The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.
Bottom Stories of the Day
- “Kansas City Bomb Technicians Find Nothing Suspicious in Cooler”–headline, Kansas City Star Web site, Nov. 8
- “Valuable Bottle of Whiskey Disappears From Weston Liquor Store”–headline, Miami Herald, Nov. 7
None Dare Call It Terrorism–Because It Isn’t!
An editorial in the Washington Times faults those–without specifying who they are–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.
In fact, this was not a terrorist attack. By definition, 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.
The real question here is not whether the attack was terrorism but whether it was an act of war as opposed to personal aggression. ABC News reports that “U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago” that the suspect “was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda,” which if true certainly bolsters the case for the affirmative.
When a soldier attacks members of his own force in an act of war, it seems to us the most apt term is treason.
For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.
