Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by Crafty Dog, Nov 6, 2009.
Our people at Fort Hood are OK.
Watch the Pravdas spin about the killer.
That's good news. What a horrific event.
Outstanding warrior spirit from the officer who shot the jihadi down.
We don't yet know what motivated the alleged shooter--it seems premature to speculate.
Said in a friendly spirit of conversation, but , , , don't be silly.
The Adventure continues!
The Hole at the Heart of Our Strategy
We’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives terrorism.
By Mark Steyn
Thirteen dead and 31 wounded would be a bad day for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in Texas, in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a processing center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to combat overseas, it is not merely a “tragedy” (as too many people called it) but a glimpse of a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have called, since 9/11, the “War on Terror.” Brave soldiers trained to hunt down and kill America’s enemy abroad were killed in the safety and security of home by, in essence, the same enemy — a man who believes in and supports everything the enemy does.
And he’s a U.S. Army major.
And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity — as if believing that “the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor” (i.e., his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet paeans to the “noble” “heroism” of suicide bombers and, indeed, objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general vibrancy of the base.
When it emerged early on Thursday afternoon that the shooter was Nidal Malik Hasan, there appeared shortly thereafter on Twitter a flurry of posts with the striking formulation: “Please judge Major Malik Nadal [sic] by his actions and not by his name.”
Concerned Tweeters can relax: There was never really any danger of that — and not just in the sense that the New York Times’s first report on Major Hasan never mentioned the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” or that ABC’s Martha Raddatz’s only observation on his name was that “as for the suspect, Nadal Hasan, as one officer’s wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’”
What a strange reaction. I suppose what she means is that, if his name were Smith, we could all retreat back into the same comforting illusions that allowed the bureaucracy to advance Nidal Malik Hasan to major and into the heart of Fort Hood while ignoring everything that mattered about the essence of this man.
Since 9/11, we have, as the Twitterers recommend, judged people by their actions — flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing themselves up in Bali nightclubs or London Tube trains, planting IEDs by the roadside in Baghdad or Tikrit. And on the whole we’re effective at responding with action of our own — taking out training camps in Afghanistan, rolling up insurgency networks in Fallujah and Ramadi, intercepting terror plots in London and Toronto and Dearborn.
But we’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives a man to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like “radical Islam” or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic, just plain old “radical extremism.” But we never make any effort to delineate the line which separates “radical Islam” from non-radical Islam. Indeed, we go to great lengths to make it even fuzzier. And somewhere in that woozy blur the pathologies of a Nidal Malik Hasan incubate. An army psychiatrist, Major Hasan was an American, born and raised, who graduated from Viriginia Tech and then received his doctorate from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, which works out to the best part of half a million dollars’ worth of elite education. But he opposed America’s actions in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and made approving remarks about jihadists on American soil. “You need to lock it up, Major,” cautioned his superior officer, Col. Terry Lee.
But he didn’t really need to “lock it up” at all. He could pretty much say anything he liked, and if any “red flags” were raised they were quickly mothballed. Lots of people are “anti-war.” Some of them are objectively on the other side — that’s to say, they encourage and support attacks on American troops and civilians. But not many of those in that latter category are U.S. Army majors. Or so one would hope. Yet why be surprised? Azad Ali, a man who approvingly quotes such observations as “If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation” is an adviser to Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (the equivalent of the U.S. attorneys). In Toronto this week, the brave ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish mentioned en passantthat, on flying from the U.S. to Canada, she was questioned at length about the purpose of her visit by an apparently Muslim border official. When she revealed that she was giving a speech about Islamic law, he rebuked her: “We are not to question sharia.”
That’s the guy manning the airport-security desk.
In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan’s faith only obliquely: “He was single, according to the records, and he listed no religious preference.” Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas says the major had “Allah” and “another word” pinned up in Arabic on his door. “Akbar” maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out copies of the Koran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired. But don’t worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there’s no terrorism angle.
That’s true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the end his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive Western education, his psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American identity. One might say the same about Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale, Ariz., arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized” daughter Noor in the latest American honor killing. Or the two U.S. residents — one American, one Canadian — arrested a few days earlier for plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. But Noor Almaleki’s brother shrugs that’s just the way it is. “One thing to one culture doesn’t make sense to another culture,” he says.
Indeed. To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of us are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don’t conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make it a legitimate topic of analysis. Don’t hold your breath. We’d rather talk about anything else — even in the Army.
What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible symbolism: Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on the planet gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took seriously. And that’s the problem: America has the best troops and fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2009 Mark Steyn
The problem I see in lumping all Muslims in with the groups and people who do this crap, is it's the same as lumping all Christians in with the few who bomb abortion clinics, kill doctors and use children as human shields. Muslims and their clerics are increasingly speaking out against and standing up against the violent portion of their faith, often paying for it with their lives. Terrorists, regardless of what faith they proclaim, rarely really comply with that faith, but a skewed bastardization that fits their twisted world view and perception of reality.
Regarding the Ft. Hood gunman, I said the below elsewhere:
My focus is on honoring those he murdered and wounded.
I'm with Bob Hubbard on this one. There have been plenty of shootings by people with more traditional names. He was due to be deployed and wanted out--surely that was a factor too. We'll have to wait for the reports, but this sure doesn't seem like a simple case of a Jihadist having planned a suicide attack in order to further the mission of Al-Qaeda or something.
The article I posted said "The vast majority of Muslims don’t conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make it a legitimate topic of analysis."
This is quite different than "lumping all Muslims together".
Said with respect, but please don't smear me. I ask you to reconsider your words.
Certainly it's a fair topic for analysis--but it seems like there are a lot of other factors at play here too.
Sir, I said "The problem I see in lumping all Muslims", not "The problem I see in your lumping all Muslims". It wasn't an attempt to smear you, and I do apologize for the misunderstanding. I was more commenting on the overall situation and less on the article, and should have been clearer in my intent.
Unfortunately it's hard to find rational discussion outside of FMATalk, MT and a few other sites. Most others went right to the 'anti-muslim' rhetoric sadly.
I'm enough of a conspiracy nut (tin foil hat n all) to look at this and think:
"How interesting that this happens the same day thousands march on the US Capital to protest".
I also thought "This happens here just days after 5 Brits were murdered by someone they trusted too.".
I considered this was a Major, not a recent recruit, and thought "How long could this have been planned, and how many other sleepers are there?".
In the end we've got 13 lives ended, countless others effected. Many of those killed were medical personnel it seems. How many lives will now be lost because they aren't able to be there to save them?
What makes you so sure he was a sleeper? Prelim reports show he was under a lot of stress; ie the recent death of both parents, in addition to being deployed to Afghanistan, compounded by the fact that he was trying pretty hard to get out of the military including hiring an attorney; as well as constant harassment from other soldiers about his faith. He has plenty of family in the US who arent crazy, including a cousin who is an attorney. Also his aunt made remarks that he may have just snapped.
I was referring to one of the many initial thoughts that went through my head initially, not my current thoughts on possible motive. I ran through several "IF's" as it were. I'm leaning towards "snapped" but refraining from really speculating until more consistent reports come out and the official investigation works through things.
No smearing - just that the entirety of that article does not rest in the one thing that you posted.
So the teachings of al-Qaeda and Islam are the same?
The lead in to what you quoted Marc... So your quote says one thing and the lead in sentence before it implies that all Muslims see non-Muslims as "Infidels".... I guess T-shirt sales will go up......
He gave away Qu'ran but he was also giving away other of his possesions... Maybe he owned multiple copies. And the fact that he was saying "Allahu Akbar" as he shot means nothing as for a link to terrorism. Anyone who knows the language and the culture knows that....
Now I'm not defending him by any means as to "what" he did... I'm just watching how people "spin" (as you put it Marc) "why" he did it.....
We have seen this play before. A Muslim does something horrendous and the entire bulk of a religion is miraculously put to task. It seems there is always an underlying trend of hidden agenda along with the first salvo fired. I wonder if those who deem this as jihadi motivated would also point the finger of blame and place it forcefully on the nose if the individual in question came from their own faith? Some how I think not, especially in this country. As I see this incident it was more about an emotionally unstable individual hard pressed to figure a way out of an up coming deployment. He took a step in a dark direction and once on the road he couldn't turn back. It seems he also new he stood a good chance of being killed himself, hence the yelling of ALLAH HU AKHBAR. This is not uncommon. In the muslim world the first words you are to hear when born is the name of God, and also the last words that should be uttered from your lips is the name of God, Allah. To denigrate an entire religion and the people who follow it because the words ALlah Hu Akhbar were lamented by a psycho during a killing spree is ludicrous.
Let's let the investigation come to fruition before we throw every muslim in the world and our country under the bus. Speaking of the investigation...let's see the spin that will obviously be created by the crazy folks on both sides of the isle...Limbaugh should have enough gut wind to keep this topic alive all the way to the next presidential election. Bet me if you don't think the right wingers are gonna try to place this insane act squarely on Obama's head. It's perfect material for them to try and hustle back the white house...
"America, where tragedy becomes a trump card for political agenda"
Not an established fact yet. Ive read some reports that he may have (which some 2nd hand journalists report as fact), however ive also read other reports that claim otherwise. Again we wont know until an official statement is made.
Split off from this thread.
Respectfully, I must disagree with the premise here. Unless we learn otherwise I suggest that Major Hasan snapped under pressure and that his psychosis trumped his expensive Western education, his psychiatric training, his military discipline, the core tenants of his religious faith - his entire American identity.
I don't have the time at the moment (and may not for several more days) for a more extended response, but the reports I have seen have been pretty consistent in reporting his defense of suicide killings in the cause of Islam, that he repeatedly in a variety of contexts expressed extreme opposition and hostility to what the US military was doing in response the the attacks launched upon the American homeland from Afpakia, and that he shouted "Allah Akbar!" as he embarked upon his killing frenzy-- yet somehow I am taken to task for calling him a jihadi? WTF?
In the meantime, here's this:
Because that is not enough to prove that he was a Mujahid, and not some other type of sicko.
I'm not trying to apply court room legal standards here-- nor I am sure why you would-- but I'm just looking to apply my sense of the probabilities of how the world works.
There's enough quacking here to figure he decided he was a duck and acted accordingly.
Just one man's opinion.
Separate names with a comma.