|
Watching several days of commentary on Nidal Hasan's (no, I will not call him "Major Hasan") Fort Hood massacre was painful. Evan Thomas of Newsweek turned it into something about "right wingers." Sally Quinn, widow of Ben Bradley who writes a "Faith Column" for the Washington Post, wasn't sure what she thought, but was pretty sure we should not "jump to conclusions." Fox News actually congratulated itself, through Bill O'Reilly, because the "Fox All-Stars" on Special Report were not negative on Obama's eulogy. Chief of Staff for the Army, George Casey says, "As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse." I don't know how the Ottoman or Roman Empires started to go south, but when a nation's intelligentsia become so lost in mindless constructs, it can't be a good sign. When quantum physicists attempt to translate their measurements and mathematical deductions into everyday language, they produce what appears to be an irreducible paradox which can say of an object- "it is both here and not here"- at the same time. Physicists had a choice to make. They could spend all their time philosophizing about this seeming impossibility, or simply use a probably imperfect model to make predictions. They of course chose observable measurements over hypothetical ruminations and as such we have microchips and Hubble space craft. We cannot be inside the head of Hasan, or Castro, or Ahmadinejad. We will never know what "really" motivates them. Nor can we be inside the head of our own leaders. If a president cannot deliver a good eulogy, then it truly is all over. Do we actually need to ask "how he did" and be self-congratulatory for vague praise? As irritating as that was, it pales in comparison to the initial "anything except what was observed" interpretation of Hasan's murderous spree. A Muslim man walks into a room with two pistols shouting "Allahu akbar" and begins killing and wounding people. Wouldn't a reasonable response be "I wonder if there are other Muslims in the military thinking the same thing" or "might this be part of a larger conspiracy?" Instead, the reaction was not to wonder anything at all, but to declare every conceivable counter-factual as the probable cause. Post traumatic stress syndrome, the all-purpose just "snapping," Bob Schieffer's remarkable "Christians do it too" defense, the stress of treating patients, and of course the ever-present Muslim discrimination defense. These are all counter-factual statements. The one "factual" observation was ignored. I believe political correctness is simply repressed bigotry. But that is a topic for another day. A satisfactory investigation is unlikely to be conducted. Any administration which thinks it's sane to change the term "terror" to "man-made disaster" is itself a man-made disaster. The solution to this problem begins in 2010, when we can start electing new people into office, at least in the Congress. -------------------------------
Trackback(0)
Comments (1)
 Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Login Form
|
fort worth theft attorney www.bakerdameron.com - choose a fort worth theft attorney who will fight for your rights with dedication and expertise |
| Exit Signs |
I know this seems like splitting hairs, but if we're going to use a word to do heavy lifting for us, and to characterize a specific sort of enemy and tactic, we shouldn't be watering it down to suit a whim. According to the definition being used in in the media for this case, a heck of a lot of crimes can be cla*sified as terrorism that wouldn't normally fit the bill. Was the ethnic cleansing in bosnia terrorism? Is attacking a sikh (mistaken for a muslim) because of his religion terrorism? Is a university shooting spree terrorism? It's safe to a*sume that most people don't murder because they LIKE the victims - and there's usually some sort of reason for that, but that doesn't make it terrorism. The virginia tech and columbine shooters were very much driven by (their own) ideology and revenge, but nobody describes them as terrorists. Based on the evidence available right now, and that comparison,I don't think hasan's a terrorist either. He's a killer, sure, but not (necessarily) a terrorist.
McVeigh was a terrorist, because it was very clear that he had a political motive - he was attacking the FBI for a specific reason, to stop it from doing things he disagreed with. He had a history of advocating political violence, in writing. The 9/11 murderers were terrorists, because they attacked the US in pursuit of a specific outcome - getting the US out of certain countries. The bali bombers were specifically retaliating against, and attempting to influence, australian military policies, same goes for the train-bombing in spain - that's terrorism (and in the spanish case, it worked).
What little we know at this stage suggests that hasan just couldn't cope with being deployed. He was quite clearly muslim and possibly radical (although if evangelizing makes someone a radical, that makes a lot of US radicals), If he hadn't been deployed he would (it seems possible) have just kept being weird and annoying, but not violent.
Another suspect claim being made in this case is that hasan killed BECAUSE of his religion - not just that he killed while being muslim, or even that he killed in the name of islam, but specifically because of it. It's quite possible that this is true, but at this time it's speculation. These are really big claims, and I think they deserve some hard evidence before being taken seriously. When the facts are finally known, it could be that both claims are justified - but they also might not be.
I'm pretty disappointed in both sides of this debate. The boosters don't seem to be interested in evidence or reason, they're mostly after making the story fit an agenda. The nay-sayers are being incredibly weak, and failing to take the other side to task about it. Very few commentators have bothered to even check what the US criminal code (or any other source) has to say about what terrorism actually means. Overall, I think the MSM was right to resist using the 'T' word, but they've otherwise been pretty disappointing.
Don't get me wrong - I'm happy to see this guy get what is coming to him. But I don't think we should sensationalizing a lunatic and undermining the bigger cause to do it (i.e. the cause of ending the use of violence against innocents to wage political war). I'm hesitant about providing my email address, because I know how unpopular that opinion is likely to be, unfortunately.
[Moderator's Note: RightSideNews.com requires an email address only to establish a real person, not a bot or macro being run to post the comment. We do not post, publish, sell or otherwise distribute or make available a readers e-mail address. Occasionally, if a comment is particularly remarkable, RSN editor or the site moderator may contact the email address to say thanks for the thoughtful comment or even to invite the commenter to become a contributing author, regardless of whether the viewpoint expressed is pro or con. Good writing is needed and appreciated to present both sides of an issue.
The other side of the coin for requiring an email address would be for those who are particularly offensive, hateful, or obscene, it gives the moderator the opportunity to let the contributor know why their comment was not published. This site is moderated by a real live person, a person with really weird sleeping hours granted, but nonetheless, one who reads each and every comment to determine which are appropriate for publication and those which are not.]