For those who have been living in a cave: Last Thursday, a Muslim-American named Major Nidal Malik Hasan *allegedly* stood up on a desk at Fort Hood, TX, bowed his head, said "Allah Akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic), before firing off more than 100 rounds, murdering 12 soldiers, 1 civilian, and sending 28 others to the hospital. The emerging details of this tragic terrorist act, largely reported by the British press, have been difficult for me to swallow . . .
It's been reported that Hasan reached out to Al-Qaeda recruiters as many as 20 times; vociferously opposed the war; had close contact with a radical Anti-American cleric who has since praised Hasan as a hero; saw the current war not as one on terror, but a war on Islam; and gave radical Power Point lectures (at Walter Reed Hospital for crying out loud!) urging the audience to "fight those who do not believe in Allah;" that the "infidels should have boiling oil poured down their throats," and then "be lit on fire," and the list of red flags continues.
As shocking as these facts may seem, I am even more shocked to hear the mainstream media sympathize with Hasan and apologize for his actions - apparently hoping to ward off the inevitable anti-Muslim backlash from "the Right Wing hate machine." MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked: "so he tried to contact Al Qaeda - is that the point at which you say 'ok, this guy's dangerous?' It's not a crime to contact Al Qeada is it?" Others have said that it's "tragic" the Hasan was a Muslim. You hear that he was just a "stressed-out nut job" who was not a religious fanatic. Major news outlets initially did not even want to report Hasan's name. Janet Napolitano, the DHS Secretary, has promised to devote resources to "prevent [Muslims] from being painted with a broad brush."
Ironically, President Obama warned all of us to "not jump to conclusions." Hmmmm, sounds like "do as I say, not as I do." Didn't he hastily conclude that the Cambridge Police Dept. "acted stupidly" when a white cop arrested his black, elitist, college professor friend, and then had to awkwardly patch things up with the beer summit fiasco? Isn't that what he did immediately after the recent murder of the abortion doctor in Kansas, when he said "I am shocked and outraged at the murder of Doctor Tiller." The fact is this: Obama has no problems "jumping to conclusions" if an abortion doctor gets murdered, or an elite African-American Harvard Prof falls victim to what he concludes is racial profiling, but if a Muslim jihadist commits an act of terrorism, gunning down 13 people at an American Army Base, he is reticent, not wanting us to connect the dots. Coincidence?
Am I saying Obama is a Muslim terrorist? NO. Are all Muslims violent jihadists, hell-bent on killing innocent Americans? OF COURSE NOT. Do I have problems with peaceful Muslims serving in our military? NOPE. It is no secret that Obama is desperately trying to "repair" U.S. - Muslim relations, so I'm not the least bit surprised at his handling of the Fort Hood massacre. To his credit, I did appreciate his comments at the memorial service, "No just and loving God looks at these acts with approval." Well said, but notice that he is just implicitly admitting that these acts were indeed religiously motivated.
The main point I wanted to drive home is about political correctness. In a post-911 America, Muslims need not be wrongly targeted, profiled, or linked to terrorism. However, this does NOT mean that people at the Pentagon, FBI, or any other intelligence agency should simply look the other way, cross their fingers, knock on wood, and indulge a Muslim American who is simultaneously serving as an Army psychiatrist and ACTIVELY REACHING OUT TO AL-QAEDA!! It seems that fear of being politically incorrect or facing a frivolous lawsuit kept the higher-ups from discharging this ticking time bomb, even though they apparently knew about the red flags. 13 people are now dead. All I'm saying is that protecting American lives should trump political correctness. Talk about a double tragedy. Unbelievable. . . but hey, I don't want to "jump to any conclusions."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Interestingly, Pres. Obama recently signed a federal hate crimes bill, which is a heavy-duty manifestation of political correctness made law. Should it be applied to Hasan? Was he motivated by antipathy against a religious group? Are "not-muslims" a religious group?
Our concern and focus ought to be first and foremost on the lives that can be saved in the future by weeding out the likes of Hasan who stayed in the military longer than prudent, to put it mildly. This is one area, like the September 11th Commission, where congressional hearings or inquiries are VERY appropriate, because they are (or at least should be) designed to prevent tragic repeats. The sooner the hearings get started the better.
I hate to make it appear as though I'm letting someone else do my thinking for me, but since I agree with every line of this Reason article (http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/12/muslims-and-mass-murder), I'll just link to it as my way of stating my opinion on this topic. It can be summarized thusly:
"Obviously, a soldier who expresses a radical anti-American ideology demands intervention. But if all military authorities have to worry about is getting rid of every service member who applauds suicide attacks, they will not have much to do. No one thinks 'political correctness' obligates the Army to treat Muslims more leniently than anyone else. But it's just as simple-minded to think they deserve to be treated worse."
I'd echo the thoughts of a Major in the U.S. Army.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/12/why_i_am_angry.html
Ha! Okay, this doesn't have much to do with what we're talking about, but I just realized that I don't really know what the term 'terrorism' means. So I looked it up: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes".
What's funny is that the first thing that came to mind was the federal government! Does this definition not perfectly describe the IRS? Or Guantanamo?
Dictionary should have been more specific. "Volence or threats of violence . . . " would seem more appropriate. Threat of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution don't seem to fit, at least to me.
First off let me say that basically everything is wrong with what happened here, so I could go on all day. So to make things easier, ditto to everything Devin said on the original post. Particularly I agree in placing the blame on political correctness, which is particularly troubling because when you think about it, this demonstrates that PC literally can kill...doesn't it?
Based on the Chris Matthews quote Devin cited I'll bet he (Matthews) would passionately disagree and say that nobody could have predicted the ultimate unfortunate outcome, but when you look at ALL the facts it doesn't seem as hazy as CM suggests. That's why I disagree with CM wholeheartedly: I think that this event shows that merely contacting Al Qaeda IS "the point at which you say 'ok this guy's dangerous.'"
When I look at the whole picture I see an extremely conflicted figure who tried whose exposure to Al Qaeda, limited as it was, ultimately pushed him over the edge. I think this shows that despite one's best efforts, virtually any exposure to or sympathy for extremist radical terrorists CANNOT be resisted.
Now this next point is somewhat of a tangential point, but I would also go so far as to say that this DOES reflect negatively on "mainstream" Islam, not just the (supposedly) "fringe radical jihadists." No, I'm not saying that all islamists are radical jihadists, but I think their blatant refusal to condemn the Fort Hood massacre and all other such events is highly informative. I think it reveals that although mainstream islamists aren't all terrorists, they aren't exactly appalled by those who are, either. I think it reveals that on a certain level they agree with the extremist terrorists...if anything I think they're secretly cheering them on.
sure they will deny it, if pushed, but if you pay attention they sound more like excuses than condemnatory statements. All they ever really do is try to separate themselves (in much the same way Obama tried to distance himself from Ayers, Wright and Flager during the campaign) from the "fringe" element, and combine it with a hidden defense of the terrorists along the lines of saying America has been an intolerant bully which pushed them over the edge.
I'm sure this sounds a bit paranoid and fascist, but I think Fort Hood demonstrates a need to draw a line in the sand and say "you're either for us or against us," rather than killing ourselves into thinking no ordinary Muslim will resort to terrorism just because of small encounters with "radical" Islam or Al Qaeda. It's about freaking time Muslims living in America either consider themselves ACTUAL AMERICANS (rather than "muslims first and Americans second") or GET THE HECK OUT AND LEAVE US ALONE. If you don't like America, FINE...nobody's forcing you to be here (or volunteer in the military, for that matter). I'm not saying they have to give up all their religious beliefs or anything crazy, just that a reasonable degree of patriotism isn't too much to ask, even for a Muslim.
Well I think I'm going to stop now before I offend any more than absolutely necessary.
Something just hit me. Chris Matthews doesn't seem to think that anything's wrong with "contacting Al-Qaeda."
Aren't we at WAR with Al-Qaeda?!?! What if a U.S. Soldier reached out to and contacted Nazi Germany or the Japanese empire during WWII? Wouldn't this be seen not only as wrong and dangerous, but an act of TREASON? When has the U.S. ever looked favorably upon reaching out to and contacting the enemy during a war? To hear Matthews make excuses for Hasan's actions is really nauseating.
I need to make a concession: it seems I hastily rushed to judgment in this instance by assuming that mainstream islam followed their pattern of giving inadequate or insincere statements of condemnation for terrorists. I've since heard that they have in fact issued a statement about Fort Hood that satisfied all the criteria I established. I admit, I probably should have checked before jumping to conclusions.
That said, however, although this is a step in the right direction, it doesn't completely undo my overall feelings. I still feel like even the mainstream faith has an inherent tendency to lead its adherents toward radicalism, and it doesn't seem to leave much room for respecting America, either.
But even when their official representatives claim that their faith doesn't expressly condone radical acts of violence, it doesn't seem to me like it expressly forbids it, either.
Post a Comment