Jim D. Adkisson is a Fox terrorist if Nidal Hassan is an Islamic terrorist. And unless Fox News takes responsibility for their role in leading and inspiring their own terrorists, they have no legitimacy in condemning conservative imams.
An imam is a Muslim spiritual leader, and the precise definition depends on the particular family of Islam being discussed. Imams aren't just religious leaders, they're cultural and political leaders too. They're all three. This is also how fans of Fox News view men like Sean Hannity. He more than anyone except maybe Glenn Beck is their ideological, political, and spiritual leader. Yes spiritual. Hannity wears his Christianity on his sleeve and demands that America is in fact a Christian nation and that our political values MUST therefore be Christian.
There is no difference between the place a fundamentalist jihadist imam holds for his followers and that which Sean Hannity holds for his. They're just on opposite ends of their contrived Holy Wars.
When Fox News calls Nidal Hassan an Islamic terrorist, notice that the word terrorist is qualified by what kind they're talking about. There are other types of terrorists of course. The IRA had Christian terrorist members in their organization. Tim McVeigh was an American terrorist. There are terrorists motivated more by ideology than religion and vice versa, and there are terrorists for whom it's all a bundle. But let's make sure we break down exactly what Fox is saying when they make their claim:
terrorist: a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon
terrorism: systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
Islamic: of or relating to or supporting Islam
Islam: A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God.
So, as we probably already knew, an Islamic terrorist is a person who uses violence and intimidation (America obviously ignores the 2nd part) in order to advance their goals, especially political ones, all in the name of Islam.
Is that what Nidal Hassan did? If so, then fine. He is a terrorist. It's very possible he is in fact a terrorist. But only if we're consistent and take responsibility for the other terrorist acts we've seen recently. I'm going to focus on one mass shooting incident inspired by Fox News anchors. I might also note that this shooter is listed in this wikipedia article: terrorism in the Unites States.
Jim D. Adkisson:
The Unitarian Universalist church hosted a youth performance of Annie Jr. Some 200 people were watching the performance by 25 children when Adkisson entered the church and opened fire on the audience. [He killed 2 and injured 7 before being restrained by church members.]
...
Adkisson, a former private in the United States Army from 1974 to 1977, says that he was motivated by hatred of Democrats, liberals, African Americans and homosexuals . According to a sworn affidavit by one of the officers who interviewed Adkisson on July 27, 2008:
During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years.
...
The following books were found in Adkisson's home during a police search:
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by radio talk show host Michael Savage
Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism by talk show host Sean Hannity
The O'Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly
In his manifesto, Adkisson also included the Democratic members of the House and Senate, and the 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America of Bernard Goldberg in his list of wished-for targets.
Nidal Hassan sought ideological direction from an imam named Anwar al-Awlaki. Despite a lengthy investigation, our FBI couldn't nail down enough evidence to convict him of sufficient ties to any terrorist groups, although there is no doubt that known 911 terrorists do view him as an ideological leader.
There is no proof however that Anwar al-Awlaki ever told Nidal Hassan specifically what to do or had any knowledge of his planned actions. In fact, there's every reason to believe he didn't, because our FBI read the emails they shared.
Jim D. Adkisson sought ideological direction from a conservative leader named Sean Hannity. Our FBI never tried to nail down any connections between Sean Hannity or any terrorist groups like militias, anti-abortion groups, or anti-liberal groups, although there is no doubt that Jim D. Adkisson does view him as an ideological leader.
There is no proof however that Sean Hannity ever told Jim D. Adkisson specifically what to do or had any knowledge of his planned actions. Our FBI never checked to see if there was any attempt by Jim D. Adkisson to contact Sean Hannity on his website or anywhere else.
The reality is that for Fox viewers, men like Sean Hannity are their imams. For the large percentage of rightwingers that view the show, Sean Hannity is the closest thing they have to a famous ideological and spiritual leader. He's the type of guy they'd go see if he was giving a lecture in town. Anwar al-Awlaki is known for his tech savvy approach to his evangelism. He embraces the Internet and English in order to radicalize Americans specifically. This is not a man just sitting on a carpet somewhere. He's 21st Century and he embraces all the technological tools that men like Sean Hannity use to evangelize their own message.
So if Sean Hannity wants to brand Nidal Hassan a terrorist and he wants to condemn conservative Muslim imams and their ideology as the root of those terrorist actions, then he must also accept that Jim D. Adkisson was a terrorist and that as his ideological leader, Sean Hannity himself is as guilty as Anwar al-Awlaki in preaching hate and creating terrorists.
Nidal Hassan is exactly as guilty as Jim D. Adkisson for being a terrorist.
Anwar al-Awlaki is exactly as guilty as Sean Hannity for creating terrorists.
Imam University in Yemen who currently employs Anwar al-Awlaki is exactly as guilt as Fox News for employing and subsidizing the people who create terrorists.
As a final note, I should mention that the founder of Imam University, Abdul-Majid al-Zindani, is designated by the US Treasury as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
Rupert Murdoch pays his own "imams" to say what they do. At what point Murdoch deserves to share that designation with Abdul-Majid al-Zindani... that's now up for discussion, and it's Sean Hannity, Fox News, and the Republican party who made it so by insisting so vehemently that Nidal Hassan is a terrorist, and that before they had all the facts.
Fox Terrorists and their imams can't have it both ways. And liberals who want to prove their 'Mercan bona fides by beating up on conservative imams can't have it both ways either.
If Nidal Hassan is an Islamic terrorist, then Jim D. Adkisson is a Fox terrorist.
If Anwar al-Awlaki creates terrorists, then so does Sean Hannity.
Update [2009-11-14 19:17:0 by certainly]: Some have commented that there is a distinction between jihadist imans and Hannity in that Hannity doesn't recommend violence or death to achieve political ends. This simply isn't true, but it's useful to prove it in the actual diary instead of the comments.
There are things in life worth fighting and dying for, and one of them is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker." -Sean Hannity in 2006
There is no difference between Hannity's statements and those made by jihadist imams.