Muslims and Mass Murder

[Winehole23]

Muslims and Mass Murder

Understanding the Fort Hood attack

Steve Chapman | November 12, 2009


Mass murders are usually a mystery. When Maj. Nidal Hasan allegedly committed one last week at Fort Hood, though, there was no time wasted in solving the mystery by blaming the massacre on his religion, which is Islam.




Maybe Hasan is just a homicidal lunatic set to work by fevered demons inside his brain. But post-9/11, you can't be a killer who happens to be a Muslim. If you're a killer, it has to be because you're a Muslim.



In this case, the claim of a religious motive has some evidentiary basis. Hasan had contacts with an extremist imam. The Army psychiatrist had been known to rail against the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to argue that Muslims should be allowed to leave the military rather than fight against other Muslims. He reportedly shouted, "Allahu Akbar!"—Arabic for "God is great!"—as he began his rampage.



In spite of his views and e-mail buddies, neither the Army nor the FBI (which monitored his correspondence with the cleric) found enough grounds to take action against him. Maybe they were blinded by "political correctness" not to do anything that might offend Muslims. Or maybe his past comments are being exaggerated with the benefit of hindsight. Or maybe those who noticed simply concluded he posed no more danger than other cranks.



It's also possible, as so many insist, that the slaughter was a direct product of a violent brand of Islam that encouraged and sanctioned his deed. But even if that's the case, it doesn't tell us what to do about it.



Is the Pentagon supposed to refuse induction to Muslims? Do extensive vetting before accepting them? Continuously monitor their Internet use? Generally treat them as suspect, which almost none of them is? Blustering about "political correctness" doesn't offer practical solutions to a malady that is about as common as a two-headed cow.



The Defense Department says there are 3,572 Muslims in the American military. The American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council puts the number at more than 15,000. Either way, the overwhelming majority must be loyal and true, or the Fort Hood massacre would not be unusual.



Obviously, a soldier who expresses a radical anti-American ideology demands intervention. But if all military authorities have to worry about is getting rid of every service member who applauds suicide attacks, they will not have much to do. No one thinks "political correctness" obligates the Army to treat Muslims more leniently than anyone else. But it's just as simple-minded to think they deserve to be treated worse.



Hasan's views are way outside the mainstream of American Muslims. A 2007 poll by the Pew Research Center found that very few of them hold radical beliefs. Eight percent think suicide bombings can sometimes be justified, which means 92 percent do not. Only 5 percent said they had a favorable opinion of al-Qaida.



Does that sound like a lot? Keep in mind that 13 percent of Americans have a favorable view of North Korea. That's right: North Korea.



Some commentators insist that Islam is inherently aggressive, intolerant, or bent on taking over the world by force. But contemporary terrorism, which is supposed to prove that, doesn't. As University of Chicago scholar Robert Pape has do ented in his research on suicide attackers, most are motivated mainly by non-religious concerns.



Of 41 people who carried out suicide attacks in Lebanon between 1982 and 1986, he noted in his 2005 book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, 30 were affiliated with groups opposed to Islamic fundamentalism, including secular communist, socialist, and Baath organizations. Three of the attackers were Christians. What the perpetrators shared was not a religion but an intense resentment of an occupation by foreign powers (the United States, France, and Israel).
This motive, Pape says, is characteristic of suicide attackers wherever they emerge, including Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorists' quarrel with the U.S. is not that it is an infidel society but that it's seen as occupying Muslim countries.



Osama bin Laden has made the point himself. Dismissing President Bush's assertion that "we hate freedom," he once said, "Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden."



The al-Qaida leader likes nothing better than to portray the United States as waging a crusade against Muslims. We would be doing ourselves no favor to confirm the accusation.

[whottt]

Um if I'm a muslim and I went a mosque that had an Imam with ties to Al-Qaeda and was attended by 2 men that were part of 9/11 I totally understand the military being a little hesitant on that one.

If I am a muslim who is even halfway aware of the fact that we are at war with a Theorcratic Islamic movement...I totally understand the desire to do a thorough ass background check on me. In fact, I want to do everything in my power to help them.

If I seem to be a little cofused about where my loyalties lie, those we are at war with, or the country in whose military I am serving, I totally understand that for me to be in the military, they need to lie with my country first, or else I am not fit to serve in it.




Muslim feelings getting hurt<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 1 US Troop getting killed. I would totally understand that.

In fact I would understand, you know what? their feelings.




And I speak from experience, because I was denied induction to the military entirely on the basis of a profile, in the very very final step, and for absolutely no other reason...and I totally understood why.

[Blake]

In fact I would understand, you know what? their feelings.

do you support treating the 3500-15000 Muslims that are currently serving in our military any differently than anyone else?

[whottt]

If they went to a Mosque that had been consistently linked to terrorism I would definitely say it's ok to deny them admission to the military. And em if they don't like it. They'll get over it, the dead troops won't.




And just to be clear on this, let's say I go to a church, my pastor is known to hate the United States and sympathize as well as associate with groups that have commited terrorist acts against it, a couple of known members of that church have commited acts of terorism against the United States, all of a sudden a guy in the military from that same church commits a similar act...I would totally understand them investigating my background, in fact I would want them to do it and do everything in my power to help them. For my own protection, And it they decided to not admit me to the military, even if we weren't in a war with a christian theocratic movement, I would understand that as well.

If I were already in the military when that happened, I would definitely want them to reseach the out of my background and clear myself. I would say, you guys want to pay extra attention to me? By all means do so. Whatever I can do to help.



If I got kicked out of the military at that point, having commited no criminal act, then and only then would I have a problem.




That said, the simple fact of the matter is with regards to profiling:

A. It does not guarantee there will be no similar attacks. It doesn't eliminate the threat. Reduce it? Yes. Eliminate it? No.

Possibly the second highest ranking member of Al-Qaeda and it's likely future is an Ex-American who is of Christian and Jewish heritage.




B. We actually need Muslims in our military, because they are definitely an asset in a war with a Muslim Theocratic movement. Ones with heavy ties to the Mid-East are even better. Being able to do that sort of thing is precisely what makes America badass.


So if you envision some scenario in which the US Military wants absolutely no Muslims, or Arab-Americans etc in the military...that won't ever happen. The Military isn't that stupid.

[sabar]

1 in 20 muslims view al-Qaida favorably and 1 in 9 Americans view North Korea favorably.

I am at a loss for words as to the stupidity of the average human being.

The good thing is that very few people are actually remorseless and psychotic. What is the best way to weed these people out? I have no clue. It's probably cheapest to just bear the risk of attacks than it is to background check any amount of people. It would be cheap and effective if people looked for red flags and actually acted on them instead of filing them away.

[Danny.Zhu]

Is there anything similar happened before in the military?