An act of bad faith

One issue I take with the writer - Islam didn't come up with the concept of zero, algebra, or astronomy. Nor did Arabia. These ideas were taken from conquered people on the Indian subcontinent and in Persia and used by the conquerers. Thus the "great good" cited, that Islam has provided to the world to our lasting benefit, is mere fallout from the jihadist conquest of many nations, and do not provide any useful insight into Islam once it is at peace (after having conquered the territory desired).
Yes, Christians over time have perpetrated atrocities too, but this (life) is not a contest to see whose religion did what to whom and when. At least it should not be.
True Christian hegemony over the world is ensured only if Christians change one heart at a time. Muslims (and Jews, back in their heyday) have the authorization to conquer it wholesale. There is the primary distinction between core beliefs.

No bites, no responses. Shame, but they are deeper questions, after all. So, I toss them up in the air again, seeking interest on this level of discourse.

I asked these questions on a previous post and ask them again:

"Does it not seem a reasonable assumption that if we as a nation continue a war, and a course, of aggression around the world that we will have as result more acts of terrorism and desperation such as this? Is it not reasonable to assume that our actions bring about responsive actions?"

Hello Davel2,

"Of course one would need evidence that this man had in fact undergone discrimination from his Christian colleagues."

Of course. And so likewise evidence should be demonstrated in support of all the other assumptions and accusations that are spouting up all round. Yes?

It is easy to believe without supporting evidence, or with a bare minimum of "credible" evidence, what we already prejudge to be the case. We are as a society preconditioned toward judgment and suspicion of anyone professing an Islamic faith or of "middle eastern" heritage.

We jump to conclusions based on our conditioning. We are not, however, conditioned to believe that such individuals may be the target of discrimination themselves, or consider that certain prejudice when contemplating their world. We do not presuppose that this man, for instance, may have been the subject and target of ridicule in an evangelical majority military service, or that christians may be prejudiced themselves.

So it is easy to want supporting evidence that he was a subject of religious prejudice, but we need no evidence to judge him, as a muslim, of premeditated violence and evil.

Well, one thing that seems clear to this point is that this guy did kill, without warning, his companions in the military. Lose/lose for all. Altogether a waste, to this point. I pray that good may come out of this thing for all, though I do not know how in the moment.

Peace and salaam, which is what I pray for.

"At the moment, it looks like an act of terror based on a perverse ideology."

It may well be. Whether it was a premeditated, or planned, act of terror, or an unplanned snap, remains to be seen. We have had mass shootings in this country, unfortunately, by perps that snap and perps that plan. Columbine was a plan and it's effects on that community and the nation continue to this day.

I am in agreement that if there were numerous "red flags" that were somehow overlooked that error should be addressed. It is clear that this was an extremely expensive oversight, for the outcome was mass murder perpetrated by one of their own officers. It has happened before, but not with such opposing and volatile elements. The treachery alone would be enough. But by an officer, outside of wartime operations, on native soil, and by an adherent to a, symbolically at least, hostile religion add to the travesty of it. And potential volatility of it.

I am not comparing this man and American Revolutionaries directly. I am addressing an issue that seeks to whitewash any correlation between guerrilla warfare and warfare based on some standard of rules of engagement. Your statement was generalized:

"I do not think equating acts of warfare done by a regular arms under rules of engagement to an act of terrorism by an individual is very persuasive".

I am in no way condoning this assault by commenting on the use of guerrilla tactics. We may as individuals and as a nation believe in our moral justification for the initiation to continued prosecution of this "war on terror". Others may find it morally bankrupt. That position takes on more and more buoyancy as this war is dragged out an more innocents are "mistakenly" murdered from 40,000 feet or by other guided ordinance.

How does one, or many for that matter, fight back against perceived unjustified aggression by a far superior force? Sometimes it is by flinging stones, as in Palestine. It becomes preferable to throw stones than do nothing in the face of a perceived brutalizing of your own people.

It is common that one in a superior position would discredit tactics that are contrary to "rules of engagement", and it is further advantageous as well. But when one needs one does what he can. As the American Revolutionaries did.

I understand that you, and most Americans, would find this act of terrorism abhorrent. Believe me, I do as well. But I am not so sure, as you seem to be by your above statement, that we can so easily wash our hands of responsibility in it.

Does it not seem a reasonable assumption that if we as a nation continue a war, and a course, of aggression around the world that we will have as result more acts of terrorism and desperation such as this? Is it not reasonable to assume that our actions bring about responsive actions?

It seems to me a common misconception, and a hypocrisy as well, to hold the belief that these acts against us are based purely upon the darkness and depravity of the perpetrator. We have history that intertwines with the "Muslim world", and it is not the prettiest. To seek to make a black and white, good and evil equation out of it is whitewashing the truth.

We held the moral high ground in this current conflict for too short a time, considering how long it has gone on. For me it ended somewhere around the time we bombed Tora Bora from a distance, and used proxy soldiers to fill our own boots. And bin Laden walked away.

Before we stepped foot in Iraq with our conveniently amassed forces we were swimming against the current.

I do not blame Hasan his distaste for this "war on terror". I blame him his response to it. And wonder why he wanted to be in the military in the first place, if this is the result. I would doubt that he went into it with this intention, to the radioheads are having a field day.

Seems to me we should not fan the flames of hatred.

Just,

That seems right (over all). That is why I added a disclaimer to the end of my piece. One has to make some tentative judgments with the evidence one has at the moment if one is asked one's opinions, but hold to them lightly.

I am certainly willing to let a change of the facts in this case change my interpretation of the event.

At the moment, it looks like an act of terror based on a perverse ideology.

We shall see.

John Mark

I did not find this article by following the link you gave for some reason, but have read it and leave this (seemingly identical) link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html

Again, I do not know what "these views" are speaking to, unless it is defense of suicide bombers or the assertion that America's war on terror is in fact a war on Islam. There is no shortage of people, not only muslims, who would find points of agreement in the second statement. Few would be in support of suicide bombers.

I have, and had, an issue with the speed that assertions are made based on loose or altogether missing evidence. Hearsay reported in news, particularly in regards to such a volatile subject as this, cannot serve for better understanding. Within one day of the massacre we have comments spouting all over the web and (surprise!) talk radio that seem to cover the gamut of causes and intentions of this shooter. Suddenly everyone knows him and his history.

Perhaps these stories will be fleshed out as true. Time will tell, and that is what is necessary for truth to be brought to the surface. For me I dislike and disagree with heating up further emotional trauma as well as religious, racial, and national hatreds. It is, for me, far better to aim toward what brings healing and peace, especially in the face of an event that can blow up into a catalyst for further distance and distrust between religions and cultures. Much of the media aim at the second outcome. The first does not sell well. It is a fundamentally base aspect of our society.

"One could make as valid and sweeping a claim that the christians in the military made him do it, prodded him into it, hounded him with prejudice and bigotry and spiritual exclusive hatred until he popped."

Of course one would need evidence that this man had in fact undergone discrimination from his Christian colleagues.

Cheers,
Dave

Farnaz,

I entirely agree with your last comment. It was cogent and to the point.

John Mark

Certainly, politics, indoctrination play a role. However, the man was decompensating; this had been noticed. All of the signs were there, inappropriate emotional outbursts, transfer from a prestigious hospital due to a decline in performance, expressed concerns by colleagues, terror of being deployed, giving his possessions away, coming to work dressed as a Talib.

Who was minding the store? The military needs much, much more support, and this case is merely the tip of the iceberg. Troops lack equipment and training. VA hospitals are staffed by ex-prison doctors, others thrown out of hospitals.

Regardless whether of whether we are in peacetime or in an indefensible war, service personnel deserve better.

I have good friends who disagree with American policy regarding terror. They do not, however, have these views:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html.

This kind of thing in an army officer should have raised red flags. And if a reader cannot see the difference between this man and American Revolutionaries . . . well, nothing I say in a tiny comment box will persuade you.

I am sorry but I do not see some particularly clear or compelling evidence that this man had "views ourside the Islamic mainstream". If I were to take only the msnbc article as information it still does not indicate that. It is not only a muslim mainstream that is against the war, or more specific against the "war on terror". There is and have been a majority of Americans that are unconvinced and deeply concerned at this war that America has prosecuted, and it's effectiveness against not only terror but as necessary support for American interests.

Philosophically the idea of the war on terror suits and serves an inbred desire for self-protection and vengeance. Not the highest ideals, but real. However in practical terms this war has been far from satisfactory in fulfilling it's promise. Indeed it is a full on bust in the view of no small number of Americans.

I do not see that he was a BIG problem in the past, though that may be true. He IS one now. Is this because his upcoming actions should have been seen and stopped? I do not know that.

There is no doubt that the radical elements of Islam are bad, as you put it. Decrepit is a more effective term for their intent and manifestations, I think.

"I do not think equating acts of warfare done by a regular arms under rules of engagement to an act of terrorism by an individual is very persuasive."

Of course it does. They are simply different ways to fight and engage an enemy. In the lead-up to the American Revolution, for instance, indeed throughout it, guerrilla tactics were used by the colonist militias. When confronting a greater and more well armed and trained force, but having a cause worth fighting, one does what one can with what weapons and tactics are available. Calling "right" only what is defined under "rules of engagement" is the work of the superior force. The inferior one, though perhaps (I am not saying it is so here!...) more morally grounded, may not see such value in the same definition of rules of engagement.

Nobody should be persecuted for their faith. However, news accounts (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33722143/ns/us_news-tragedy_at_fort_hood/) indicate that this was a person who had (based on present evidence) views outside the Islamic mainstream. He was a big problem and ended up being transferred. Only in the last six months did his behaviors as an OFFICER in the military attract attention.

This is pretty slow.

As for the other comments: I am only arguing that one form of Islam has become bad . . .

I do not think equating acts of warfare done by a regular arms under rules of engagement to an act of terrorism by an individual is very persuasive.

The far more plausible scenario is that he was under a microscope. That he was watched from midnight to midnight, from mess hall to latrine, from patient to patient. Are you kidding me?

More feasible, in todays evangelized, majority christian military, he was most probably seen as the devil that walks among us by most pairs of eyes that watched him. Particularly considering how radical is the view of islam by civilian christian adherents, not to mention the militarized christian adherents.

One could make as valid and sweeping a claim that the christians in the military made him do it, prodded him into it, hounded him with prejudice and bigotry and spiritual exclusive hatred until he popped.

And then a good christian like Mr. Reynolds can blame those who were watching him for not catching it in time.

Does that seem ridiculous?

How about we act more responsibly in these discussions.

"The real bigotry is non-Muslim Americans who assume it is normal for Muslims to talk this way and so don't know to be worried when they hear extremist talk."

Bigotry is alive and well in many corners of the world, and particularly the religious world.

We are the ones that have been bombing from 40,000 feet for an eight years war, and sending drones to destroy unarmed villagers on a "mistake". We let atrocities done by our troops pass as the costs of war, yet we still prosecute a war where tens of thousands of innocents are killed, and use flimsy (by now!) justifications to continue, but scream bloody murder if we are assaulted.

Why would we not be assaulted, by now if not before now?

Voices like Mr. Reynolds would serve healing and upliftment of the human condition far better by speaking to those aims, as opposed to rallying the masses to fear and hatred. This 'guidance' of his is distasteful in the least.

Mr. Reynolds once again shares his likelihood, in a rational and thoughtful essay, to take any opportunity to advance a prejudiced position.

We are not neither talking of abortion or the murder of abortion doctors, or McCarthyism and the Red Scare, (a hopelessly polluted and prejudiced period of time, unworthy of any synonym with patriotism).

There is nothing that can be trusted at this time regarding the motives or intentions of the shooter. It is abusive and irresponsible to make an assessment of these motives, much less push blame on others for the outcome.

"And yet when a Muslim man applauded terrorist attacks and had a track record of hateful talk against this nation, nothing was done. He was in a job that gave him easy access to weapons and exhibited obvious signs of being subversive to our values.*"

What reliable source offers this up? I am clear that anyone can find affirmation and justification for their prejudged positions, they just need to seek them. And some news agencies will say anything to get a rating and 'serve' their viewers cravings. I know which channels my conservative friends always go back to, and which they negate, because it serves their own prejudgments. Likewise for my liberal friends.

Is Mr. Reynolds suggesting that the military can not recognize a threat? That a professed Muslim psychologist, shrinking the troops, an officer, escaped detection? Are you kidding me?

Clearthinking:

I am not a Muslim (obviously), but I think there is a better or more charitable way to read the Koran. Old books had their own style and exegeted them requires more than quoting one bit out of the context.

The Koran is a masterful work of literature, highly complex, and simplistic interpretations by terrorists are not best rebutted by equally simplistic attacks on it, I think.

MJR writes: "The real bigotry is non-Muslim Americans who assume it is normal for Muslims to talk this way."

Interesting point.
Let us read the Koran.
Koran chaper 9 verse 5:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and kill the nonbelievers wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem."

Fight and Kill. Allah's words.
Hmmmmmmm. Religion o' peace?

I use a pseudonym because too many people hate wantonly. Fear is a great motivator. None of the people I worry about are Muslim. Heroin terrorists don't scare me, but crazy Americans do.