Nidal Hasan: Religious Terrorist

“Why is it so hard to call it what it is for some folks?”
Because we all aren’t yet convinced it was an act of terrorism, perhaps? An act of a self-proclaimed jihadist, quite likely, but I am still not seeing signs that his intent was to instill fear in the larger society.
~EdT.

One of the problems, of course, is the definition of “terrorism,” which mostly seems to have been stretched to where the word’s purpose is to make bad people seem even scarier.
Religious fanatic? Obviously. But I understand that terrorism is a tactic used in violent conflicts to instill mass fear in a population, with the aim of producing a specific reaction – most often, a distaste for the battle that will cost one of the parties in the conflict popular support. Basically, a way to make the price of engaging in the battle too high (in lives, in political terms) to continue.
It seems like a real stretch to call what Hasan did “terrorism” in that respect, based on what we know now.
What is your definition? Your Moderate Voice piece suggests that all violence committed in the name of religion would be terrorism. This seems so broad to me that “terrorism” ceases to be a useful word, and creates the need for a new word for the definition I gave above.
Definitions have utility: if you are going to talk, for example, about how to protect yourself against terrorism, those methods are going to look very different if you are protection yourself from some kind of organized activity, vs the actions of a lunatic who goes over the edge.

Perhaps, it sounds like he falls into the “lone nut” category from what I have read. Which makes him more like other lone nuts who decide they are “soldiers” in some battle, etc. and something fundamentally different than what the word “terrorist” brings to most people’s minds, which is an organized group carefully planning disruption and bloodshed.
This may seem like nit-picking, but the moment you use the T-word, people start thinking about all kinds of counter-measures and interventions that probably aren’t appropriate here (where tragedy probably could have been avoided by people feeling free to follow their instincts and use their judgment as they would with any troubled soldier).
There’s an air of hysteria that comes with the word terrorist that, I think, leads to bad reactions – like, for example, the American Family Association calling for all Muslims to be barred from serving.

“When somebody commits violence (in this case, mass murder) in the name of their religion, the word for it is terrorism.”
If you want to use the above as a definition of terrorism… then you also have to call the anti-abortionists that have shooting sprees at abortion clinics terrorists.
Additionally, you will also have to call the catholic preists/nuns that murdered innocent First Nations children at Indian residential schools, terrorists.
These killings were also done in the name of religion.
Does that really fit with your idea of terrorism?