;” however, whether committed by an individual or a group, the crime remains essentially the same based on mens rea, a guilty mind, or that which was intended. In this respect, I believe both Jeff and Mr. Grim make essential points that clarify intent. Jeff highlights background that signifies intent, and Mr. Grim highlights excited utterances that reveal motive. When violence is used to coerce, intimidate – inspire terror, for religious, ideological, or political reasons, then I believe it’s pretty safe to call it terrorism.

Obama is fond of framing arguments as “either/or” structures, especially in terms of his common “false choice” alternatives. A common example throughout the campaign into his term in office is the “false choice between national security and our nation’s ideals.” Now the media seems to be trying to encourage just such a choice with respect to Nidal Hasan. I think most of us would acknowledge that our choices aren’t simply between being a terrorist or being unhinged, that quite a few more choices are available – even a continuum between these two poles makes more sense.

That being said, I tend to agree with both Jeff and Mr. Grim in terms of terrorism. I don’t see the current events as terribly different from the Oklahoma City bombing. Both were domestic terrorism, where it seems Hasan was religiously and politically motivated, McVeigh was ideologically and politically motivated. Both targeted government personnel rather than “innocent civilians” though both harmed civilians.

Thanks for the excellent dialogue guys! Steel on steel and all that I’m really working on being more concise!

“Evil prospers when good men do nothing.” ~ John Philpot Curran

My main point in commenting was not specific to this case, but general in nature as to how events like these are used for political gain, and this applies to both the left and right. I’m tired of various groups finding a “silver lining” to tragedy to further their political goals with little, or no regard to the victims.

Was this imam rejected by the mosque and told not to come back? Nope. He gave sermons there for over a year and left to return to his ‘homeland’ of Yemen (he was a natural born citizen of the US but we’re not Islamic enough to be considered a homeland). So I have to wonder, if this ‘moderate’ mosque has an extremist giving sermons to a pretty decent turnout regularly for over a year – what in the world are we considering moderate nowadays? Why are we ignoring the obvious conclusions?

Events like these need to be looked at individually, rather than automatically assigning the “Terrorism” label if an islamic person commits the crime. Just like when a minority is assaulted, it isn’t always a hate crime.

If it is determined that he was working with a terrorist group and not acting alone, then call him a terrorist. But if he was acting alone, he’s just another mass murderer who happens to be islamic.