We’re soon going to have the shooting in Fort Hood reduced to a question of individual psychology. We’re supposed to conclude that it was the meaningless act of a madman. Thus understood, it’s random, a senseless tragedy, and a story of a good soldier gone bad. In fact, this treacherous assault on our servicemen by a traitor in their midst is anything but senseless. It is perfectly understandable. It’s non-random. It’s an act of “meaningful” violence. And the key to deciphering that meaning is in the name of the shooter: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.
I’ve written about this deficit of analogical reasoning by the media and our politicians regarding Muslim-on-American violence before. When the patterns involved are permitted to be observed and recognized, this act of treachery should not be the least bit surprising. It’s natural and regularly occurring and logical considering the utter incompatibility of the soldier’s religious faith and the necessary loyalty of a soldier to a country that will not implement that faith’s aggressive political program.
Subscribe To This Feed
So far the main themes I see the press using to explain his actions are:
1) Was conflicted about his upcoming deployment, where he would be forced to shoot and kill Muslims (never mind that as an army pyschiatrist, the chances of him shooting anyone were absolutely nil, and never mind the irony of killing innocents because you are upset at the prospect of killing innocents)
2) Was suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome from having treated so many soldiers with post-traumatic stress syndrome (never mind that he never deployed himself)
3) Was suffering from an Army-wide epidemic of mental illness caused by the high op-tempo (never mind, again, that he never deployed himself and that none of the other soldiers suffering from this issue have chosen to go on a mass-murder spree)
I am sure that over the next few weeks plenty of genuine mental health issues are going to emerge about Major Hasan. He obviously is quite disturbed, but ignoring the contributing factors of his Muslim religious beliefs is indeed ridiculous. I guess we should not be the least bit surprised though.
Re the last sentence of this blog post, the killer enlisted before 9/11. Back then, as now, the US was “not implement[ing] that faith’s aggressive political program,” but he enlisted in the army anyway, so apparently he was pretty loyal back then. It’s possible that he himself changed since then, but it’s also possible this attack had more to do with US policy since 9/11, in particular the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, than with America’s failure to implement the Muslim political program.
In any case, he’s reportedly alive and in stable condition (no virgins for you, Hasan!), so maybe we’ll all find out what motivated him.
4. Was victimized by the religious and ethnic bigotry endemic in the armed forces. (The media have laready picked up on this theme, baed on statements by his aunt and cousin.)
Yea, thanks, forgot that one.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fort_hood_shooting_suspect
Here’s an article that proves our point about the media narrative. It starts out by saying:
“There are many unknowns about Nidal Malik Hasan, the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Most of all, his motive.”
The article then goes through all the “motives” listed in the comments above, but never suggests that his religion just might have been a motivation as well.
“Muslims fear Backlash”
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/11/2009116102644523243.html
Can these bastards let us grieve and bury our dead before they start to change the news cycle to focus on their concerns?
[...] Anti-American Muslim, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opens fire at Fort Hood and murders at least 13 people (possibly wounding [...]
“…authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base.”
Technical point only. I don’t know what is meant exactly by “worst mass killing” on a US “military base,” but wouldn’t Pearl Harbor dwarf Fort Hood?
I don’t think we can just exclude wars per se from the equation since I suspect this Muslim dope was yet one more (western-schooled, sadly) jihadist looking to slaughter the infidels. That is, F/Hood was his faith’s war.
It is impossible to serve two masters. You end up loving one and hating the other.
Islam is a ‘total’ faith. It seeks to create iron-clad laws for every part of human existence. Compare Muslim shari’a to the Christian ideal to render under Caesar what is Caesar’s due.
Hasan had come to the conclusion that he had to serve his religion rather than his country. The problem for us is-how many others in sensitive positions of power and influence feel the same way that Hasan feels? A frightening thought if you think about it too hard.
I am curious as to why (good) Muslims would want to live in non-Islamic countries (e.g, I wouldn’t consider dwelling in an Islamic country). I can understand why a nominal Muslim would prefer dwelling in a non-Islamic society but so many of them seem to be devout (fanatic?).
Please give me hope. Will enough sensible folks fight the PC liberals and ban all muslim animals–and that is what they are–from our great-but-falling-fast nation? Of course not. We are doomed to be like all other nonhomogenius white nations.
This animal should be skinned alive after spending a night in a cage with 50 US marines with names like Joe Smith
so maybe we’ll all find out what motivated him.
Islam did. The End.
I fear we as a nation are headed down the same path as Britain; where there are home grown islamic fundamentalist terrorists all about and everyone fails to do anything about it. The book “Londonistan” is quite an eye opener on this matter.