I think its pretty clear by now that the recent shooting at Ft Hood was not the work of a disgruntled soldier but in fact a terrorist act by a religous Muslim fanatic. And therin lies the rub. Do we call this what it really is? Or, in the interests of not fanning the dying flames of anti-muslim sentiments in this country do we gloss over Nidal Hassan’s radical islamic beliefs and simply call this pre-post traumatic stress disorder? Believe it or not, this is a difficult question even for me. Over at my favorite liberal blog, writers are already decrying the inevitable anti-islam backlash – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/good-reason-for-muslims-t_b_349492.html or using this as yet another excuse to enact more gun control – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/fort-hood-shooting-1-dist_b_348895.htmlwhile other more conservative bloggers (like me) are calling this for what it really is -http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/07/report-hasan-attended-same-radical-mosque-as-911-hijackers/
While I do not feel that the enemy is “infiltrating” our military, the possibility is there. The fact that this man was able to rise to the rank of Major shows that we are perhaps not doing as much screening as we should and in the right places. Those of us who have held a security clearance know that the screening process for thes clearances is fairly thorough, but not until you get up to the higher clearance levels. There is no indication that Nidal Hassan ever had any type of clearance and as a psychiatrist I would not necessarily expect him to. So what processes are in place to ensure that a muslim-american with these types of religous beliefs does not slip through the cracks again? And should our men and women in uniform trust those muslim-americans they currently serve with?
This could have been much worse. Had Nidal Hassan been something other than a psyciatrist, he could have caused far more damage than he did. Of course, he would have gone through more screening to get access to that kind of firepower so maybe the system would have prevented him. We will never know. But can we even screem out people based on religous beliefs? I believe under current law, we cannot. I think we need to take a harder look at just how much “political correctness” is going to end up costing us in the future.
Rich
9 Comments
I tend to ignore the fact that this nut job was in the military. This could have been any coward anywhere. The solution is to arm everyone all the time. Be your own first responder. I find it ridiculous that people trained to kill for a living have to walk around their base unarmed. Don’t know about you but I’d rather be caught with it than without it.
I need to know what sources you use in your original charge. Other than a few extreme right wingers I have found no credible evidence to suggest any factual basis for your charge, beyond a single lecture he attended. By all accounts, this was a sub-par soldier that got passed for promotion, multiple times, and recently received orders to a war-zone that he has been vocal in arguing against. Jumping to the terrorist conclusion from a couple of tenuous ties seems a bit much. At some point he did attend the same mosque as those that caused the towers to fall, but there is no evidence to suggest he attended it WITH them, nor is there any evidence from the thousands of other Muslims that have passed through this same Mosque that suggests any ties with the average parishioner and these known terrorists. Attending a lecture given by someone that has been tied to terrorism is not sufficient to prove anything. I will grant you that it is highly suggestive, but not proof.
And of course there will be an anti-Islam backlash, that is human nature. To suggest that this is a liberal reaction is a bit unfair and it should be everyone’s reaction, lets penalize the guilty, not innocents whose only common tie is the book of scripture they read from. The Koran states unequivocally that if ‘you kill one man you kill all of humanity.’
As far as gun control, well, in this case no one would be able to launch any meaningful attack against guns simply due to the fact that he was military. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be idiots who try and make this a case but it won’t get any traction.
Look, Hassan did wrong and should be punished accordingly, but to call him a terrorist is to suggest there was more behind this than someone with bad wiring that finally short circuited. He has flawed ideas and was under some tremendous stress because he was terrified of being placed into the middle of a war he did not agree with. At worse you may label him an enemy sympathizer with no formal ties to the enemy, just a common faith based connection. Don’t get me wrong, I am not making excuses for this man, but a spree killing like this is a far cry from terrorism.
Chris,
I am not going so far as to call him a terrorist. The point I intended to make was that this is not simply a case of a disgruntled soldier. There is ample eveidence to show that his religous beliefs played a major role in triggering his actions. I am sure that the best evidence will be found on his computer which the FBI currently has, and this will never be fully released to the public. Yes, there are many passages in the Quran that are peaceful. There are just as many if not more that are not. I stil maintain that Islam is a danger to this country and we should pull our heads out of the sand.
Well, your first line stated this to be a terrorist act, indicating that the individual who performed the act was a terrorist, so forgive my confusion. And as far as religious ideology playing into the motivation, what have you read about the Aryan movement, the KKK or any of the domestic terrorist groups in the U.S.? You suggest that Islam is a danger, but the religion isn’t, and neither is the majority of those that believe in it. How many Muslims do you know? I know quite a few and have had long discussions with them about just this topic. The funny thing is I have had more frightening discussions with Protestant Christians than anything I have heard from Muslims, Hindus or even Catholics (and one was a former member of the IRA). The Christian extremists have a much wider array of perversion of the scripture and its meaning. It is just as violent and intolerant as Islam can be, but since the Middle East has been the primary source of continued conflict in the last 70 years it is an easy target.
The main source of conflict in the Middle East remains money, religion is the excuse and the basis for holding onto old hatred. Those that profit in their environment do not ask for war, when have allies in each of the Islamic Nations that are flush with oil wealth and especially those countries that share that wealth the people in those countries. It is too easy by far to suggest that a religion is the problem. It is quick, easy, dismissive and just plain wrong, and requires no critical thinking.
Those who worship and pray to Allah have just as much a chance to be peaceful citizens as any other group of the faithful, and no, there are no more passages in the Quran that incite violence or cruelty than the Bible, actually there are quite a few more in the Bible. Supposedly there are more than 800 references to violence, cruelty and war in the Bible while there are a little over 300 in the Quran. With over 6,000 verses in the Quran, that is about 5% of the book, that does not agree with your assessment at all. On a percentage basis that may be more than the Bible but that does not mean this is a violent religion.
Your tone and remarks lean towards the Christian Fundamentalist stance on Islam, these same people argue that we are a Christian nation, which we were never meant to be. This is a country that was intended to have a secular government with people of ALL faiths welcomed. Take a step back, look at this. This man was a below par soldier, and used his religion to place the blame on the American system as to the basis for his lack of success and used an ongoing war that many now believe to have been wrong as the focus of his anger. He did not act out in this way until he was given orders to go to this war that was his focus and the fear and stress clearly overwhelmed him. He did have un-American leanings and no one can argue that, but there are Christians that blame their lot in life on every other race, creed and religion under the sun. You are too smart too believe that this religion or any other is responsible for this atrocity.
Go meet some Muslims and discuss your fears with them, they will actually be able to see the error in your logic and the wrongness of your position.
Chris,
In the first line of my post, I stated that this was an act of terrorism, not that this guy was a terrorist, at least not in the sense we nromally think of terrorists. Hopefully you have been watching the news today and are coming to realize that this man’s religous beliefs played a major role in his decision to carry out this atrocity.
I do not need to meet any more Muslims to discuss this, they cannot point out the error in my logic anymore than a radical Christian Fundamentalist could. I still maintain that Islam is a dangerous religion for many reasons. I will gladly go into thos reasons later this afternoon, for now I need to get back to work. Till later…
Terrorism is defined 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.
Therefore this was not an act of terrorism. This was a horrible act, perpetrated by violent religious ideology. I’m not quite sure why this isn’t enough for people. …Actually, yes I am.
This is not enough because most American’s have their own religious ideology and need to be able to justify theirs as “better” than Muslim ideology. Therefore using “terrorism” they can infer that Islam is bad and [Christianity, Judaism, etc) is good.
This is how we make ourselves feel better, this is how we try to “understand”, and I use that term VERY loosely (perhaps “justify” would be better) the actions of Islamic people’s.
Quite simply, belief in a higher power is one very effective way of justifying horrendous, violent actions. Just because most other religions are not currently spewing violent ideology is not reason to ignore it. Most western nations are educated, having passed successfully THROUGH the enlightenment. The Muslim nations did not. Their scientific, moral, and ethical understandings did not evolve with the rest of the world. Their ideology is so insular, it PREVENTED the moral and ethical progressions.
It was not a religious awakening that inspired modern morality, but a secular one. I cannot be convinced, having read through almost every document relating to the formation of our government (And damn, there’s a lot of them!), that if we had established a Christian, or non-secular government, that we would be as morally advanced as we are today. Possibly, we would be not much better than the “terrorists.”
To me, labeling something as “terrorism” is the same as labeling something a “hate crime”. It try’s to find reason for the committed action so we can justify it within ourselves and feel better. “Well, at least I don’t HATE…”
It marginalizes the action and prevents us from the understanding of what the real problem is. Please America, wake up.
Matt, in this we are agreed, the religious beliefs and resulting fervor are the justification for malicious deeds. This is not a problem with Islam so much as a problem with individuals. To declare a religion to be the source or cause of hate is wrong, but they can be used to prop up intolerance if misinterpreted.
The “religion” is not the source or cause to me. Faith is. The idea of absolute ideology defined by fallacy and lack of morality.
It their religion that takes advantage of the concept of faith and absolute ideology and turns it into an object of violence. I want to be as specific as possible, not “religion” but faith. The idea of a belief rooted in nothing that cannot be challenged, discussed, or studied.
I disagree, faith in a higher power does not provide exclusions which are the basis of fear and conflict. It is the shaping of belief that leads to these things, and that is what religion is. You belief that there is nothing to believe in is as much of a faith as my belief that there is. And faith is not absolute ideology, devote religion is, faith is meant to be challenged.
Post a Comment