This is one question that is not being given much coverage in the mainstream media, even though it is on the minds of nearly everyone I have spoken to. While much of the elite media believes it has to carry water for Obama, and realizes that labeling the mass shootings of November 5th as “terrorist” would not help his rapidly eroding status, it is also clear that PC-labeling of any number of incidents was done during the Bush years, as well.
Perhaps, there is some official definition of a terrorist attack used by the government, but it really does not matter. Definitions can be vastly helpful, as in medicine, when a condition is identified and labeled, thus leading to an already developed treatment protocol. Trouble ensues, however, when a wrong label is put on a condition; that is, when it is misdiagnosed.
“Official” terrorism would probably involve multiple perps, and would score more casualties than what Major Nidal M. Hasan was able to deliver, but consider this: Wouldn’t it be a good strategic change for Jihadists to switch to individual perps operating within soft targets? After all, how many of these would have to occur before the leadership was forced to acknowledge them as “terrorism”?
And, what if the perp did not have to be an obvious Jihadist? What if Jason Rodriguez—he of the Orlando, FL shootings on November 6th—were recruited, trained, and encouraged to commit his rampage? What better cover could Al Qaeda possibly have? They gain the freedom to commit random acts of terrorism, under color of “normal” rampage shootings. Scary thought, huh?
As to Nidal M. Hasan, the story is all too familiar. The man was disaffected for a number of years, yet was able to work his way through the system. No doubt, the Army should have gotten rid of him, but how much did they have invested in his medical training? How many superiors would have looked bad if he were to be suddenly discharged? His religion probably helped him get unjustified promotions, but there are plenty of other bad doctors in military hospitals. In fact, the relatively poor quality of health care delivered to military personnel is a big enough issue to discuss on its own.
Just like Cho Seung-Hu, the Virgina Tech perp, Hasan’s peculiarities were undoubtedly well-known, but those who could act did nothing about it. Typically, the FBI had some suspicions, but under PC Justice Department rules, could not act on them. Maybe that’s why morale at the Bureau is in the toilet.
Finally, there will be investigations into what motivated Hasan, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why. Someone kills 13 people, and wounds another 38. Isn’t searching for a “reason” ultimately quite evil in itself? What is gained by having a reason?
A reason can only be used—by defintion—to explain something, but in this case, the “explainer” is in some way attempting to justify the act. Let me make it very simple…
There IS no justification for this rampage, and I do not care in the least why he did it. Was it officially a “terrorist” act? Inasmuch as innocent people were killed, and there was no other motive to the killings, it sure seems like a terrorist act to me, and I promise you it also did to those who died or were wounded.
Sad to say, nothing pro-active was done about Cho Seung-Hu, and nothing pro-active was done about Major Hasan, either. And, given the current PC climate, nothing pro-active will be done about the next rampage mass murderer.