Nidal Hasan Is Not a Terrorist, He Is an Enemy Combatant

Nidal Hassan, the Army psychiatrist who killed 12 soldiers, 1 civilian, and wounded 32 others at Ft. Hood, Texas, in November 2009, was convicted of all charges last week. This week, the jurors decide what his sentence will be.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/justice/nidal-hasan-sentencing/

I have no problem with this whole trial thing, or anything else related to this, for that matter. The only problem I have with this is that the vast majority of Americans are calling Hassan a terrorist, when in fact, he is not. He is an enemy combatant. He attacked soldiers in war-time, on a military base. His victims were overwhelmingly soldiers, (12 soldiers and 1 civilian). That's certainly better than the ratio of combatants/civilians the US has killed in all the wars after WW2. 

It would help illustrate my point if we had a textbook definition of terrorism, because that word has been thrown around so much the last dozen years that it basically has lost all meaning. The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Okay, now, compare the definition to what Hasan did.
THEY'RE NOTHING SIMILIAR!!!!

This shows the sheer stupidity and hypocrisy of America in general, but specifically it's media. It shows the extreme lengths that America will go to, to de-legitimaize any type of resistance to it's imperialistic terrorist policies. They're trying to make it look like ANY person who opposes America is automatically a terrorist, no question asked. This is a typical fascist technique to gather support from it's citizens. After all, who wants to be called a terrorist? So, they brainwash people into supporting America blindly, in the fear that if they don't, they will be called terrorists, and shunned from ordinary society, and/or face criminal charges, imprisonment, etc.

Okay, some people say, but Hasan killed un-armed Americans. He was in contact with a radical Muslim cleric. He's obviously a terrorist, right???
Ahhh, but you have to look deeper than that to find the truth.
 In war, soldiers, police officers, and government personal are legitimate targets to attack. They are the ones doing the attacking, so it only makes logical sense that you can defend yourself from them. Otherwise, you'd just have to sit there and get killed, saying "I can't defend myself because that's being a terrorist." Yeah fucking right, give me a fucking break. So, who did Hasan shoot at?
That's right, soldiers! Hassan shot soldiers! Soldiers who were getting ready to deploy to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. Hassan acted in a totally rational manner as an enemy soldier would. Police reports verify that Hassan "specifically targeted soldiers in his attack. There were several times where he aimed at a civilian, realized that he/she was a civilian, and passed by them."

The fact that they're un-armed makes no difference, they are still soldiers. If you saw Osama Bin Laden walking down the street, you would kill him, right? You wouldn't rush towards him, and notice he has no weapon, and say "Oh, I know you're a mass murderer and all, but since you have no gun, I can't touch you."
Of course not! A soldier is a soldier, whether he is armed or not. That's why sneak attacks are so effective in war. It catches your enemy off-guard and un-armed. Which is exactly what this was, not a terrorist attack, but a simple sneak attack. It's a center piece of guerrilla warfare. American patriots did it all the time to British forces in the American Revolution. Are you calling them terrorists? They didn't do it because they were terrorists, they did it because that's the only way they could afford to fight. They couldn't afford the big fancy armies and cannons like the British could. Lumping guerrilla warfare with terrorism de-legitimizes any non-governmental group's fighting cause, effectively taking away the poor man of the world's way to defend himself.

Just because he was in contact with a so called radical Muslim cleric doesn't mean he's a terrorist. Let's say your best childhood friend turned out to a terrorist, and you honestly had no idea he was. The police can't call you a terrorist, simply by association. It doesn't work that way. But of course, the police could spin the story to make it look like you are. They could say "This guy spent a lot of time with this terrorist, they went to parties together, he even played air-soft with him!" Of course, that would be true, you did do those things with your best childhood friend, but with no terrorist ties at all, just simple friendship.

 Bottom line I'm trying to make here is: we are overusing the word terrorist by a shitload. The discussions flew out the fucking windows of the house of rationality. People are acting like paranoid delusional crazies right now. It has got to stop, otherwise, this country is gonna end up like Tea Time with the Mad Hatter. The media has got to tone it down a few thousand notches. If America has the notion that any resistance to it's policies will be seen as terrorism, they will do anything they want to, without fear of consequences, because no one will try and stop them, on the fears of being called a terrorist, (1984 anyone?!?!?!)

You may not agree with the enemy or it's policies, but you have to admit that they have the inalienable right to fight against us in accordance with the laws of war and human rights.
Nidal Hasan is not a terrorist, he is a enemy soldier who tried to operate a sneak attack deep in our territory, and was captured after being wounded. Simple as that.