Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot, killed and wounded fellow military personnel at Ft. Hood, Texas, Friday.

Many are making excuses for Hasan because he is Muslim, many are being careful not to jump to conclusions about his motives, his religion and any connection his religious beliefs have with the Friday massacre.

My conclusion is mixed, depending on your interpretation of terrorism vs. act of war, this was not a random act by an insane shooter although anyone who does this is crazy.

Here’s one clue, from London’s Guardian:

The gunman “allegedly shouted ‘Allahu Akbar,’ or ‘God is greatest,’ as he opened fire.”

From London’s Daily Telegraph:

Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a “spiritual adviser” to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. . . .

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree.

The Middle East Media Research Institute last month excerpted a blog post from al-Awlaki’s Web site in which he cheerleads for America’s enemies:

America failed to defeat the mujahedeen when it gave its president unlimited support, how can it win with Obama who is on a short leash? If America failed to win when it was at its pinnacle of economic strength, how can it win today with a recession–if not a depression–at hand?

The simple answer is: America cannot and will not win. The tables have turned and there is no rolling back of the worldwide Jihad movement.

Today al-Awlaki has a post titled “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing“:

Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam.

The Sunday Telegraph reports that Hasan “once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats”:

He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July. . . .

Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a “Muslim first and American second.”

One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.

An editorial in the Washington Times faults those who say the Fort Hood attack wasn’t terrorism:

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was declared “not a terrorist” before the facts were out – even before officials were sure whether the attacker was alive or dead. Failing to honestly name a terrorist attack despite the evidence is as destructive and dishonest as leaping to call an attack terrorism without the facts to support that.

Apparently, the claim was based largely on the fact that Maj. Hasan appears to have been a lone gunman. However, terrorism is defined not by the number of people involved, but by the motivations and intentions of the attacker. If reports about him are true, Maj. Hasan clearly was a terrorist.

Some might say this was not a terrorist attack. One definition might say 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. However, in an analysis by Major Johnie Gombo in understanding guerilla warfare he writes in 1990:

If placed on a continuum depicting the forms of warfare based on the extent of combat, and the selection of targets, guerrilla warfare would be located between terrorism and conventional warfare. Terrorism involves a limited amount of combat against any target, military or civilian. Conventional warfare involves extended combat, and limits the warfare to military targets. Guerrilla warfare, being located in between, involves combat which is mostly quick skirmishes, but may include extended battles, and is limited to military targets.

Terrorism research adds:

If no single definition of terrorism produces a precise, unambiguous description, we can approach the question by eliminating similar activities that are not terrorism, but that appear to overlap. For the U.S. military, two such related concepts probably lead to more confusion than others. Guerilla warfare and insurgencies are often assumed to be synonymous with terrorism. One reason for this is that insurgencies and terrorism often have similar goals. However, if we examine insurgency and guerilla warfare, specific differences emerge.

A key difference is that an insurgency is a movement – a political effort with a specific aim. This sets it apart from both guerilla warfare and terrorism, as they are both methods available to pursue the goals of the political movement.

Terrorism does not attempt to challenge government forces directly, but acts to change perceptions as to the effectiveness or legitimacy of the government itself. This is done by ensuring the widest possible knowledge of the acts of terrorist violence among the target audience. Rarely will terrorists attempt to “control” terrain, as it ties them to identifiable locations and reduces their mobility and security. Terrorists as a rule avoid direct confrontations with government forces.

Ultimately, the difference between insurgency and terrorism comes down to the intent of the actor. Insurgency movements and guerilla forces can adhere to international norms regarding the law of war in achieving their goals, but terrorists are by definition conducting crimes under both civil and military legal codes. Terrorists routinely claim that were they to adhere to any “law of war” or accept any constraints on the scope of their violence, it would place them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the establishment. Since the nature of the terrorist mindset is absolutist, their goals are of paramount importance, and any limitations on a terrorist’s means to prosecute the struggle are unacceptable.

Whether you personally define Hasan as a terrorist, his act as an act or declaration of war, we can mutually conclude that the Hasan massacre was premeditated murder. As they said in the old West, “Hand Em’ High. Indeed!