When I came across this article on MSN.com (via MSNBC.com and first appearing in the New York Times--and they say the Right is well-organized), I was immediately drawn to its title: Muslims at Fort Hood voice outrage. My first thought (well, my first thought after "outraged Muslims = bad news for commercial airline passengers") was that the outrage in question had to be directed toward murderer and obvious terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan. Right? It couldn't possibly be directed at the army, the West, or any other jihad-inducing Straw Man. Could it?
In fact, the article's first paragraph seems to lean in the direction of reasonableness. "Leaders of the vibrant Muslim community here," we read, "expressed outrage on Friday at the shooting rampage being laid to one of their members, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who had become a regular attendee of prayers at the local mosque."
I could do without "vibrant"--a word used solely by white liberals to describe communities of color--but this is good stuff, right? It's exactly what we want to hear from the Muslim community right now. The problem occurs with the article's first two quotes. I'll let you decide if they sufficiently fulfill the first graph's promises.
"When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal," said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. "But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad."
. . . and . . .
"Ultimately it was Brother Nidal’s doing, but the command should be held accountable," Mr. Benjamin said.
Some outrage.
As you can imagine, the rest of the article is more of the same. Muslims fear retribution; Muslims have always "lived peacefully" with their Christian neighbors. All the way down in paragraph eleven, we get some decent condemnation ("The Islamic community strongly condemns this cowardly attack, which was particularly heinous in that it was directed at the all-volunteer army that protects our nation."), but the general thrust of the article has little to do with Hasan's actions and much to do with Islam's perceived grievances.
Looking again at the first paragraph, in fact, I can't help wondering what the phrase "being laid to" is all about. It's syntactically unfamiliar--unidiomatic, even--and it reads very much like "being blamed on." It wouldn't be a problem if we were dealing with a situation in which blame was at all negotiable, but Hasan clearly shot those people. He was himself shot while doing so. The idea--a mere rhetorical seed, but a potent one--that, looking around for some place to lay blame, we settled on a Muslim is an absurdity. This is the guy! He did it!
Nevertheless, the "coverage" of the shootings has been dominated by breathless concern for soldiers' breaking points (try here and here for two examples among many), as if Hasan is in any way the moral or factual equivalent of actual veterans (he never saw combat) returning from actual wars (he was never deployed).
Of course, that's nothing compared to the morally bankrupt ending of our original article:
"[Muslims] do have the right to retaliate," [Victor Benjamin] said, "but he who does not is twice blessed."
Chilling.
-GM
GM,
According to the article, yes, the outrage was directed toward Hasan with a very quick "but" to follow. The fact that a guy named Victor Benjamin II is sharing in their sentiment--that Hasan's action may be a product of extreme burnout or trauma--would seem strange to me if I didn't already know so many Americans who seek to apologize for everyone else first. I realize that people can't be expected to produce off-the-cuff statements that completely reflect their actual views, but I would like to explore this Benjamin quote simply because it seems so misguided:
“G.I.’s are like any equipment in the Army. When it breaks, those who were in charge of keeping it fit should be held responsible for it.”
I've heard some poor analogies in my time, but this one belongs on the short list. If a tank or helicopter breaks, it doesn't go on a killing spree. You also usually know when it's broken. Hasan's homicidal demeanor probably wasn't as easy to detect. Is Benjamin suggesting that the military is somehow responsible for knowing the psychological state of its entire personnel? Should we really spend more tax dollars on Army psychiatrists, especially considering that Hasan was just that?! It seems like the easier solution would be to make it clear on the front end that killing sprees are frowned upon. After all, if it was just a matter of "going postal," then Hasan's urges could have been prevented with a little therapy, maybe some morale-boosting videos or messages of caution. But, of course, if the guy who attended church at the same Virginia mosque as two 9/11 hijackers happened to be acting on religious beliefs, maybe we shouldn't let those types of people into the military. Here in America, though, even practical "discrimination" is an ugly word.
-JW
JW,
I'm writing a one-time-only follow-up due to your suggestion that "If a tank or helicopter breaks, it doesn't go on a killing spree. You also usually know when it's broken."
In fact, the Times reported today, U.S. Intelligence Agencies (no doubt crippled by Obama's Don't Make Muslims Look Bad policies) did know that Hasan was broken. They intercepted communications between him and Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American cleric who has already praised Hasan's attacks, and they did nothing.
But hey, it's a big army. Maybe the CIA thought Hasan was talking to the guy undercover.
-GM
