MORE THAN POLITICAL CORRECTNESS OR VICTIMHOOD AT WORK IN FORT HOOD ATTACK
We all like things to be simple. This is probably due to an evolutionary quirk that rewarded simpleminded hominids who didn’t expend the enormous energy in calories that would have required us to think hard about something. The brain eats up about 40% of our caloric intake so it makes sense that those early pre-homo sapiens would have been natural Clintonites and “kept things simple, stupid.”
The way everyone is furiously writing about the Fort Hood shootings - specifically why this painfully obvious jihadist was allowed to stay in the army - verifies that hypothesis.
It’s really quite simple, you see. The American government and the military are lousy with PC and we paid for our timidity in the face of evil with the lives of 14 brave soldiers.
Or, an equally simple explanation is that war and cruelty to Muslims drove Hasan over the edge so of course he snapped. That and the prospect that he was going to be sent to Iraq.
For the fringes, it’s even easier; the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim and, on the other side, it really is America’s fault that Hasan “went Muslim.”
You can box, wrap, and tie up in a bow explanations given by both right and left for why the Fort Hood attack occurred. They are that pat, that logical, that simple - so easy to understand in the context of ideology and partisanship that going beyond and digging a little deeper is discouraged because it might complicate things.
I am not satisfied by these explanations and you shouldn’t be either. There is a germ of truth in the explanations offered by both sides, but I think large gaps need to be filled in to prevent us from making Hasan a cartoonish representation of the Evil Muslim, or blameless victim.
There is history to consider, for instance. The 9/11 attacks placed the American government - indeed all Americans - in a bind; how do we fight an ideology animated by religious fanaticism without condemning hundreds of millions of believers who are peaceful adherents to that same religion to guilt by association?
We failed to make this distinction in World War II with the Japanese to our eternal shame. You simply cannot tar an entire group - ethnic, racial, religious, or even those of a certain sexual orientation - with the sins, no matter how grievous, of a few. To do so is to toss the very idea of American exceptionalism out the window.
This does not mean that you must totally sacrifice security in order to avoid the conundrum. The Hasan case clearly proves that. This is a fellow that dozens of people knew did not belong in the United States Army due to his radical, treasonous statements. At this point, we don’t know why no one turned him in, or if they did, why nothing was done. It is a distinct possibility that more latitude has been given Muslims in the military with regard to their views than is granted others, but there is no direct evidence that this is so. It makes sense that this is the case, but lacking facts, it is still rank speculation.
It is also speculation that no one turned him in because they feared PC retribution. What Hasan did is so far beyond the pale of rationality that most who heard him spout no doubt believed him chillingly odd but not a real threat. I think that would be the reaction of most of us if we had encountered Hasan in our everyday lives. We get the same kind of reaction from friends and neighbors of serial killers, despite warning signs that we never pick up on. It may very well be that Hasan’s acquaintances in the army did indeed fear the consequences of turning him in. But we don’t have a clue so why the certainty in such speculation?
Not wanting a repeat of the Japanese experience in World War II is not political correctness. But perhaps the way our government implemented policies to avoid that historical deja vu will be seen as having gone too far. Clearly, the Hasan case cries out for a thorough review by the military of its policies. But I suspect it wasn’t a policy failure that led to Hasan’s continued association with the Army but rather a failure of imagination on the part of his co-workers and friends who either fooled themselves into believing he wasn’t a killer, or dismissed his treasonous utterances as someone “just letting off steam.” The prospect that he would pick up guns and kill fellow soldiers was so far beyond the pale of imagination that those who knew of his views and heard his bloodcurdling threats never put two and two together, never made the psychic connection, between thought and act.
Does this mean that it was, in fact, political correctness that was involved in the “failure of imagination?” I can hear many of you who subscribe to this theory telling yourself that you never would have made that mistake, that because you are PC free, you would have reported Hasan immediately.
I congratulate you on your perspicaciousness. But if you worked with someone everyday for years and the change was gradual, I question whether in fact, such would be the case. And for those, like the seminar participants at Walter Reed who heard Hasan in all his jihad glory, the failure of imagination would have been even more applicable given their unfamiliarity with the terrorist.
Hindsight allows us to read into Hasan’s jihad anything that fits our preconceived notions of political correctness or victimhood. But for all of us, the conundrum remains. Bending too far toward PC is a recipe for disaster. Leaning toward treating every Muslim as a potential threat is equally distasteful and un-American. Finding the middle ground would seem to be impossible given the way this incident has now become a war between the ideologies.
But find it we must. Is there a way to satisfy our security needs while refraining from engaging in emotionally satisfying Muslim bashing or ignoring the eventualities posed by radical, fundamental Islamism that led to Hasan’s rampage?
Not quite as easy to explain now, is it?
I agree with all your thoughts except the last one, that we MUST find a way to prevent more Hasans without causing problems for others. Your implication is that this is doable. It’s entirely possible, however, that (for the reasons you discuss), it’s not possible to simultaneously be selective and also non-discriminatory. Maybe it’s just an ambiguity (and risk) we have to take in order to remain a free society.
Comment by Terrible Terry — 11/12/2009 @ 11:00 am
Profile what people do, not who they are. It’s Hasan’s contacts, writings, and opinions that should have raised red flags.
Second, the tendency to fight the last war is also the problem. The last war as airliners smacked into two buildings. That worked. Once.
Now it’s finding ways to assemble intelligence, react to behavior, and follow leads.
Good police work.
There’s nothing in any policy Democrats have put forward regards to domestic spying that would have blocked surveillance of Maj. Hasan. Request a tap through the intelligence court and done.
Failure of imagination indeed.
When the FBI was chasing every person with a Muslim sounding name they were inundated with useless leads. They can’t chase down every one who wears a turban.
So it’s be smart or risk failure. Again.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/12/2009 @ 11:12 am
nail on head. thanks, rick.
Comment by brooks — 11/12/2009 @ 11:31 am
Just a further thought:
The problem is the difference between collecting foreign intelligence, and conducting a criminal investigation. We certainly don’t want our government to be free to launch fishing expeditions whenever they get an urge to do so. The criminal standard (solid evidence that the subject has committed or is about to commit a crime) would probably not have permitted surveillance of Hasan, given what was known (prior to the shooting). In contrast, foreign intelligence can be collected with a much lower standard (some evidence that the subject is affiliated with a foreign power), and that standard might have been met in Hasan’s case.
But freely sharing foreign intelligence information with law enforcement is (and must be) illegal, because doing so effectively bypasses the criminal investigation (Constitutional) standard. Our system wasn’t set up to be efficient at catching criminals, but to be robust at protecting the basic rights of all of us.
Simpletons rant about doing this or that to “the bad guys” but they always breeze over the hard challenges of objectively figuring out just who is a “bad guy” in the first place. With no rules (inconvenient at times for law enforcement, to be sure), anyone might decide that any one of us are a “bad guy” and we’d have no recourse. Just like the dopes that argue for tough measures against obscenity, using logic like “I don’t know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.”
Comment by Terrible Terry — 11/12/2009 @ 11:34 am
Well said. That’s it.
Comment by cmblake6 — 11/12/2009 @ 1:09 pm
The analogy between Japanese-American internees and these cases fails. Not one, repeat one, Japanese-American that FDR imprisoned ever had been found to have assisted the enemy or even spouted pro-Imperial and/or pro-Bushido ideology. It does disservice to those innocents to drag them into this matter.
We have a number of Muslim Americans who have not been so restrained, to put it mildly. A minority? Sure. But to brush off the willful ignorance in the Hasan and like cases as a “little more latitude” is ridiculous. It is political correctness run amok. I can understand why an apologist for the Left might not want to admit as much, but that is what it is.
I don’t know where to draw the line, but when someone spouts off jihadist slogans and contacts radical clerics, that doesn’t require rocket science. I hope all the government f***-ups who allowed this monostrosity to happen, at a minimum, have their asses sued off.
I can’t disagree with much else you wrote here other than this isn’t as pox-on-both-their-houses as you make it. This was the wages of PC, and for every conservative who goes overboard in anti-Muslim hatred there are a hundred left-wing lunatics who have the blood of Ft. Hood on their hands.
Comment by jackson1234 — 11/12/2009 @ 1:40 pm
To me, being “politically correct” is treating others with a false kind of deference, because of a fear of being criticized if you spoke candidly. IOW, it’s kind of cowardly behavior.
Since when was “political correctness” equal to protecting our constitutional rights?
There might well be a minority among a minority (like Muslims, Japanese, Blacks, Hispanics, etc.) that are potential troublemakers. Does that justify curbing or even suspending the rights of the entire minority? If so, I’d love to hear some credible rationale for that, preferably in sufficient detail to assure that the same excuses couldn’t be applied to any other group that fell out of favor.
Comment by Terrible Terry — 11/12/2009 @ 1:55 pm
Jackson 1234: “I don’t know where to draw the line, but when someone spouts off jihadist slogans and contacts radical clerics, that doesn’t require rocket science.”
Here’s where we draw the line in America: between the First Amendment and criminal action.
Otherwise, we have to profile, arrest and detain every nutbag racist Klansman and all their offshoots. We have to profile, arrest, and detain everyone with an unpleasant idea who hasn’t done anything yet.
Why when this standard is applied to Muslims does it seem to become impenetrable to so many people? Muslim ideology towards “jihad” or any other separatist, murderous ideology is NO different than Nazi ideology, white separatism, black separatism, or whacked out religiousity that calls for the extermination of the Other. Is it because “the Muslims” attacked the WTC that somehow that makes them different? I don’t recall all this soul searching after Timothy McVeigh blew up OKC. Nobody called out to profile readers of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or whatever other crap those folks believe. Nobody started profiling or calling to profile white ex-military men of a certain age running around the Midwest. Yet when “they” are “easy to spot” (whatever that means,) so many Americans are totally willing to throw out the Constitution and the Rule of Law due to FEAR. Well, freedom isn’t the same thing as security.
Rick, I wish there were a lot more writers of your caliber from your side of the fence.
Comment by Marge Gunderson — 11/12/2009 @ 2:16 pm
Here’s my overly simplistic take on every gun tragedy in America:
There is a Culture of Violence in this country and Too Many Guns.
Does this apply to Ft. Hood? Not entirely. But until we as a country start to seriously address both those issues, these things will keep happening.
Will this be easy? Nope. Social change never is. (But nobody in 1940 thought smoking would become socially unacceptable, either.)
Comment by Marge Gunderson — 11/12/2009 @ 2:20 pm
Marge: My God you are an idiot. You get drummed out of the military if you spout off Nazi or white supremacist slogans because you lose certain First Amendment rights there. The same should apply to those who spout off Islamist bullshit. The fact you didn’t even know this reveals you as a partisan hack.
When you aren’t talking out of your ass with platitudes that have no basis in fact, I might bother to respond to you again.
Comment by jackson1234 — 11/12/2009 @ 2:26 pm
I agree, a careful middle ground should be found. As ever, we want the government to be able to keep the peace, without becoming overbearing and oppressive.
Hindsight is always the best view; if tomorrow one of the Tea party protesters were to go off the rails and shoot up an IRS office, of course in hindsight his screeching posters would seem more than just harmless rhetoric.
I think also we need to accept the idea that in any free society, a suicidal madman is nearly impossible to prevent or stop. Our laws are predicated on the notion that criminals are afraid of getting caught after the fact- suicidal killers get around that by ensuring there won’t be an after the fact.
It should be self-evidently absurd to imagine we can catch and detain a killer in that narrow window of time when his motives go beyond legal ranting and raving, and cross into actual planning.
We should work to screen and identify dangerous people, and be alert for threats- but accept that in the end, zero tolerance is literally an impossible goal, and risk is always a part of living freely.
Comment by Reason60 — 11/12/2009 @ 2:31 pm
It might help if all you children read Korematsu v. United States (you included, Rick). Also bear in mind that Japanese-Americans did serve in the military while their families were in concentration camps, unbeknownst to them.
There is little question that if a white person had spouted off anti-black racist slogans the equivalent of what Hasan said about what he perceives as unbelievers, that cat would have been at a minimum discharged. To claim that Islam confers either evil or special privilege on a soldier is madness and contra Korematsu’s holding. You all need also to understand the UCMJ proscribes Constitutional protections for airmen, soldiers and marines. All these slogans and cliches here sicken me at times.
Comment by obamathered — 11/12/2009 @ 2:40 pm
Slightly off topic, but tangential- this notion of being able to find a “simple solution” to prevent this tragedy from ever happening again is that simple solutions are the opposite of the calm reason and empirical evidence thinking of conservatism.
It is the central conceit of Marxism that all the problems of society- economics, war, crime- can all be summed up by the class struggle, and all be solved with the magic silver bullet of turning the factors of prodution over the government.
The opposite of this thinking is not a reverse silver bullet called “Capitalism” of saying that all the factors of production should be privatized; it is the reasoning that societies are complex things, and all works of men are flawed, and that crime and evil and tragedy will always be with us.
The idea that given enough power, the police arm of the State will be able to eradicate crime/ terrorism is extremely un-conservative, yet is a frequent refrain heard in conservative circles.
The better course is to balance power and freedom even while accepting that perfection will never be acheived.
Comment by Reason60 — 11/12/2009 @ 2:40 pm
Terrible Terry said:
Political correctness is simply a way naming people or groups of people what they prefer to be named, instead of being an asshole and naming them in a manor more suitable to your tastes. Political Correctness is proper naming.
It’s not a false deference, it’s respect. It’s not cowardly in the least, it only seems that way because some people think they are restrained by it. It’s like asking your friend Steven if he prefers to be called Steve. If he prefers Steve, then fucking call him Steve. If you call him Steven, you’re just being a dick.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 11/12/2009 @ 2:48 pm
As far as greater society you are correct, Reason. But the military has license to impose restrictions on such things as racism, religious extremism, and even adultery. If the UCMJ had been followed, Hasan might have been discharged and this tragedy might have been averted. The platitudes in the OP and comments do not have the same application to military life as to civilian life. I will be interested to see if the Obama Administration has the courage or even the awareness that action needs to be taken up Hasan’s chain of command. My guess is that it does not. This isn’t even a question about idiotic liberal PC. It is a question about failure to honor the Code.
Comment by obamathered — 11/12/2009 @ 2:57 pm
I think, when examined closely, that there is not a “simple solution” that will retain our freedom of rights that we currently have. Unless we wish to have a completely childproof society where we all are literally children of the government, we must accept that there will be some degree of risk in our lives. This is the price we pay to live free.
Comment by Wramblin' Wreck — 11/12/2009 @ 3:19 pm
In short no news laws needed, no mass expulsion of Muslims from the Armed Forces. Just people following the rules of common sense and good investigative practices.
The failure was in the chain of command for not identifying someone clearly unfit for duty. The idea that the military will spare no expense to run gays out of the Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines but take no action against Muslims no mater what the evidence is ludicrous.
Somebody stepped on their d**k. A few somebodies, and I can pretty much guarantee Maj. Hasan’s immediate superior officer may as well start looking for another line of work.
He or she won’t be seeing any more promotions in this millennium.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/12/2009 @ 3:27 pm
OK, when RB and OTR both are right there’s the actual middle ground. And both are right. Good points regarding the UCMJ and cracking down on gays while an Islamist threat is ignored.
Comment by jackson1234 — 11/12/2009 @ 3:55 pm
Jackson 1234: Exactly what is the “Islamist threat” that’s being ignored? Precisely what would you propose to do to deal with it?
Richard bottoms: Exactly what “rules of common sense” do you think should be added to our laws (in a way that’s constitutional, of course)? And, as far as “good investigative practices”, could you share with us what you think should have triggered a criminal investigation of Hasan (such that such practices could have been followed)?
Obamathered: Exactly what do think the “chain of command” should have done in Hasan’s case, and what rule(s) would you propose be followed in the future that will ensure no repeat of the Hasan shooting? Should his purchase of a so-called “cop-killer” weapon have been reported to the military?
Comment by Terrible Terry — 11/12/2009 @ 4:07 pm
Err, Terry, in this case direct threats against fellow soldiers and contacts with radical clerics were ignored. How do those grab ya?
Comment by jackson1234 — 11/12/2009 @ 4:10 pm
“…believed him chillingly odd but not a real threat.”
I’m not buying that for a moment. I went through an experience like this where I used to work. The man in question talked frequently about all the guns he had, was decidely pro-militia, and then one day started making jokes about news stories of people shooting their managers.
A number of us immediately called the cops, and let upper management know, in no uncertain terms, this man was a potential threat. It was dealt with. The idea that no one might recognize the threat is ludicrous to me. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that he was reported as being a potential threat but it was swept under the rug.
Comment by Allen — 11/12/2009 @ 4:12 pm
Richard: Exactly. While I believe DADT bad policy, I still don’t think it should be ignored because it is policy. Nonetheless, I would give it priority on the level as crackdowns on failure to attend “hygiene” seminars. Again, this isn’t even about PC or bigotry, and Rick missed this obvious point by trying to make a larger one.
Terry: The fact you even posed the question has revealed gross ignorance of military affairs. Hasan’s behavior was routinely brought to the attention of his superiors and they ignored it–a violation of the UCMJ on their part. As Richard pointed out, there is no need for new laws here. I don’t have as much faith as he, though, that these officers will be properly disciplined for their failures. Hell, they are as likely to get new stripes and bling.
Comment by obamathered — 11/12/2009 @ 4:28 pm
Were you ever a soldier? I was.
Soldiers do not have the same protections as a civilian does. His commander could order his barracks or residence searched, detain him, investigate him on nothing more than his opinion that the soldier is not acting in accordance with good order and discipline.
Hasan could receive non-judicial punishment for simply saying the wrong thing in the wrong tone of voice to the wrong person.
I was called in to see my First Sergeant one time because an officer thought I was crossing the street in front of his car in an insolent manner.
The man’s CO f***ed up. His buddies did the same by not ensuring that they looked out for not only themselves, but their fellow soldier. If he was in distress I guarantee it would have shown up during PT (Physical Training), formation, company training sessions or any number of opportunities under which you attitude and demeanor are scrutinized. Morale is so important an officer is designated for each unity to ensure it’s good.
Hasan wasn’t just some guy walking down the street that the government decided was a problem. He was a soldier in a military unit and his CO’s job is to ensure every soldier under his command is fit for duty and ready to serve. It is highly unlikely no one knew he was unraveling.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/12/2009 @ 4:29 pm
Radical, fundamental Islam is simply Islam. You cannot be a practicing Muslim unless you believe that the Koran is the word of Muhammed, and it is to be obeyed. Muslims are commanded to perform both kinds of jihad, or else they are apostates and are in jeopardy of their lives.
This is perhaps the basic tension in the life of Major Hasan, and it could well have driven him to the actions he took. By extension, what does this say about other 2 to 6 million Muslims in the US?
Comment by mannning — 11/12/2009 @ 4:33 pm
jackson 1234: I’m not aware of any released information about direct threats made by Hasan against his fellow soldiers. To the contrary, by most if not all accounts, he was a very quiet and polite person. Where are you getting your information?
As to contacts with radical clerics, Hasan was apparently engaged in Islamic studies within the military structure, so that kind of contact would seem not to be unreasonable, would it?
But back to my original question: Do you think that any contact by any person with a Muslim cleric should trigger a criminal investigation? If so, how would you establish probable cause in such a case? Who should decide which such clerics were OK and which were too “radical?” Aren’t you advocating some kind of thought police power - if a person thinks and speaks certain thoughts, they come under official surveillance?
Comment by Terrible Terry — 11/12/2009 @ 4:35 pm
NPR did a story saying that his peers felt that he might be psychotic. The commander of the department Major Hasan was working in tried to have him removed but work rules for Doctors made it almost impossible to remove him. So the hospital pushed him off on the next station. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
It was our own bureaucratic rules that killed the soldiers in Fort Hood. Major Hasan was a troubled soldier. Everyone could see it but nobody could stop it.
Comment by Ken — 11/12/2009 @ 4:37 pm
What does Larry Flynt publishing Hustler say about you?
The answer to both questions is nothing.
Hasan is an individual, the killer of Dr. Tiller is an individual, as were Richard Speck, Dylan Klebold, and Timothy McVeigh.
Short of rounding all of the Muslims up and shipping them to Peru, we’re going to have to learn to live with them.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/12/2009 @ 4:41 pm
manning: A simpler explanation of Maj. Hasan’s tension is what so many families went through during the Civil War, when brother fought against brother. From the accounts I’ve read, it was very difficult, regardless of which side you thought to be right. I’m not in any way justifying what Hasan did, but it’s not impossible to imagine that kind of tension outside the context of Islam.
You speak as if you’re an authority on Islam - but what you say is contracted by numerous others (with established credentials on the subject). So, if you’re right, why do so many other Islam experts disagree with you (in your allegations that all Muslims support jihadists)? And, aren’t you jumping the gun a bit to (apparently) assume that this is what motivated Hasan to kill? I mean, isn’t it at least plausible that he simply went postal (as have quite a few others in recent times, it seems)?
Comment by Terrible Terry — 11/12/2009 @ 4:41 pm
Hello.
The military has the power to have you shot for not going to your assigned place of duty, or declaring a mutiny on the high seas.
I think they have all the power they need to look into soldiers that are problematic.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/12/2009 @ 4:44 pm
Everyone could see it but nobody
couldstop it.Everyone could see it but nobody would stop it.
Fixed.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/12/2009 @ 4:45 pm
Richard bottoms: Yes, I am a veteran.
My question dealt with your assertion that the Hasan matter could have been dealt with effectively by applying “common sense rules.” I asked precisely what those (missing) rules were. You responded that they were punishment for “saying the wrong thing in the wrong tone of voice to the wrong person.”
Is that a rule: “Don’t say the wrong thing to in the wrong tone of voice to the wrong person”????
And, as to your interpretation of the freedom with which the UCMJ can be applied, there are of course, abusive people in the military as on the outside. But what you describe is certainly NOT the way that decent military discipline is normally (or should be) carried out.
Comment by Terrible Terry — 11/12/2009 @ 4:52 pm
manning: Substitute “Christianity” for “Islam” and “the Bible” for “the Koran” and “God” for “Muhammed” in your paragraphs and see how that sounds.
Comment by Marge Gunderson — 11/12/2009 @ 4:54 pm
Richard bottoms: “The military has the power to have you shot for not going to your assigned place of duty”
If you’re in a war zone, in certain very limited circumstances, that is possible. But otherwise, hardly. Certainly not in the Hasan situation.
If you’re going to make your points with reason, ok, we’ll discuss. If you’re going to launch such hyperbole, have fun with yourself.
Comment by Terrible Terry — 11/12/2009 @ 4:55 pm
Obamathered: “Terry: The fact you even posed the question has revealed gross ignorance of military affairs. Hasan’s behavior was routinely brought to the attention of his superiors and they ignored it–a violation of the UCMJ on their part.”
I guess you must be another military expert? You and a couple of others seem to think you have access to lots of facts that I don’t think have been released yet. Do you have special access, or just a great deal of imagination?
Precisely what behavior of Hasan was brought to the attention of what superior officer in what form and by whom? IOW, was it a formal complaint? If so, did they actually ignore it? Or did they dismiss it as being unsupported? What part of the UCMJ did this superior officer allegedly violate?
Comment by Terrible Terry — 11/12/2009 @ 5:04 pm
Terry: Since you claim to be a vet and I have no way to disprove it, I will have to accept your word. After today, I have no doubt Richard is because he is closer to the mark than you.
Hasan said disrespectful things about the country, the service, and his fellow soldiers (917.17). His conduct was unbecoming an officer, which he was due to his career (933.137). I could go on.
Now, you either are media-deprived or willfully ignorant. Hasan’s conduct was brought to the attention of his CO after his bizarre, pro-al Qaeda comments at a mental health seminar. These were reduced to writing and disregarded. There’s a start, readily available in the also-ignorant media. To claim that because the UCMJ also is “subject to abuse” is the only reason Hasan or his CO or superiors could have been, or be, prosecuted may not necessarily disprove you served, but it does prove you to be a goddamned, clueless idiot.
Comment by obamathered — 11/12/2009 @ 5:19 pm
Rule #1: If your fellow soldier is saying things that indicate he is having a psychotic break or having anger issues sufficient that it becomes common knowledge he needs help, order him to get some help. Order his chain of command to make sure he gets some help. Follow up to see if he got some help.
Rule #2: If a soldier with access to weapons starts contacting individuals on the terror watch list or who are known to have terrorist links tell the people in his chain of command.
Rule #3: If a Black, Brown, Arabic, Irish, Ukrainian, Serbian, Greek, German, Italian soldier from this or any other ethnic group starts engaging in behavior that shows a patter of instability inform the chain of command. Oh, and take away his weapons.
Rule #4: If a soldier is conflicted about the very nature of whether he belongs in the military, send him for counseling.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/12/2009 @ 5:27 pm
Obamathered: Boy, insult-slinging time, isn’t it? You suspect I’m not a real veteran, but you’re sure of Richard because “he is closer to the mark than” I am. And because you said it first, you certainly are. Good logic. I’m impressed.
You keep repeating the same stuff, that all these “facts” are “out there” somewhere. I don’t believe it. I’m familiar with the reports of his seminar at Walter Reed, but I can find nothing that authoritatively supports the particulars you claim. Maybe I’m a poor Internet searcher. Or maybe…… After all, what can you possibly expect from a “goddamned, clueless idiot”?
I suspect you’re secretly creating evidence of Rick Moran’s thesis in this post. But in any case, when and if you’re able to come down to earth, stop your childish insults, and start using your reasoning powers, we’ll dialogue again. Till then, you enjoy yourself too.
Comment by Terrible Terry — 11/12/2009 @ 5:36 pm
Richard bottoms: Those sound like reasonable rules. But I’m not sure how well they apply to Hasan.
On your first rule: recall that Hasan was a psychiatrist (who, IMHO, are generally known to be somewhat kooky anyway). What you’d do to a normal soldier with problems is send them to - guess what - a psychiatrist. Not sure how this works kook-to-kook.
On your second rule: the weapon he had was purchased at a gun store just off-base. Since we can’t use that information legally, how would anyone know? 2nd Amendment, you know.
On your third rule: In his normal work, I don’t think he had a military weapon. So I don’t know what you’d take away from him. And besides, since he used a personal weapon, what good would taking away his military stuff do?
On your fourth rule: see comment on rule one above.
Comment by Terrible Terry — 11/12/2009 @ 5:46 pm
Had Hasan’s religion been christian, say a Branch Davidian. Let’s say he spouted off about Ruby Ridge and Waco. Let’s say he did this at a medical conference where he was supposed to talk about some sort of medical issue.
The common sense rules that would have reeled in this hypothetical overenthusiastic christian are there. If you look carefully in the past, you will find times when it’s happened, that proselytizers have had their careers hurt even though they were majoritarian in their faith.
Now this minority faithful comes and does all this and more and doesn’t get the same treatment as overenthusiastic christians get. That’s wrong and the even application of the rules might have put Maj. Hasan on a different course, one that would have saved lives.
It’s very hard to do counterfactuals fairly. But it is certainly easy to spot a double standard in applying religious rules in the military and this is what happened. There is no excuse for this double standard. It is as unconstitutional to favor islam over christianity as it is to favor christianity over islam in our official governance.
So no, I don’t agree that there is no set of common sense rules that could have easily prevented this. There was one, the UCMJ and the normal rules of military discipline should have sufficed. They did not and why they did not is a tragedy, likely of misapplied PC.
I hope a fair minded investigation is undertaken and the truth is fully established, wherever it leads. I suspect it leads to PC sensitivities giving Maj. Hasan a pass that would not have been given had his religion been christian. Whatever the truth ends up being, let justice be served.
Comment by TMLutas — 11/12/2009 @ 5:58 pm
There’s no one who has been in the military recently that can say Christians are in any, way shape, or form marginalized.
My section sergeant all but asked me to come be baptized at his church. There’s is non-stop pressure to be a believer and I am certain the officer corps get way more pressure than enlisted men do to be “born again” if they want to move up.
Muslim troops were outsiders way back in 91′ when I got out, you think there’s less harassment post 9/11?
The only thing lower would be someone thought to be a “faggot”.
Hence, precious resources being used to hunt them down, focusing on who’s a dyke instead of who is dangerous.
Puh-leze.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/12/2009 @ 6:11 pm
I been raised in, active duty, or worked for the military for most of my life.
In plain speak the Military is Lousy with PC.
Everybody fears the false whisper that will end a career.
FEAR is rampant. Get promoted not by keeping the country safe or killing the enemy but rather by kissing PC butt at every opportunity.
Rick, your words betray the fact that you either have no true knowledge of the political culture of the modern military or you are blinded by idelogical purism of the white center line in the middle of the road.
The career Military has ossified into an unmoving tree of political correctness.
This is the Military. First and foremost it should, and must be a fraternity of Honorable paid killers.
Put all the nice stuff on top you want but when cut from that anchoring tether of committing grevious harm and terror upon those who would do the same us, the military becomes little more than a paid marching band.
All I can say is enjoy the music, because soon that is all you will get.
Comment by steve — 11/12/2009 @ 6:47 pm
Seems that everyone has an authority to quote about Islam.
There are the (a) sources that are apologists that somehow refuse to believe the founding documents of Islam or the daily drum of Muslim abominations, or the incitations of imams across the nation. Because they seem so nice and peaceful, it just can’t be that these good people are insipient jihadists!
Then there are the (b) sources that try very hard to tell it like it is, quote the Koran and Haddith, cite many papers written by Islamic clerics, and then try to warn the public of the short and long term dangers of Islam to the US.
Then there are those who attempt to explain the Koran by comparing it to the Bible, which is sheer nensense
Comment by mannning — 11/12/2009 @ 7:18 pm
Sheer nonsense. Muhammed has no comparable Biblical person that has the same bloodthirsty characteristics and ultimate importance.
The tension I spoke of was a continuing one for the life of Hasan. For that matter, it is present in every Muslim all the time. I suspect that a looming event, such as being assigned to a combat zone just may have been the final trigger…
Comment by mannning — 11/12/2009 @ 7:25 pm
Sheer nonsense. Muhammed has no comparable Biblical person that has the same bloodthirsty characteristics and ultimate importance.
Au contraire: God the Father. Jehovah.
He’s bloodthirsty in the extreme — he wipes our Sodom, he demands Joshua execute women and children and even stone animals to death. He murders all the first-born children of Egypt.
Jehovah is a rage-aholic, mentally unstable mass murderer.
And he is rather central to the plot.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/12/2009 @ 8:10 pm
I think you and many others are setting up a false choice between a fringe that thinks the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim (who in this ongoing debate has said that?) and wide-eyed naifs deluded by PF fantasies (not really so many of them around either). And what does the internment of Japanese in WWII got to do with it? In what way have we come remorely close to that since 9/11?
The troubling thing about Hasan is that even many of his medical and Army colleagues could see plainly that the guy was, at a minumim, ill-suited to his job, but everyone pussyfooted about because of the likelihood of being tabbed as anti-Muslim. After all, we have people involved who have gone on the record saying that that is exactluy what happened. Is it really hard to imagine Hasan being pushed out of the Army and reappearing as a CAIR-ACLU plaintiff in a lawsuit? I don’t think so.
All that said, the more serious issue is not what his colleagues did or didn’t do, because all such matters are inevitably muddled to some extent. The real issue is why the Joint Counter Terrorism Task Force, run by the FBI, did not pursue the clues apparently unearthed by intelligence communciations intercepts. I doubt that PC figured into it, because the FBI and the intelligence community have been probing one after another potential Muslim suspect or Islamist plot since 9/11. They are, to say the least, used to investigating Muslims.
None of us knows the answer right now. But we should nto let the FBI’s leaks casting blame on a DoD analyst to be the end of it. Someone — most likely the FBI — dropped the ball. This cannot be tolerated because people get killed — maybe a lot more than 13 the next time. A Congressional inquiry is essential and the sooner it starts, the better. We should not put up with any baloney about how Congress can’t probe because Hasan is being prosecuted.
Comment by John Burke — 11/12/2009 @ 8:19 pm
Regardless of your feelings of Islam, Hasan’s bitter angry words were about on par with the rage and sentiments expressed at some of the townhalls and Tea Parties.
If one of them were to go nuts, I would defend them from over broad surveillance and oppression just the same.
Comment by Reason60 — 11/12/2009 @ 8:41 pm
Jehovah = Old Testament
Jesus = New Testament
(God, the Son)
Muhammed went from sort of benign in the first (abrogated) Suras, to a raging killer in the latter ones, from the Sword Sura on, all in the name of Allah.
No comparison!
Comment by mannning — 11/12/2009 @ 8:53 pm
Richard bottom - I in no way stated that christians are marginalized. I said that if a military person talks christianity instead of medicine, he would have had problems because jesus is something that was inappropriate to the time and place as a talk subject. Talking Islam should have triggered certain things and it didn’t.
There have been allegations of inappropriate proselytism among US military christians and there have been disciplinary actions taken, I believe at one of the service academies most recently. I don’t follow the issue enough to give you time and place. I only have followed it enough to know that it’s a general problem, mostly dealing with christian proselytism largely because so many military people are also committed christians. The military has rules against proselytism that are neutral as to which faith is being advocated.
Maj Hasan by rights should have been tripped up by those regulations but they were not enforced in his case. Somebody should get his career shredded for that. The regs are the regs for all religions. They were not followed in Maj Hasan’s case. Those of us who don’t know about the regs can be excused for wondering why so many are jumping on the “Hasan was coddled due to PC” train so quickly. If you know about the regs and you start toting up how many he’d obviously broken, the coddling becomes obvious.
Comment by TMLutas — 11/12/2009 @ 9:05 pm
Manning:
What a shame for you that I’m a rare atheist who knows the Bible well enough to know what a load of crap you’re peddling.
I don’t know what denomination you belong to but no major Christian denomination dismisses GTF (God the Father.) It’s the Holy Trinity, not Jesus plus one. It’s not Jesus and his senile old man. It’s not Jesus and his Wacky Pappy. It’s God in three persons as the hymn goes, blessed Trinity.
Now, if you want to throw down on some theology I am ready to rock, my friend. You can start by showing me a single major Christian denomination that sidelines GTF as irrelevant or denies His actions.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That’s the billing. Just like in Hollywood, the top name is the top dog.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/12/2009 @ 9:07 pm
Thats kind of my point, his behavior broke the regs, his contacts should have tripped the interest of the CID at least, and on strictly clinical level his supervisors should have kept better tabs on the mental health of among the psychiatric staff.
Alcoholism, drug abuse, and depression are rampant among health care professionals in and out of the Army. There’s a reg for everything and I am sure one or more were not followed in dealing with his Fitness Reports.
I think it is less that no one wanted to offend a Muslim, rather that no one wanted to hurt a fellow officer’s career especially a fellow doctor. Doctors have always been able to bend the rules that others can’t because they are in such short supply.
Why make a Captain’s salary, and get shot at o boot when you could be in private practice someplace.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/12/2009 @ 9:30 pm
@manning:
Surely you recognize that a religion with a billion plus adherents is not a single entity? That all Muslims beleive the exact same dogma?
You can certainly point to Muslims that preach hatred, just as I could point to Christins that preach hatred (the Westboro Baptist Church springs immediately to mind). Neither is representative of the whole.
That last sentence isn’t opinion . . . its demonstrable fact. If a billion Muslims were all bloodthirsty worriors, wouldn’t there be open mass conflict across the entire globe? Yes, there are Muslim wars (as there are Christian wars) — but if ALL of the Muslim population were dedicated to violence the entire damned planet would be embroiled in large scale warfare, and that simply isn’t happening.
As an aside, you distinguish between the Old and New Testaments. Christians believe in the Old Testament (like the Creationists) . . . just as Muslims accept the religious authority of Jesus of Nazareth. He is a recognized prophet in the Muslim faith, they just deny his divinity. You can’t pick and choose the parts of religion you want to and then say they represent the entirety of the theology — it’s just not fair.
Actually Creationists make a good example. Christians believe the Bible is written by the hand of God, and is therefore True. The Bible establishes the age of the planet at less than 10,000 years old. Therefore, all Christians believe the planet is that old.
No. No, they don’t.
Comment by busboy33 — 11/13/2009 @ 2:40 am
Yes, I guess ole Jehovah was indeed a bloody bastard, but, to me, the effective contrast is between Muhammad and Jesus.
To the extent that Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet it is a good thing. But they do not carry Christian ideals far enough in their own religion. It appears that Jesus, to Islam, is someone that said a few good words that could be coopted for use within the Muslim community, but not necessarily elsewhere. An infidel is still an infidel! All of the nasty statements in the Koran and elsewhere regarding infidels remain in effect amd have not been abrogated since the 7th century.
And, yes, I surely recognize that Islam has quite a number of sects. I assert, however, that the majority of Islamic sects accept the Koran, the Haddith, and Shari’a Law, which means that they accept their responsibilities to perform jihad; but, most do remain passive and leave it largely up to their tribal and religious leaders to decide the “who, what, when and where” of the next jihad–if ever! The “why” has long since been settled for them. So, many Muslims can spend a lifetime without being called directly to perform jihad by their leaders.
I suppose this passivity of the flock is encouraged by their leadership in order for them to retain the power to declare jihad and other actions and not to be undercut by a multitude of lone operators.
Comment by mannning — 11/13/2009 @ 8:36 am
Richard bottoms - A very short bit of googling will find plenty of officers’ careers being ruined by stuff less objectionable than Maj. Hasan’s pre-shooting behavior. I think that you would be hard pressed to find any sort of generalized attitude of officer protection as you speculate. Psychiatrists, being in short supply, might have been treated differently than normal. The consequences of establishing a separate set of discipline might shed light on other proposed exceptions.
A comparison between how military psychiatrists were treated and how many on the left thought that gay arabic translators *should* be treated might leave some people with some uncomfortable parallels. The gay translator thing always seemed to me to be the weakest of the cases for discrimination against homosexuals. Now with Maj Hasan, I’m starting to see the wisdom of guarding against serpents whispering to vulnerable ears how all that islam forbidden sex would be forgiven if you just engage in a mass shooting and become a martyr.
Comment by TMLutas — 11/13/2009 @ 8:39 am
I want to make an addendum to what I wrote above. I don’t dispute that political correctness may have informed some of the decisions not to discipline Hasan. Nonetheless, that still isn’t the issue. The issue is the failure of the chain of command and failure to adhere to the UCMJ. The motive is irrelevant. We all will be better informed when, as ordered by Obama, the investigative files that were started on Hasan are thrown open. But at this stage, we can say at a minimum the CO and other officers failed to do what they were required.
Comment by obamathered — 11/13/2009 @ 8:52 am
It makes me very happy that an atheist and leftist is so familiar with the Christian religion. Perhaps some day that familiarity will grow into something more worthwhile. Yes, The Holy Trinity is a tenet of Christians.
The focus I have is on Jesus the Son of God and his gospel. The gospel of Jesus and his desciples is to be contrasted with the unabrogated, latter parts of the Koran of Muhammed. Try it some time.
But, then, I am sure that reading the gospels for an atheist is simply not the same as for a believer. The words just don’t stick in the mind and align in the same way, so meaning is lost.
Comment by mannning — 11/13/2009 @ 8:54 am
mannning said,
You’re right. I tried reading the bible twice. I couldn’t really get past all the extreme violence, death, murder, incest, rape, sex, abuse, hypocrisy, jealousy, rage, lies, and extreme misogyny. It was hard to get past all that to get to the true message of love and compassion. I probably should have tried harder. A third attempt might be in order.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 11/13/2009 @ 9:51 am
@ CT
A suggestion: Try reading the New Testament, but skip Revelations. I believe Rev. is incomplete and redacted too far. The Old Testament is heavy going, sometimes tedious and indeed has its share of gore.
Comment by mannning — 11/13/2009 @ 4:45 pm
@ busboy
My background reading shows that the vast majority of both Sunnis and Shiites believe in jihad as defined in the founding documents, which accounts for by far the most Muslims out of the billion. They have a number of differences in details of worship, but not on that point.
The number of sects in Islam is variously reported to be 52, 76, and 150, take your pick.
I suggest that, so far, most of the remainder appear to have jihad in their dogma as well.
It is jihad that represents the main threat to us, along with, of course, their imposition of Shari’a Law over us if given the chance. The rest of their dogma and rituals are not as important to us, so I do not comment on them.
Comment by mannning — 11/13/2009 @ 5:27 pm
@manning:
Then where is the jihad? A billion jihadists are kind of hard to miss.
Either 99.9999% of all Muslims (at least) are very, very, VERY bad at being Muslims, or jihad isn’t something that drives them. It isn’t an intergal component of their motivation and faith. For most of them, its a theoretical abstract like “turn the other cheek”. We Christians believe in the words of Jesus, we preach about it in our sermons . . . but fu@k with us and we’ll burn you to the ground (btw, a very jihad attitude) . . . then we’ll go to another “turn the other cheek” sermon. We believe it, but we don’t live it.
Comment by busboy33 — 11/13/2009 @ 5:50 pm
@ busboy
You miss a most important point. Individual Muslims are not free jihadist agents for the most part. There is organization at the tribal, religious and political levels involved, and, it would seem, a degree of advanced planning and coordination for just how and when the jihad action against a given target or targets is to be undertaken and by whom, and also, management of the masses on a short term basis. How do you think they roll out mass demonstrations? It isn’t through happenstance.
Your idea of a jihad appears to be that they are all “on” all the time, once a jihad is declared by the leadership, and this just isn’t so.
Comment by mannning — 11/13/2009 @ 9:05 pm
I have been stunned by the insistence of some to “label” the Ft. Hood attack with the terrorist tag. This is the kind of misdirection and oversimplification that serves no purpose other than making some feel comfortable with strictly defined parameters. Our inability to think outside the lines is what has landed us in this mess. The ball was dropped at Ft Hood, just like it was prior to 9/11/’01, by people who thought small, and needed everything and everyone neatly confined to outdated, and ultimately useless classifications. I am personally more interested in the systemic problems that for years allowed this man to continue, and indeed flourish in the US military, who needed merely to refer to the UCMJ for how to deal with this guy…but did nothing. Sounds eerily familiar to the FBI field agents who in 2001, reported an uptick in middle Eastern men taking flying lessons…information which their superiors ignored. This is bigger than the same old “PC’ argument, which is just played…this problem runs much deeper, to an apathy and unwillingness to get involved. Too many of us are in too big of a hurry to force people, events, and ideologies into a familiar, comfortable box. As the old saying goes…when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Dee
Comment by Dee — 11/13/2009 @ 10:37 pm
@manning:
“I suppose this passivity of the flock is encouraged by their leadership in order for them to retain the power to declare jihad and other actions and not to be undercut by a multitude of lone operators.”
a) and this is a Muslim thing? As opposed to another organized theology like Christianity, which encourages its members to think for themselves?
b) People in power probably DO encourage those under them to passively accept orders . . . but to think that they do this specifically to wield the jihad hammer, and not out of the far more likely simple human desire to retain their power, is uncredible to me.
“The tension I spoke of was a continuing one for the life of Hasan. For that matter, it is present in every Muslim all the time. I suspect that a looming event, such as being assigned to a combat zone just may have been the final trigger…”
Now I’m thorughly confused. Something you describe as a “lomming event” that may have ben “the final trigger” is indicative of a person who snapped. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with being Muslim.
As you’ve stated, Muslims are passive sheep that blindly march out of the mosque in a murderous rage when the iman says “kill”. Your posts are concerned with jihad. But (as you’ve described) jihad requires an order to commit it. There is no such order in the Hasan case that I’m aware of — did his iman in Texas give the order? If so, why was he the only one to go postal?
You’ve taken great pains to detail the hierarchical authority that the imans use to order the blind sheep around, and how they must murder when commanded. If that was a remotely relevant issue in this sad case, then of necessity there would have to be that top-down instruction, that fatwa from the iman. Yet, it isn’t here.
Now, you can say that SOME iman SOMEWHERE has issued a fatwa, and that Hasan decided to follow that. However, if you do you’ve just destroyed your entire “Muslim sheep sub-divided into strictly controlled tribal and regional groups” analysis. Now we’re back to dangerous nutjob who went over the edge, who may have felt motivated to act by his nutjob interpretation of his religion and his world. That may be the case . . . but it’s not indicative of the Muslim religion.
You’ve taken what appears to be a person going crazy and laid the blame on a tenet of their faith . . . and described how that tenet was NOT in play during this circumstance. So because jihad had nothing to do with Ft. Hood that we know so far . . . you’re concerned about the Muslim ideas of jihad?
That doesn’t sound like a conclusion drawn from a situation, but a pre-existing fear looking for a fact pattern. A Muslim went postal? Must be the Muslim death squad command.
By the way, a fatwah and/or a jihad declaration must be publicly expressed. It’s not something you whisper in someone’s ear.
Comment by busboy33 — 11/14/2009 @ 1:58 am
@ busboy
You are bending yourself into a convoluted pretzel to try to avoid calling Hasan’s actions those of a jihadist, which he quite obviously is. And to exaggerate the fact of jihadist organization and management down to each individual at all times is a big leap from what I wrote. Pretselization! There is no sentence of mine that says Muslims are passive sheep, either, merely that they are in general under some constraints from their leadership, or we would have far more jihadic actions going off all around.
It is obvious that a single individual, isolated to a large degree from his kin and leadership, and being subjected to the serious internal stress I spoke of (the Islamic command to accept and perform jihad versus US law, military law and custom, and surrounded by infidels)might well elect to perform a jihadic act with little external input of command except Email or verbal contacts with imams and other Muslims (whose full extent is not yet known for Hasan and his imam, but the possibility of his imam exerting a influence on Hasan’s mental state and the idea of a jihadist action is not to be taken lightly). So this jihadist “snapped”, you say. Right! He snapped exactly in the way that a jihadist would. With all deliberate speed he got rid of his possessions early in the week, bought his guns and ammo, then took them home to load them, slept on it for some time, perhaps days, and them marched to his selected shooting gallery and killed and killed while shouting AA! We will drown in PC yet!
You bend my words again to your ideas of jihad or non-jihad in that I was addressing the general fact that jihad is a controlled–planned and executed– action in most cases but certainly not all of them. Did you pick up on the word MOST in my previous post, or not? It would not have suited your ideas to do so! It should not trouble your mind so to consider HASAN to be following the inner teachings of Islam to kill infidels, to perform a jihadic action, when he “snapped” and shot US soldiers with all deliberation.
It is noteworthy that the incidents of jihadists making a TV display of beheadings and torture, which were small group actions probably not under control of a higher authority, have been largely suppressed by the Islamic powers of late, because they recognize their negative impact on other major Muslim activities in the West, especially in Europe. That is a clear instance of control being applied from “higher authorities” in Islam to suppress jihadic actions of small groups.
Your reference to Christianity is totally misplaced unless you are an apologist for Islam. Do you not understand the imperatives of ANY organization to control their members by one means or another, direct or indirect?
That comment of yours is a misdirection.
You desperately need to read up on Islam if you think that every act of jihad requires a fatwa. It doesn’t. But, that is coverd anyway by the general fatwas against the US–the Greast Satan.
Comment by mannning — 11/14/2009 @ 1:50 pm
Ome addition: Great Satan.
Oh, and you do not connect the dots on that score either, busboy. For a devout Muslim, the general fatwa would be equivalent to a declaration of war against the US, and it would be a direct, long-term amplifier to the apparently evolving Islamic stresses on Hasan to do something…something jihadic!
Someone has to explain to me why this so-called “snapped” person elected to assuage his demons by performing a jihadic act, as opposed to any of a million or so other possible “snapped” reactions available to him…including suicide. The simplest answer is that he wished to fulfill his Islamic teachings in the most direct way.
Comment by mannning — 11/14/2009 @ 2:15 pm
Andrew Bostom at American Thinker has posted a salient article on Islam, which in part says:
Blockquote>These quintessential goals of jihad were reiterated by the mass murdering jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hasan as part of an erstwhile “medical grand rounds” given on June 27, 2007. Although Hasan merely reiterates salient aspects of classical jihad theory (i.e., see slides 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 49), this reality is understandably “shocking” to our willfully uninformed elites in the media, military, and government. Nidal Hasan’s presentation concludes, in full accord with classical Islamic doctrine regarding jihad war, (slide 49), “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please Allah, even by force is condoned by (sic) Islam.”
Unapologetic observations from 1950 by a great 20th century “Islamist” scholar of the Shari’a, G.H. Bousquet, contextualize these ominous trends. Bousquet described Islam itself as “as a doubly totalitarian system,” which, “claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law…to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer.”
Comment by mannning — 11/14/2009 @ 2:26 pm
Amdrew Bostom at American thinker:
Comment by mannning — 11/14/2009 @ 2:28 pm
@manning:
“There is no sentence of mine that says Muslims are passive sheep, either, merely that they are in general under some constraints from their leadership, or we would have far more jihadic actions going off all around.”
comment #55:
“I suppose this passivity of the flock is encouraged by their leadership in order for them to retain the power to declare jihad and other actions and not to be undercut by a multitude of lone operators.”
Am I not reading that sentence in #55 correctly? There may be a distinction between those two statements . . . but honestly I fail to see it. I believe that (unlike many commenters here) you maintain clear and coherent ideas from post to post, so I’m very agreeable to the idea that what you meant isn’t getting through to me. If I’m just failing to comprehend what you are trying to express, then that’s my error — but I have to go with what I see, and what I see is contradictory.
“It is obvious that a single individual, isolated to a large degree from his kin and leadership, and being subjected to the serious internal stress I spoke of (the Islamic command to accept and perform jihad . . .”
Again, if he is cut off from his “leadership” then who gave him the command to commit jihad? He regularly attended services in Texas — wasn’t that his leadership?
It seems you are working backwards. He was a Muslim jihadi terrorist worrior, and therefore he was cut off from foreign religious leaders that were advicating he perform jihad since he certainly wasn’t getting those commands from his local religious authorities. You’ve presupposed the jihad, than used the lack of jihad authority to create the tension that made him commit jihad.
Let me ask this — can a Muslim go postal WITHOUT it being a jihad? If so, what factors should we look for to distinguish the two?
There is no doubt that Hasan allegedly held extreme viewpoints in regards to being Muslim. There is the very real possiblity that these viewpoints “justified” his actions in his mind. No argument. But these attitudes are abnormal as evidenced by the lack of mass jihad among Muslims. Not the concept of jihad itself, but the fact that he was ENGAGED AND COMMANDED to commit jihad.
Look at the abortion snipers and bombers. The vast majority of them do so believing that they are compelled to do so by their Christian faith (Eric Rudolph, for example). The actions they take are not a problem with Christianity — its a problem with being an unstable loon. Their faith gives them a mental justification, but it isn’t the genesis of the action.
That Hasan may have believed he was religiously compelled to do this may well turn out to be true (we’ll find out after the investigators have a nice long talk with him). But would he have not done this if he was a Christian? Your analysis implies that but for the existence of the concept of jihad in the Muslim faith, there would have been no shooting . . . and I don’t see that the facts support that yet. Again, would Eric Rudolph have bombed the Olympics but for being a Christian? Maybe not — but it was his zealotry that perverted his theology, not the theology that perverted the man. The fault doesn’t lie with the religion, but with the man. A man sinking down into insanity will inherently drift toward extreme thinking. A man who believes that a genocide against the unborn is occuring will seek out beliefs and spiritual leaders that tell him “you’re right”. A man who thinks homosexuals are causing a plague of divine retribution against America will see Phelps at Westboro and say “see? It’s in the Bible!”. But those are crazy people looking retroactively fo a justification for their crazy. That ain’t the Bible’s fault . . . nor is Ft. Hood the fault of the Koran.
At least not yet it isn’t. If we find the jihad order, if we find the jihad confession of Hasan, things may be different. But I believe that if the vast, overwhelmong majorities of Muslims were told to commit jihad, the vast overwhelming majority of them would not do so. It takes a person looking for a reason to go ballistic. The happy and comfortable family man isn’t going to come home and say “sorry honey, looks like I’ve got to go and massacre women and children today. Don’t worry about dinner. Kiss Abdul for me, and make sure Sami does her homework. Now where’s my C-4 . . .”. There’s a reason most jihadis are drawn from either the ranks of the extreme zealots, or from the desperate and destitute. There’s a reason the most fertile recruiting grounds are decrepid refugee camps. They are looking for an excuse to rage against the machine, and “jihad” is a moral justification. They wern’t commanded — they wanted to do it.
I think that distiction is vital.
Comment by busboy33 — 11/14/2009 @ 6:33 pm
Perhaps what we are struggling witrh is a semantic problem in the definition and use of the term “jihad.” Hasan himself defined it in his presentation at Walter Reed in 2007, which is what Bostom was referring to, and it was the classic definition. Every Muslim has a duty to perform jihad, both the internal and external versions. In the external version, Muslims must support the ummah’s objective of Islam conquering all nations and submitting them to Shari’a, and to contribute where they can, but if they are in a foreign land there are dispensations to allow Muslims to sort of fit in until there is a majority in the nation.
There is absolutely no question of assimilation
into the American way, but rather, for most, a careful blending in so as not to call too much attention to themselves.
A jihadic act is one of doing grief unto infidels in both small and large ways. In Islam, under Shari’a Law it is perfectly ok for a Muslim to lie, cheat, steal from, and even kill an infidel. All of their kindness and humanity is completely reserved for their brother Muslims, but they recognize that such behavior is out of bounds in the West and would get themselves imprisoned, so they blend in until and unless they are either commanded to take part in a jihadic operation, or, as in the case of Hasan, they perceive it their duty to act immediately against the hated infidel, possibly because of the conflict going on in their heads over the wildly divergent tenets they are trying to live with in the US.
Major declarations of jihad, such as the one in za fatwa from the Whahabbi Sunni cleric against the US, are, as I said before, a declaration of war, but it still takes much further direction, training, financing, and logistics to implement more specific and serious jihadic acts involving multiple actors.
But, for a single actor, working alone and without effective supervision, all of this is not necessary. He decides to act, and then does so. After all, he is in the middle of a huge US Army base, and is surrounded with “the enemy Muslim-killing infidels” all day, so supervision is sketchy at best.
You should go to the WAPO site and pull up the 50 slide presentation Hasan gave at Walter Reed, and then read the comments there. Jim Anderson has a great piece there.
Comment by mannning — 11/14/2009 @ 9:32 pm
Let us simply agree to disagree, busboy. Your apologetics for Hasan’s actions, divorcing them from the reality of his Islamic faith and the tenets of the Koran that he most deeply believed in, and preached for years to anyone that would listen, just don’t sell as far as I am concerned.
I would agree that some groups of Muslims do indeed act like flocks of sheep and follow their particular shepard unquestioningly.
You must agree that it is self-evidently not possible for the somewhat fractionated and ideologically estranged Islamic leadership to exert effective control on each and every Muslim in the world 24/7, especially one that has inculcated into himself the very jihadic duty that I say was instrumental in the attack in the middle of Ft Hood.
However, all that said, the whole purpose of Shari’a is to control the actions of every Muslim down to the most intimate aspects of a Muslim’s life.
Comment by mannning — 11/14/2009 @ 10:00 pm
Very well said indeed. Enough is enough.
545 people vs. 300,000,000 Concerned Americans
EVERY CONCERNED AMERICAN CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.??
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
545 PEOPLE?
By Charlie Reese??
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.??Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits???Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes???You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.??You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.??You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.??You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.??You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.??One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.??I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.??I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.??Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.?What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.??The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.??It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.? ?If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.??If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red ..??If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ ??If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.??There are no insoluble government problems.??Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.? ?Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.? ?They, and they alone, have the power.??They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.??Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.??We should VOTE THEM OUT of office and clean up their mess!? ?Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.?
Comment by Concerned American — 11/18/2009 @ 4:48 pm