No, he isn't a "suspect." We know he did it.
He wasn't an "alleged shooter." There were witnesses.
He's not just a "murderer," although that would be bad enough.
Malik Nadal Hasan was a terrorist. And not because of his name.
Let's examine what we know so far to be true.
Hasan was a psychiatrist at Walter Reed for six years before being transferred to Hood. After 9/11, his family tells us, he was openly against the war and refused to be deployed. His coworkers said he was anxious about being deployed in a few weeks - for the first time. This would be his first tour of duty. He is not a veteran suffering from battle fatigue or PTSD.
Throughout his time at Hood, he told his coworkers that Muslims - whom he viewed as our enemies - were right in fighting and killing our servicemen and women.
Even more shocking, when a Muslim shot and killed two recruiters in Little Rock, AK back in the summer, that he was "happy" about it, that "this is what Muslims should do."
Other statements Hasan has made and/or written:
There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.He was also what the PC crowd would call an "extremist," even by their standards:
"A co-worker at Walter Reed said Hasan would not allow his photo to be taken with female co-workers, which became an issue during Christmas season when employees often took group photos. Co-workers would find a solo photo of Hasan and post it on the bulletin board without his permission."
Something else to consider:
This wasn't just some guy who "snapped." He had been so "extreme" for so long that even the military took notice and had him under investigation.
Thankfully, Hasan was not killed as originally reported. So more evidence should be coming out soon.
So what difference does it make whether this was a loony or a religious fanatic i.e. a terrorist?
Well, first of all, it's the difference between truth and lies. We have an obligation as a moral, civilized society to seek out and uphold the truth, regardless of who it may offend.
Secondly, we owe it to Hasan's victims to present the truth about their killer.
And third - if you are from NYC or from OKC, like I am, you know what it's like to experience a terrorist attack in your own backyard. And especially if you are from OKC, you know what it's like to feel like the investigation settled for an easy answer rather than the truth.
When we change our language and no longer call a thing by its proper name, the name loses its meaning.
Calling Hasan a "suspect," "shooter" or even "murderer" is far too respectful for an animal such as he, in the same way calling a rapist an "assailant" lessens the crime and disrespects the victim.
The man was a terrorist. A terrorist who chose to break his oath of allegiance to his country and his comrades for the sake of a twisted faith and ideology. To paint him as anything less is to become complicit in his crime by denying the truth.
In this war against terrorism - a terrorism based in ideology - the truth is our best weapon.