[The_Reader_David]

Dare to call it 'treason'. Dare to call it 'jihad'.

As I noted here, the attack was treason, the attack was undoubtedly an act of jihad by a Salafi Muslim, but it was an attack on soldiers. Terrorism as a tactic involves attacking the general population to instill terror.

The insistence on calling all acts of war by non-state actors "terrorism" dilutes the meaning of the word and leads to incoherent policy.

[G Larry]

You'd do us all a service if you first understood the very narrow legal definition of “treason” and just how difficult it is to prove.
There is no basis in fact or law that disqualifies those at Ft. Hood, from being victims of “terrorism”.
Your assertion that this was simply an act of war, and because they are soldiers, they are somehow legitimate targets, is legally, linguistically, and logically wrong and abhorrent.
A position you would quickly retract if there were a policy to pre-emptively strike down all potential “Hasan’s”.

[allmendream]

If the intent of Hasan was merely to kill people on their way to fight in (and for) and Islamic country - then yes, it would be an example of jihad, but not strictly speaking, terrorism.

But if the intent of Hasan’s action was to disuade Americans from joining the military, soldiers from deploying to war, etc; then it most certainly was terrorism, even if against a “hard” or “ligitimate” target.

Either way he was on his own personal jihad, terrorist or murderous makes little difference other than as a glimpse into his deranged and addled brain.