Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism
Sam Bacharach - 14 years ago
A paste from Wikipedia quoting the FBI and DHS over two decades:
According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."[2]
Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]
Answer: Heck Yes, and those who think otherwise are in deep denial.
There are no religious requirements for it to be terrorism and clearly the Major was trying to influence the policy of the government -- even if it was only to not send him to Iraq or Afghanistan. It was clearly terrorism most likely Islamic Terrorism if it turns out he just could not tolerate going to war to kill his fellow Muslims.
sam bacharach is correct and david blackson is a terrorist apologist. Hasan's intent was to intimidate soldiers and the public in favor of Islam.
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism
A paste from Wikipedia quoting the FBI and DHS over two decades:
According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."[2]
Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]
Answer: Heck Yes, and those who think otherwise are in deep denial.
There are no religious requirements for it to be terrorism and clearly the Major was trying to influence the policy of the government -- even if it was only to not send him to Iraq or Afghanistan. It was clearly terrorism most likely Islamic Terrorism if it turns out he just could not tolerate going to war to kill his fellow Muslims.