The Gutless Media And Muslims

In the torrent of yarns on the Fort Hood massacre several words have been conspicuous by their absence. The words "Muslim," "Islam" and "terror(ist) seem to be utter anathema to the main stream media both print and electronic.

Finally the solid ranks of denial through silence have been broken by at least two outlets. One is American. The other hails from North Ireland.

Both editorials are well written, well argued, and properly point to the fact that fear and fear alone have inhibited honesty in reporting and public discourse on the shooting episode perpetrated by Major Hasan. The American piece, in the Miami Herald, focuses on the pop psychology aspects of the coverage and discussion of Major Hasan's act. The Belfast Telegraph takes on the matter far more bluntly, far more honestly, and far more accurately as it directly links the religious grounds of the Major's exercise in mass murder with the larger subject of Islamist jihadist terror generally.

The religious roots of Major Hasan's act (and those of Muslim jihadists generally) are treated by the Herald with an undue degree of care. The writer of the Telegraph piece has much more of a "damn the torpedoes" attitude as befits a person who has witnessed up close and personal the years of religiously affiliated political terror in North Ireland.

Admittedly Americans, particularly those of the chattering, academic, and political classes, like to see themselves as ever-so-sensitive, ever-so-careful, ever-eager to avoid giving unintended offense to anyone, anywhere, at anytime. Beyond that, the talking heads of TV as well as the keyboard pounders of the print media have no capacity to trust the good judgement and basically good will of the mass of We the People.

As the Miami editorial carefully avers, there is a widespread fear that We the People, the great majority of us who are of the hoi polloi and not members of the self-appointed elite of journalism, politics, and academia are a passel of peasants replete with pitchforks and torches eagerly salivating over the possibility of running down fugitive Muslims in the deepest dark of a foul night. This level of distrust, of a willingness to think the worse of one's fellow citizens who are not in the elite is a far worse offense against truth than is the unwillingness to acknowledge reality about Major Hasan and his trigger pulling.

In the immediate (and not so immediate) wake of the Fort Hood shootings, politicians, bureaucrats, senior Army officers and the media generally tripped over their tongues and typewriters alike warning of the dreaded backlash against Muslims which might (would?) ensue as word of the massacre percolated through We the People. Interestingly, there were no warnings of "backlash" against either Army majors or psychiatrists generally considering that the shooter was a member of both as well as being a Muslim.

It appears that the same self-designated elite, the same molders of opinion, the same politicians who are convinced the American public is ever eager to whomp-a-Muslim is able to distinguish between the categories of "Army major" and "psychiatrist" and one specific psychiatrist and major. Just where in heck are these pundits et al coming from?

It is self-evident that We the People can be trusted to act responsibility and restraint whether the words "Muslm" or "terrorist" or "Army major" or even "psychiatrist" are employed in examining the events at and before the Fort Hood shootings. In the days after 9/11 there were no mobs besieging mosques. Most violations of the rights and dignity of individual Muslims or Arabs were not committed by outraged citizens seeking revenge on any convenient symbolic target but rather by the myrmidons of law enforcement, particularly those acting at the federal level with the full backing and encouragement of the Bush/Cheney administration.

The same lacking of mobs taking the law into their own grubby hands was observed in the UK following the murderous bombings of 7/7. Muslims in both the US and the UK were and are safer after even the most bloody of terror attacks than is, say, a Christian in Egypt or Pakistan, or Iraq.

The only reason which can be adduced to the cowardly treatment of Major Hasan's religiously predicated act by the MSM is fear. And, not fear of the Great Backlash but rather fear of maybe, perhaps, possibly offending some Muslim somewhere. Perhaps not a fear of Muslm martyrdom seekers, but rather of Muslim advocacy groups with their default response to any criticism no matter how fact based.

The default response is loud and repeated cries of "Islamophobia" (whatever that might be in the real world) and equally loud assertions of "discrimination" or "xenophobia" or, worst of all, "racism." It is quite true that Muslims have, as the writer of the Telegraph editorial remarked, a hyperdeveloped sense of victimization and an equally high capacity to announce just how Muslims have once again been victimized by the dominant culture in the US--or UK or wherever.

Now, not to put to fine a point on the matter, this cry of "victim" is a crock of nitrogen rich solid waste--and the leaders of CAIR and its fellow groups know it. The assorted "advocacy" groups and their apologists within the chattering, academic, and political classes are exploiting for their own advantage an unfortunate aspect of American life--the rise of the "politics of victimization."

There are a handful of groups indigenous to the US which have a somewhat legitimate claim to the status of "victims." But, beyond Americans of African ancestry and Native Americans, the demands for special status and protection attenuates to zero. For Muslims to muscle in on the historically justifiable grievances of the two specific groups is both a travesty and a mockery.

For the MSM and others in the opinion molding elite to both allow and facilitate this Muslim hijacking of "victimhood" is beyond travesty. It is a self-loathing gesture which casts the worst aspersions on the American public generally.

It is this willingness on the part of the elite--including President Obama and his Secretary of Homeland Security--to heave billingsgate on We the People as if all of us in the hoi polloi are mentally challenged juveniles which is the most disgusting part of a tragic affair. The lockstep way in which the MSM and others have marched along with the don't-trust-the-common-folks message is frankly nausea producing.

Only the honest courage of a couple of isolated voices in the great media wasteland serves the public interest, the public's often celebrated "right to know." If there were only more!

But, that halcyon state is too much to hope for as long as the phony voices of Muslim "victims" is given priority over the truth, and only the truth.

Which Side Is She On?

Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of Homeland Security. From her job title it is reasonable to assume that her primary interest is protecting Americans from threats such as terroristic acts or terrorism per se.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a Muslim. He was heard to shout, "Allahu Akbar" prior to opening fire. There are increasing indications that the major breathed deeply of the winds of Islamist jihadism. Taken together these factors give a reasonable grounds to assert that religion played a role--perhaps the greatest role--in his motivational matrix.

It is the very reasonableness of concluding Islam (particularly armed political Islam or, in shorthand form, Islamist jihadism) playing a role which is being employed by assorted Muslim groups and individual Muslims to assume they are now at greater risk for "backlash" from non-Muslims. The mainstream media, particularly the printed sort have raised a mighty alarm concerning this presumed "backlash."

As yet there are no reports of any "backlash." There have been no yarns of hordes of infidels besieging mosques. No stories anywhere of enraged non-Muslims tossing rocks or acid at women wearing traditional Islamic garb. Imams are not being assaulted by frothing-at-the-mouth zanies seeking revenge.

Despite the demonstrable absence of any outbursts of the dreaded "backlash," it is legitimate to wonder what Secretary Napolitano is so wrought up about. She is quoted as saying her department is working with (unnamed) groups around the US to "deflect" any backlash. It might be noted that she made her remarks in Abu Dhabi so her words might have been directed at the expectations of her foreign auditors.

If this surmise is correct, it is necessary to ask, "Why?" Why did the secretary think she needed to play to the prejudices and predilections of the Arab-Muslim world? Why did she conclude it was necessary to stoke the worst expectations of the Arabs, the Muslims generally, regarding the American people?

In the course of her jaunt to Abu Dhabi, Ms Napolitano had occasion to address a women's group at the local pretense of a university. During her talk she violated President Obama's stern strictures against rushing to judgement. Apparently using an informational base which has so far eluded most observers of the Fort Hood massacre, Secretary Napolitano opined, "This was an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith."

What the hey?

Whatever else he may be, Major Hasan was an observant Muslim. Numerous reports litter the landscape of the media both new and old as to the major's observant nature. His efforts to proselytize and defend the faith have been well documented. The psychiatrist is seen on a convenience store security video wearing the traditional clothing of a Muslim. He handed out Korans shortly before heading off to make his place in history and (he most likely thought) martyrdom.

The Geek does not disparage Major Hasan as a Muslim. It was as a good, dedicated, observant Muslim well acquainted with the requirements laid upon Muslims by the Koran and other sacred writings that he pulled the triggers on his two pistols. The positions he took in his internet postings last summer as he was in the process of convincing himself as to the rightness of his already contemplated action show him to be a thoughtful, intelligent Muslim who was coming to see and understand fully his obligations under the faith.

Secretary Napolitano's comment on Major Hasan as being "obviously" not representative of Muslims is flatly wrong. It is contradicted completely by the Major's actions, by his stated beliefs, and by numerous verses in the Koran as well as many, many entries in the record of the words and deeds of the Prophet which ranks only slightly below the Koran as the guide to righteous conduct by a Muslim man.

Worse, the Secretary's comment is both condescending and patronizing. It rips from the Major his core of belief, his spine of self-identification, his worth as a Muslim man acting according to the requirements of his religion. Her stated stance may comport well with justifications offered by the Major's relatives, particularly those still living in the West Bank, and the majority of the American print media. It serves to reduce the Major to the status of a mentally ill person driven by inner demons or "snapping" under the alleged but not proven or even documented stresses of ethnic taunts and discrimination.

It is undoubtedly true that the vast majority of Muslims in the US, in the US armed forces, around the world are not inclined to take the requirements of Islam as seriously as did the Major. The Major is no more a member of the majority of observant Muslims than is Osama bin Laden, Sheik Omar, or other leading figures of the global Islamist jihadist movement. Major Hasan is no more representative of the vast majority of observant Muslims than are the suicide bombers, the suicide commandos, or the rocket firers of Gaza.

This reality does not mean that Major Hasan did not act in a way totally in accord with the most demanding strictures of the Prophet. Or the Companions. Or many, many adherents of Islam who died willingly, even joyously, for the sake of the faith.

By marginalizing, by trivializing Major Hasan's dedication to and roots in Islam, the Secretary of Homeland Security is also placing the nation at greater risk. By deprecating the role of Islam in Major Hasan's action, she is desensitizing the American public to the fundamental reality that Islamic beliefs can and do propel people to take actions which are terroristic in both nature and effect.

The probability that non-Muslims in the US will seek vengeance, retribution against Muslims, is diminishingly small. Much smaller than the probability that there are Muslims in the US who have or will travel the same mental road as the Major.

To deny the role of religion in the personal traversing of the route from Islam per se to political Islam or Islamism and thence to its armed expression, jihad, is to weaken the ability of Americans to protect themselves against future events resembling the gore ridden action of Major Hasan.

It is not paranoid, nor is it prejudiced to see the probability that Islamic beliefs can be taken by an individual believer to the extent of a "martyrdom" operation. It is not being culturally insensitive to understand the linkage between Islamic strictures and indiscriminate violence. The recent spate of arrests of "homegrown" Islamist jihadists as well as Major Hasan's one man mass murder campaign make that abundantly clear.

A clear minded approach requires that Secretary Napolitano as well as the Obama administration generally accept and acknowledge the relationship between aspects of Islam and terrorism or terroristic acts. It does the religion no disrespect to do so. And, it serves to help protect the nation better.

It does the religion no respect to denigrate its nature and character to an Arab audience--or the international press. It does the nation no service to genuflect before the prejudices and propensities of Arabs or Muslims generally.

Ms Napolitano had best remember that her job is to help protect the US and its people, people of all faiths, of no faith, against threats from both natural and human causes. The same advice pertains to the never-judgemental, ever willing to take more time weighing all the factors President of the United States.

It is time these worthies do their job--even at the cost of multi-culti political correctness.

Terrorism Or Not Terrorism

In a totally expectable fashion, a completely artificial debate has emerged in the aftermath of the Fort Hood mass shooting. The controversy is over whether or not the action of the Army shrink, Maj. Nidel Malik Hasan, constituted terrorism per se. The breakdown in positions is between those who find it terroristic such as Walid Phares and those who do not such as the shooter's aunt.

The debate is not likely to be productive. Beyond that it is fundamentally irrelevant. Regardless of the precise intentions of Major Hasan or the details of his motivation, the act was, broadly speaking, terroristic in effect. It did perturb the societal fabric not only of the personnel at Fort Hood but of the US population as a whole.

That is the effect of terrorism. The only predictable effect actually. The effect is a necessary but not sufficient component of the definition of terrorism. To be terrorism per se it is also necessary that the intent of the actor be to change some policy or aspect of policy held by the government of the target population.

There is no indication as yet that Major Hasan had any such well formed intention. Nor is there any hint yet that he held more than a generalized distaste for US policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, or with respect to the "Palestinian" territory which held his family roots. As usual, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, it is too simplistic, too pat to allege that the major went a little "funny" due to his impending overseas deployment. Murder/suicide is not typically the preferred way to get out of an unwanted posting.

It is also too simplistic, too pat to maintain that the major was driven off the rails by the climate of anti-Muslim feeling extant within the US military. If, as the major is quoted as telling relatives, some of his psychiatric patients expressed anti-Muslim undercurrents following their return from Iraq, these were not of a magnitude to be plausibly adduced as motive. At the very least, as a (presumably) well trained and supervised clinician, Major Hasan should have had the tools necessary to absorb the perceived negative feelings, creatively challenge them in the patient's own better interests, or, at the least, request assistance from his superiors.

The most accurate way to view the major's exercise in trigger pulling is as terroristic. It was not terror per se, but it was in effect. This means it was like but different from such well defined terror acts as 9/11, 7/7, and the Madrid train bombings. Major Hasan's actions ripped societal fabric, engendered both fear and grief, but had neither political intent nor effect. So, it was terroristic but not terrorist.

However, there is one very important way in which Major Hasan is joined at the hip and shoulder with Osama bin Laden and all the others. The major and the al-Qaeda chieftain as well as the suicide bombers, Taliban triggermen, Hamas rocket launchers all drew the inspiration for their acts from their religion, from their understanding of the requirements of their faith, and the strictures of their holy writings. There is no way in which Major Hasan can be separated from the ideological soil of Islam. No more can he and his motives be ripped from their Islamic context than can be the actions of the other jihadists both well known and anonymous.

A direct and unbroken continuum exists. It ranges from Islam qua Islam to Islamism (or, political Islam, if you prefer that euphemism) and thence to the armed expression of Islamism, jihad. One follows from the other as a more or less logical progression from lesser to greater commitment, from lesser to greater belief.

It is true that other religious confessions in recent times have shown a similar progression. Examples range from sectarian warfare and terrorism in Northern Ireland to violent, even lethal attacks on providers of abortion in the US. In these cases, particularly the latter, religious belief was exaggerated, even distorted by community tensions or individual personality features. In any event, their extent has been limited, severely limited.

In comparison, Islamist jihadism has been and continues to be both widespread and increasing in the number of practitioners. The result has been a climate of acceptability, even attraction for the jihadist world view and concomitant actions. Major Hasan showed both in his actions the other day and in the web postings attributed to him that he had been infected by the Islamist jihadist virus.

Infected is perhaps too strong for its use implies that Major Hasan was a sort of victim, the passive recipient of an outside pathogen. This implication does not do justice to the major. It is evident that he chose to adopt the Islamist jihadist world view. The web postings linked to his name show a mind engaged in justifying contemplated actions. He was, it would appear, in the process of convincing himself as to the correctness of a jihad act some months ago.

This and the oft repeated contention that the posting(s) had come to the attention of the "authorities" (don't you just love that bit of generic labeling?) prompts speculation over the roads not taken. Had the post(s) been linked conclusively with the major, it would seem possible that the massacre at Fort Hood could have been prevented. It seems possible, even probable, that the major's trajectory to the jihadist world view and its inevitable ending could have been halted.

Not by arrest. Not by law enforcement. No. The major was a psychiatrist. It seems that he would have been far more amenable to psychological intervention than is the typical Islamist jihadist. Even if an attempt at intervention were to have failed, at the very least the security concerns would have been brought to full light. Effective protective measures could have been taken.

The only possible positive effect of the major's bloody act is an increased awareness of the climate created by Islamist jihadism. An awareness that this sort of ideological context can produce, in a self-organizing way, individuals or groups which engage in terroristic acts. Not terrorism because the political aim and result will be absent, but lethal and scary acts which rip societal fabric and induce both fear and uncertainty.

Terroristic acts are every bit as serious and threatening as the activity of a truly terrorist entity such as Taliban or al-Qaeda. They are, however, harder to detect and prevent. The terroristic actor is homegrown, often quite unsuspected and radicalized, not by external propaganda but rather by personal choice, personal "growth" if you like.

But, the terroristic actor just like the terrorist has his roots in Islam. Whether the many Muslims who have never contemplated Islamist jihadism and may even genuinely detest the Islamist jihadists love affair with death are comfortable with this truth is irrelevant. Islam is the foundational glue which cements Major Hasan and the rest of the blood drenched Warriors of the One True Faith.