Nidal Hasan Terrorism

Nidal Hasan’s killing of 13 individuals as well as injuring over 30 more was egregious act, leaving many in both the military as well as civilian world in shock. Given Hasan’s background, one may immediately define his actions as terrorism. Proponents of this thinking would argue, if that is the case then every Muslim who commits a crime must be labeled a terrorist. While this is certainly not the case, the key differentiating factor lies in the motivation behind the individual. Hasan’s violent act was terrorism because he had a political and ideological reasoning as a driving factor rather than simply anger or insecurity. Looking at Hasan’s background, he was born in Virginia to two Palestinian parents who had immigrated to the U.S (Friedman,

Hasan’s actions without question, fall under this definition. Where Hasan’s actions begin to transition from workplace violence to terrorism is in the reasoning behind the attack. Often times a disgruntled worker whether it be family, financial, or emotional issues will commit an act of violence against their workplace. With no political or ideological motivation behind their actions, it is strictly workplace violence. Hasan on the other hand, stated he wanted to protect “the leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban),” Mullah Mohammad Omar in particular (Christenson, 2013). An argument could be that Hasan did not belong to any terrorist organization and although he sympathized with their beliefs, it does not make him a terrorist (Schwartz, 2013). In contrast, lone wolf terrorists who have committed violent acts do not necessarily belong to a terrorist organization, some merely follow guidelines and values extremist groups have posted on the internet. Regardless, given the political and ideological motivation behind the attacks, they are labeled acts of terror. This goes for Hasan as well. While Hasan never physically met with a terrorist organization, he followed their beliefs. Hasan exchanged a multiple e-mails with Anwar-al Awlaki, a Muslim extremist later was killed in a drone strike by the U.S. (Mazzetti, Savage, Shane, 2013). Hasan had posted on the internet, referencing suicide bombers stating “if one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory” (MacAskill, 2009). A former colleague of Hasan’s, Colonel Terry Lee, talked about how Hasan had once discussed his displeasure with U.S foreign policy in the Middle East and did not believe the United States’ presence in Iraq and Afghanistan was acceptable (MacAskill, 2009). All of these alarming factors