Fort Hood Reminds Us That We Can’t Consistently Anticipate Evil

hasan2Two debates are under way regarding the monster who gunned down fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.  Both debates are silly, for different reasons.

The first debate is about whether the shooting spree constitutes “terrorism.” This issue comes up every time a Muslim commits a high-profile violent crime.  Just a week before Fort Hood, when a mosque leader was killed in Michigan in a gun battle with the FBI, authorities quickly declared that it was not “terrorist-related.”

The debate is silly because terrorism has become a meaningless word.  The term “Global War on Terrorism” is a politically correct euphemism that conflates the enemy with the enemy’s tactic. Through this misuse, the word “terrorism” has taken on more significance than it deserves.  It’s simply not useful to debate whether Nidal Malik Hasan is a terrorist. [Update: We should instead be debating whether he is a jihadi.]

It would be useful, of course, to determine whether he acted in concert with others.  So far it appears that he did not.

The second silly debate is about whether Hasan’s rampage could have been prevented if authorities had paid more attention to warning signs.  “One of the most obvious questions as investigations go forward is whether the FBI or military authorities missed an opportunity to prevent Maj. Hasan from acting,” said the Washington Post, citing internet postings expressing sympathy for suicide bombers and his opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which he apparently considered a “war on Muslims.”

Hasan’s political beliefs are clearly significant in hindsight — but it’s absurd to think the Army somehow should have known he was dangerous.   Our society doesn’t take action against people for thinking wrong thoughts, or for giving voice to them. Nothing I’ve read about Hasan’s behavior comes close to justifying the kind of heightened scrutiny that would have been required to prevent his rampage.

And yet, some on the right insist otherwise. On Contentions, Jennifer Rubin writes, “Listen, ignoring reality and feigning indifference to the views and behavior of Major Hasan is how we wound up with 13 dead and 30 wounded, right?” Roger L. Simon takes the argument even further:

But that pathology of political correctness has now been laid bare before us. More than the two handguns, it was the murder weapon in that room at Fort Hood. Those thirteen innocent people are indeed PC deaths because it was PC that allowed Hasan to be there.

Please.  Political correctness didn’t kill anybody.  Hasan killed them.  The authorities certainly should make every effort to learn anything that might help them prevent a recurrence.  But they’ll never be able to eliminate the possibility of a lone gunman.

4 thoughts on “Fort Hood Reminds Us That We Can’t Consistently Anticipate Evil

  1. Marie, with all respect, a mentally ill person killed 13 people. As Kirk has already pointed out, if it’s determined he acted in direct concert with others, then it’s a different story. For now, it’s a sick man who snapped for whatever reason. The word “Muslim” sends too many people into stereotypical thinking. Unfair to Muslims who are not violent, much as it would be to Baptists, Methodists, or Catholics. The BTK killer? Was he a terrorist or is he excused from that label because he was Lutheran? He certainly terrorized the Wichita area for decades. What about Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols? They blew up a building, killing 168 people in what was clearly an act of terrorism. Not Muslim. The fact that we reach for the title of terrorist the moment someone of the Muslim faith is involved is unfair and uncalled for. Yes, a handful of Muslims have caused mountains of grief, but is it because they’re Muslim or because they’re sick?
    .-= Lori´s last blog ..Why I Blog (and why you should, too) =-.

  2. Lori, thanks for the comment, but my thinking on this may be closer to Marie’s than to yours.

    After rereading my blog post above, I realize I did not make myself clear in arguing that it is silly to debate about whether Hasan’s rampage constitutes terrorism. I believe the silliness is related to the use of the word “terrorism,” which has come to be understood as a euphemism for “Islamic jihadism.”

    My point is that we should stop using euphemisms. The question should not be “Is Hasan a terrorist,” but rather, “Is Hasan an Islamic jihadist?” Facts are still emerging, but it seems pretty clear the answer to the latter question is yes — at least in his own mind. There’s little evidence yet that he conspired with other jihadists, but that possibility should continue to be explored.

    The essay Marie links to above is useful, but I prefer a different page from the same website: There you will find the 109 verses of the Qur’an that incite Muslims to make war against infidels. As I’ve written before, there are objectionable passages in the Christian and Jewish scriptures. But among the major religious texts, the Qur’an is uniquely violent. We ignore this reality at our peril.

  3. Pingback: The Gun Wasn’t Smoking Until Hasan Pulled the Trigger | All That Is Necessary...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *