Saturday, November 7, 2009

Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? More Deadly Political Correctness on Fort Hood Massacre

From Fox News, "Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? Analysts Divided on Fort Hood Massacre: The Shooting Rampage at Fort Hood That Left 13 dead and 38 wounded This Week Has Sparked a Debate About Whether It Was An Act of Terrorism."

But check Atlas Shrugs, "
Video: Wounded Soldier in Islamic Attack on Fort Hood Speaks":

"Note the media use of the word tragedy. It's not a tragedy, it's an act of war. Listen to this soldier shot in the back."
RELATED: From Just One Minute, "Maybe If We Apologized With Greater Deference." (Via Memeorandum.)

6 comments:

Dana said...

To say that it is an act of terrorism carries some baggage with it: it leads people to infer -- even though it doesn't necessarily imply -- that this was part of some larger plan by our enemies.

At least so far, this looks like the action of a disgruntled soldier, very displeased with his orders, who finally went off the deep end. Maybe with more information later, that will change.

repsac3 said...

Interesting... I'd go further than Dana and say that the guy's understanding of his faith almost certainly played a role in his dive off that deep end -- much the same way an abortion clinic bomber's understanding of his faith plays a part in his actions -- but, because there is nothing to suggest collusion with any other person or cell, and no note, video, or manifesto claiming he did this in the name of any cause or group (any/all of which may be discovered later, changing my assessment), I'm not ready to label this a terrorist attack. Terrorist is not defined as "Muslim who commits or attempts to commit murder." (And since when is "devout" a synonym for "fundamentalist" or "radical"? Are there no devout christians anymore, and isn't being called one generally seen as a positive thing, especially by one's fellow christians? So why is it some view his being called "a devout muslim" by his brother considered a bad thing--apart from the fact that he obviously wasn't, I mean?)

Philippe Öhlund said...

Great post Donald! :-)

I refer to it on my latest post.

Let's hope Maj. Hasan's values not are shared by many others.

Have a great evening! :-)

AmPowerBlog said...

Sorry, Dana, but gotta disagree:

"On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period."

From Ralph Peters.

repsac3 said...

With all respect due Ralph Peters, investigators are still determining whether the guy was an extremist, how much planning there was, and whether or not his actions had anything to do with protesting our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics. Once those facts actually are determined--and as I said, I expect they will be--it won't be jumping to conclusions to say so.

Those who said so late Thursday or early Friday, however, based primarily on his name & religious affiliation, jumped to conclusions without benefit of this later information, making folks wonder whether they were & are just bigots. (Same goes for those bigoted asses on FoxNews who floated the idea of screening American Muslims before allowing them to serve in the military. I'm all for screening out violent or objectively anti-American statements and behaviors --and perhaps if the military had, this wouldn't've happened, given all the flags Hasan seemed to've raised--but I can't support screening soldiers or anyone else based on religious affiliation, alone. In addition to islamist radicals like Hasan more'n'likely is, there are reports of far right radicals, unrepentant gang members, wife/child abusers, folks with bad psychological profiles... I doubt there's many of any of these types in the service, but as Hasan shows, sometimes it only takes one... I'm all for trying harder to weed any/as many of 'em out as possible...)

CS said...

Seems like the shooter and Donald Douglas seem to have one thing in common: That is they both seemed to have gone off the deep end.