I was offline reading a good book (as crazy as that sounds) when news of the Fort Hood tragedy broke. Luckily, hours later, my introduction to the story was a post on Hot Air, which had already discerned from the British press (since the American press was studiously avoiding the subject) that the perpetrator was Muslim.
My first reaction to a Muslim shooting up the place was, "Here we go again!"
(I was ever the cynical one.)
My second reaction was, "Stand by for all the 'Muslims fear reprisals' articles in the MSM."
(Practical, too.)
But my third reaction was, "Hey, wait a sec..."
Spot the incorrect word:
Ft. Hood Motive: Terrorism or Mental Illness? — ABC News
YOU DECIDE: An Act of Terror, or a Horrific Crime? — Fox News
Probe so far shows Fort Hood attack wasn't part of a broader terrorist plot — CNN News
A senior administration official told NBC News that the shootings could have been a criminal matter rather than a terrorism-related attack. — MSNBC News
It is not clear whether terrorism laws would apply or not. Evidence would have to show that the act was inspired by a terrorist group or influenced or directed by terrorists or terrorist ideology. — CBS News
Domestic terrorism: New trouble at home — USA Today
If reports about him are true, Maj. Hasan clearly was a terrorist. — Washington Times
Did Hasan commit his act of terror alone? — Ed Morrissey, Hot Air blog
But there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act. — Senator Joe Lieberman
(etc)
And from yesterday's Best of the Web Today column by James Taranto:
In fact, this was not a terrorist attack. By definition, terrorism targets noncombatants. When an irregular force like al Qaeda attacks a military target, such as the bombing of the USS Cole, that is more accurately termed guerrilla warfare.
The real question here is not whether the attack was terrorism but whether it was an act of war as opposed to personal aggression. ABC News reports that "U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago" that the suspect "was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda," which if true certainly bolsters the case for the affirmative.
When a soldier attacks members of his own force in an act of war, it seems to us the most apt term is treason.
Agreed. It didn't take long before it occurred to me that, by definition, "terrorism" means killing civilians, not soldiers. Thanks to James for stating it perfectly.
And, by way of Instapundit, a couple of sharp quotes on the subject:
In regards to the liberal MSM's worry about the 'Muslim backlash', here's Michael Nehring writing on Facebook:
"What says more about America – that we always, ALWAYS manage to refrain from an anti-Muslim backlash, or that progressives are always, ALWAYS, convinced that one is on the way?"
And in regards to the American press doing its usual dance around the matter of the perpetrator's Muslim faith and its bearing on the event (as highly evidenced in a number of the above headlines and quotes), here's David Warren:
"For a person with old-fashioned values, and an old-fashioned sense of English word meanings, the reports of the Fort Hood massacre were almost as provoking as what happened there. In the larger view of things, they may be more consequential."
