The difference between the intensely Christian figure, and the intensely Muslim figure in the US military, is that the US is engaged in foreign policies which should deeply disturb people whose primary identity is Muslim, while not offending in the slightest those whose identity is a militarized form of Christianity ==> being Muslim makes someone more dangerous in this context than being Christian. At the same time going postal seems to generally involve a lot more than religious things, its profoundly abnormal, and probably a large part of the reason that his religion wasn't seen as important before he went off is that, well, he is a doctor. Not a shooter.

And Ed, don't flip out, but don't you think it is interesting that almost all of these spree killers and serial killers are male, and that no one in the MSM ever mentions that? Has male become the default for killer? Just asking.

To answer the question of 'why not?'…

The officer corps in the US military is not a likely pool of candidates for membership in terrorist groups.

If he was somehow linked to Al Queda or some faction thereof, then yes, he is/was a terrorist. On the other hand, the rationale could be: a Muslim on a killing spree is a terrorist. A non-Muslim on a killing spree, however, is either 'postal,' 'amok,' 'berserk,' or committing 'suicide by cop.' Religion here is the deciding factor. Let us define our terms and be careful about logic once and for all.

Also, the reason Maj. Hassan was not weeded out of the service early on has little to do with with political correctness. It has everything to do with the fact that he was a doctor. The Army paid for his education and was entitled to its end of the service contract. Doctors, especially shrinks, are in short supply. Their skills are badly needed. The Medical Corps promoted doctors as a matter of gratis up through the ranks of Major and Lt. Colonel with few exceptions because of this fact. Given that Hassan was a psychiatrist in the first place, he was below the radar with regard to any warning signs that he was a serious nut-job. This goes to say that it's often hard to tell the coaches from the players in the mental health professions.

Then again, this could be just another red herring to disguise the the fact that leftist style political correctness gave Hassan carte blanche up to and including his Jihad style last stand. The caveat here is that the US military is PC the way high schools are. Both officially embrace the highest ideals with regard to human relations. What happens in the locker room or barracks, on the other hand, is often the very antipodes of PCdome. With respect to officer promotion boards, race-creed-color have no impact on who does or doesn't make the grade. Skills do, however, play a big role in career advancement. Pilots and doctors usually get promoted by virtue of their special knowledge and so forth.

So, if Hassan was indeed a terrorist, then he was acting on political motives. This has not yet been established.

Just a few thoughts…

This, however, might be hindsight bias.

Cheers!
JzB the retrospective trombonist

I am a big fan of NPR, but this was just silly. There is another legal evidentiary concept it brings to mind. A little something us lawyers like to call "relevance." But apparently that is not in the media rule book.

I would suggest that people's hindsight biases need some grist to work with (for most of us anyway, some have incredible powers of personal delusion). It helps a LOT for the person to have done some things that fall outside of our regular mental sets for what people are supposed to do. Being late to some meetings doesn't count. Professing loyalty to religious groups we're not entirely comfortable with does. Wearing a lot of blue sweaters in a row won't set us off, but violating every day conversational norms (say, on eye contact) would.

Shorter: Our hindsight biases don't need very much rope to hang themselves on, but they do need at least some.