What Constitutes A Terrorist?

I find it 'fascinating' (in a Mr. Spock kind of way), that mere days after six people are killed and three are wounded in a Sikh Temple by Wade Michael Page, an alleged white supremacist and neo-Nazi, that Attorney General Eric Holder is ready to pronounce that this was "an act of terrorism". Yet, this is the same administration that has been unwilling since November 5, 2009 to label the Fort Hood massacre, with 13 dead and 29 wounded, by Nidal Malik Hasan, an act of terrorism.

Apparently we don't have enough proof to link Hasan to terrorism. Even though according to Wikipedia, we know that he is of Palestinian descent. Even though we know that he had e-mail correspondence with Anwar al-Awlaki, classified by the U.S. as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist", and considered by the UN to be associated with al-Qaeda. Even though Hasan attended the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001, at the same time as Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, two of the hijackers in the September 11 attacks. Even though a review of Hasan's computer and his multiple e-mail accounts has revealed visits to websites espousing radical Islamist ideas.

Even though he once presented what was supposed to be a medical lecture to other psychiatrists, but instead talked about Islam, and stated that non-believers would be sent to hell, decapitated, set on fire, and have burning oil poured down their throats. Even though during the same lecture, he "justified suicide bombings".

Even though Hasan expressed admiration for the teachings of Anwar al-Awlaki. Even though Hasan was investigated by the FBI after intelligence agencies intercepted 18 emails between him and al-Awlaki between December 2008 and June 2009. Even though Hasan told Awlaki: "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife. Even though Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, suggested that Hasan was "either offering himself up [to Awlaki] or [had] already crossed that line in his own mind." Even though Hasan had asked al-Awlaki when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.

Even though in March 2010, al-Awlaki alleged that the Obama administration attempted to portray Hasan's actions as an individual act of violence, and that the administration was attempting to suppress information from the American public. Even though Awlaki said...

Until this moment the administration is refusing to release the e-mails exchanged between myself and Nidal. And after the operation of our brother Umar Farouk, the initial comments coming from the administration were looking the same - another attempt at covering up the truth. But al Qaeda cut off Obama from deceiving the world again by issuing their statement claiming responsibility for the operation.
-- Anwar al-Awlaki

Even though he handed out copies of the Qur'an, along with his business card which referred to himself as "Nidal Hasan, MD, MPH | SoA(SWT) | Psychiatrist", where the acronym "SoA" is commonly used on jihadist websites as an acronym for "Soldier of Allah" or "Servant of Allah", and SWT is commonly used by Muslims to mean "subhanahu wa ta'ala" (Glory to God). Even though he shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the shooting. Even though in 2010, the Bipartisan Policy Center released a report called "Assessing the Terrorist Threat" that labeled the Fort Hood shooting as a successful terrorist attack.

Nope. Not likely to be an act of terrorism. The FBI said that they believed Hasan had apparently acted alone. Army officials said, "Right now we're operating on the belief that he acted alone and had no help". Nope. We don't have any idea what his motives were. Probably "self-radicalization". Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

Give me a break! Are we living in a fantasy world? The Fort Hood massacre is NOT an act of terrorism, but the Sikh Temple shooting IS?? I would appreciate it if Eric Holder could explain to me the subtle distinctions between these two events.

Perhaps it has something to do with the idea that Obama doesn't want to admit Islamic terrorism is happening in the US "on his watch"? Perhaps it has something to do with Obama being raised in Indonesia as a Muslim? [NOTE: new facts are coming to light on this issue. Stay tuned.] Perhaps it has something to do with this administration's obsession over "right wing extremists" (you know: Tea Party people, returning veterans, and people who oppose abortion)? Perhaps it has something to do with Holder's fanatical desire to impose gun control, and to use every violent event to support his cause?

I am beginning to feel somewhat like "Neo" from the 1999 film "The Matrix". Should I take the red pill and learn what is really going on? Do I want to know about "reality", that is "the truth"? Or should I take the blue pill and live in blissful ignorance? Should I ignore what is going on and pretend that everything is "OK"? [Is this a metaphor? Red pill = Red states = Republicans = Reality and Truth. Blue pill = Blue states = Democrats = Ignorance and Bliss?]

Neo was living between two worlds, and so am I. He could sense that something was not right and had an insatiable curiosity to get an answer. And I do too... about this subject and others. Will keep you posted on my progress. Thanks for "Viewing".