In an interview, his aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, said he had endured name-calling and harassment about his Muslim faith for years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and had sought for several years to be discharged from the military.
"I know what that is like," she said. "Some people can take it, and some cannot. He had listened to all of that, and he wanted out of the military, and they would not let him leave even after he offered to repay" for his medical training....
[Hasan] once said that "Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor" and that the United States shouldn't be fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, according to an interview with Col. Terry Lee, a co-worker...
Lee told Fox News that Hasan "was hoping that President Obama would pull troops out.... When things weren't going that way, he became more agitated, more frustrated with the conflicts over there. . . . He made his views well known about how he felt about the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."How was it that the military trained and employed this man in psychiatry and did not perceive his deep problems? I think that part of psychiatric training involves subjecting the would-be psychiatrist to psychological analysis. Why did this man slip through the system? His job was to treat others, in an environment full of experts in the field of psychiatry. Why did he remain an insider if he was the sort of person who could do what he eventually did? These are serious questions, not adequately answered by the idea that people "snap."
And when he talked about fighting "the aggressor," he said that his fellow soldiers "should stand up and help the armed forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan," Lee said.
I want to know why what was wrong with Hasan was not detected? Was he given a pass because he was Muslim? Is there a fear of suspecting or offending Muslims in the military that keeps people who should see signs of dysfunction from acknowledging what they see or doing anything about it? On the other hand, if it really is the case that people in the military are harassing Muslims, that too should not be ignored. There should be rigorous equality for Muslims. It shouldn't even be necessary to point out what is obvious: Muslims in the military shouldn't experience special treatment either of a positive or a negative kind.
Let us not, out of sympathy for the victims, shy away from examining the military's failings. This should not have happened, and the sphere of responsibility extends beyond the murderer. This is not an expression of sympathy for Hasan. It is a desire for an effective military.
Here's the way the New York Times deals with the story:
In an interview on NBC’s “Today” show, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, a base spokesman, was asked about reports that Major Hasan had yelled “Allahu Akbar” — an Arabic expression for “God is great” — during the shooting. General Cone said soldiers at the scene had reported “similar” accounts....
General Cone said that terrorism was not being ruled out, but that preliminary evidence did not suggest that the rampage had been an act of terrorism.So that yelling of "Allahu Akbar," that doesn't suggest terrorism?
The rampage recalled other mass shootings in the United States, including 13 killed at a center for immigrants in upstate New York last April, the deaths of 10 during a gunman’s rampage in Alabama in March and 32 people killed at Virginia Tech in 2007, the deadliest shooting in modern American history.Not to me, it doesn't. Hasan was a psychiatrist, working among psychiatrists. He was trusted and given access to places that are secured from the general public. And with that access he was able to kill and wound scores of military personnel. It's not like cases where some previously unexamined person bursts into a public place and starts shooting everyone.
There are a lot of questions here, and we need to be brave about asking them.
Mr. Obama called the shootings “a horrific outburst of violence” and urged Americans to pray for those who were killed and wounded.I'm going to remember that pledge. And it is long past time for the President to step up and commit to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Enough with the demonstrations of thoughtful deliberation and concerned facial expressions made while saluting a flag-draped coffin. It is important for Obama to demonstrate leadership in war today.
“It is difficult enough when we lose these men and women in battles overseas,” he said. “It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil.”
The president pledged “to get answers to every single question about this horrible incident.”
Posts
212 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 212 of 212Marcia said...
"So that yelling of "Allahu Akbar," that doesn't suggest terrorism? "
I don't think so.
It suggests jihad. Terrorism and jihad are not synonyms. Terrorism is a means. Jihad is an end.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
This is incorrect. Jihad is an act or action. It is a "struggle" towards pleasing or aligning with Allah's wishes. It ranges from a "struggle" with oneself to a "struggle", or war, with non-believers. The radical jihadists use terrorism in that war, and the goal is to eliminate those who would stand in the way of claiming the world for Allah. Those Muslims who do not use war to do this attempt to do it through conversion of non-believers, but it this is not possible, Islam says that violence is acceptable and necessary as a means to the end.
There is a real sense in which Hasan's victims are victims of political correctness. The fear that subjecting a Muslim to normal, prudent scrutiny might be perceived as "discrimination" or "harassment" has to be a major factor in the Army's overlooking the warning signs.
Other factors seem to be a shortage of medical officers, plus the human tendency to dismiss suspicions because doing anything about them is such a bother and you'll be embarrassed if they prove false. In most mass murders, hindsight reveals plenty of warning signs. The killer has often stated pretty exactly what he is going to do.
A shout-out to both Montagne Montaigne and David for thoughtful responses to some of the groupthink here. And not incompatible with vigilance or self-defense, either. Ann is right that excessive deference to Muslims and undiscriminating anti-Muslim zeal are two sides of the same coin.
Others who argue that "Islam is different" also must be listened to. But that difference does not infect everyone, and America seems to be a potent antidote. In a way that, say, Britain is not.
And if America ceases to discriminate between (as opposed to "discriminate against" -- going back to an older sense of the word) law-abiding Muslim Americans and jihadi wannabes like Hasan, it will cease to be that antidote. That's David's point.
Reading the article, this stood out: Hasan "did not make many friends" and "did not make friends fast," his aunt said. He had no girlfriend and was not married. "He would tell us the military was his life," she said."
The military was his life, he says, but he hated military life. Which says he hated life. He was likely clinically depressed--and depression being inward directed anger can often get vented outwards in irrational rage.
He couldn't find friends, was shunned by others, had nothing grounding him.
Just to be mean: Tim McVeigh was raised a Roman Catholic, at one point was a member of both the Republican Party and the NRA, supposedly was a self-identified Libertarian, who became radicalized while peddling copies of the Turner Diaries at gun shows.
But -- He never had a wife, barely ever had girlfriends, and the Army was the only real home he ever had. Sound familiar?
Just as no one would ever say the enemy is Roman Catholicism, the GOP, or Libertarians, no one should say that Islam is the enemy based on this single act of terrorism.
Former Law Student:
Just as no one would ever say the enemy is Roman Catholicism, the GOP, or Libertarians,
I call bullshit, and also complete and utter dishonesty. My aged dog shows more nuance in shitting out-of-bounds than you do.
I move you into Piker territory, along with Alex.
People of various stripes have said all of those things at various times, FLS, and repeatedly over time, including recently.
There's no "no one would say" and much less no "just as no one would say" about it.
You piker, you.
reader, I do not get you, sorry to say. The problem is obsession, not the object of obsession. The problem is being a weirdo who doesn't fit in anywhere.
But I have been inspired to think of the Liberterrorian Party.
The problem is *both* obsession itself and what obsessed people choose as the *objects* of their obsession. The true threat, however, is, secondarily, an inability to distinguish between objects of obsession, and, primarily, the inability of individuals to detect obsession within themselves.
You're being even sillier than I thought if you think I'm "Liberterrorian." I will, however, freely own the "weirdo who doesn't fit in anywhere" part, if that's helpful.
FLS, are you still not "getting" me [the points I'm making]? If so, tell me exactly what it is I need to clarify, and I'll try harder.
Montagne Montaigne said...
If those of y'all who want to fight a war with "islam" and its BILLION followers wanna go ahead and sign up, be my guest
edutcher said...
I seem to recall the very small British Army took on "Islam" in places like India ...and handled it quite neatly
Okay, I've seen a lot of stupid comments here on this blog (including by the blogger herself), but this one was among the worst. Being a student of history, let me clarify this for you:
1. The British army did not take on the Indian Islamic army, because (i) There was no Indian Islamic army, just many small states each with their own individual rulers, and (ii) The British army used guns to fight against smaller states who were yet to use gunpowder for weaponry.
2. Fighting Islam with weapons: The very idea that more/better weapons and military can subdue an idea like Islam, is to fight a hive of hornets with a knife. This is an ideological war, and you cannot fight it with weaponry. Nidal Hasan was never in Iraq/Afghanistan, yet he identified with the people there.
And there are a lot of instances of Christian-born Americans who convert to Islam because they are tired of right-wing ideology (search for books by reverts, as they call themselves, on amazon).
We are fighting a war of ideas, of ideals. In ancient Roman era, Christianity grew in spite of the Romans crucifying JC and hunting down Christians - they fought an idea with weapons.
3. Christianity vs Islam: There are elements of Christianity that are radical and dangerous - most countries and most people ignore such text, and focus only on the more humane parts.
In the same way, there are aspects of Islam that are more humane and civil - we need to help people and countries focus on those areas.
You cannot force democracy down the throat of a country. Unless you plan to kill every Muslim, and eliminate all traces of Islam from every corner of the world (as the Romans tried to do and failed miserably), in the same way, killing Muslims is just generating more hatred for Americans elsewhere.
Rome VS Christianity took 200 years, and the Roman empire eventually got decimated. US vs Islam too will take a long time, regardless of whether we engage civilly, or if we decide to bomb them into democracy. The latter will not work, and both approaches will take years to resolve. But such is life when ideas collide with armies.
Post a Comment