| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| What the right and the left have gotten wrong about Hasan |
| 2009-11-08 |
| Written by a teacher at NYU. Please give me a few seconds to get out of the way . . . . New York -- Can we talk? What've we been doing? This is a blog. That is, can Americans really communicate? The word means, literally, "To make common." And at times like this, I wonder if it's possible. When did "talk" start to mean "to make common"? And what's "to make common" mean? I would expect it to mean "to articulate," "to communicate using words formed into coherent sentences," "to speak," "to discuss" or any of the other meanings which are common across all Indo-European and most other languages. "To talk," in fact, is the basis of language, the audible expression of "to think." To have "talk" without "think" results in "babble." I didn't hear about the Fort Hood shootings until several hours after the news broke, but when I did, much of what I heard wasn't true. That's often true with news events... Some people told me that the suspect, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan was a "convert" to Islam; others, that he had several Muslim accomplices; still others, that he had links to Al Qaeda. All those are statements that began in someone's mind as "did he..." From there they lept into the category of "rumor." False. False. False. Easy to say in retrospect, isn't it? I could pick up some decent change betting on the recently completed World Series if I could put my money down today instead of last month. I could make some major bucks betting that Don Larsen would throw a perfect game in the '56 series... All those rumors were propagated by the media, mostly the old media with a little new media thrown in. This is the same media that got virtually every fact about Hurricane Katrina wrong. Mostly it's just the confusion that occurs with breaking events with a layer of incompetence and another layer of rushing to meet a deadline. So of course the media got most of the Fort Hood story wrong at first. The question is whether they'll continue to get the story wrong. We should ask Chris Matthews. I got home to find the Internet aflame with vitriol, much of it directed at Islam itself. "Hasan is a BLACK MUSLIM," read a typical blog post. I'm not sure that's "typical." If so, I missed it. He's obviously not black. "This was a sleeper Muslim cell terrorist attack ... WITH MORE TO FOLLOW.... Unite AGAINST Islam now people!" This must be the right's point of view. He doesn't appear to have been a sleeper cell, but he does appear to have been almost a cliche. Of Paleostinian descent, he was mouthing all the usual nonsense about the war on a terrorist sect being a war against all Islam. He was strutting around in grocery stores and such wearing a brassiere cup on his head and a Pak-style salwar kamiz on the rest of him. He was a man who had rejected our culture and adopted that of the wahabs of Arabia and the wazirs of Wazoo. He's not the only one who was doing so. My guess is that there will in fact be more to follow. I'm surprised that previous instances have been so barely noticeable -- a Jewish center here and there, the occasional murder where the victim or victims have coincidentally been kufrs and the murderer coincidentally a Moose limb. But I also found posts defending Hasan, who was reportedly facing overseas deployment. "They wanted to send him away to kill his own brothers and sisters in Iraq," one post screamed. "I would have done the same thing!" This must be the left's point of view. But had he been an American rather than a Muslim that wouldn't have been a factor, would it? If he had been an Iraqi in 1991 he wouldn't have had any problems bumping off Kuwaitis, would he? Or if he's been an Iraqi through most of the 80s he wouldn't have had any problem icing Muslim Medes & Persians. If he had gone to live in Pakistain he would have been perfectly happy sending the local Shiites to the promised land. Once the rejection of culture takes place the kufrs become mere targets. Finally, others argued that any discussion of Hasan's ethnic or religious background was itself a form of discrimination. "I think giving out the Middle Eastern sounding name of the perpetrator is hate speech," a blogger argued. "No doubt this will give ammunition to patriotic Americans who value national security over diversity." The PC POV. We have a crime that's motivated by religion but PC requires that we ignore the motivation and thrash about for something else? And if you really hate something, what's wrong with indulging in hate speech about it? Besoeker refers to the guy as a turd, others in terms approaching that in odor and texture if not in definition. I refer to the guy as a murderer, not even "alleged." I'm revolted at the thought of an officer in the same Army that I used to be in acting so utterly dishonorably. Having adhered myself, however fallibly, to those same standards I hate him. Why's it a requirement to be "understanding" when the act is heinous, the failing egregious? But that's precisely the discussion that we need to have: how to balance security and diversity, unity and freedom. How can we keep our country safe, but still respect the cultures of its different peoples? How can we join hands as a nation, but remain free as individuals? Dr. Phil's POV. Personally, I'd start by ejecting anybody in the country who refuses to adopt our culture, which is the true basis of nationhood. And it's the same debate we've been having since 1776, when a Congressional committee suggested e pluribus unum -- "out of many, one" -- for our new national seal. But this discussion -- like any real dialogue -- requires agreement on a few basic ground rules: civility, reason, and tolerance. When one side is being civil, reasonable, and tolerant, and the other is standing on a table with a .357 Magnum and shooting everybody in sight it's not "talk." It's communication at a much more basic level, kicking up fight or flight instincts. During wartime, to be sure, Americans have often lost sight of these values. Consider attacks on German-Americans during the World War I, when several states banned the speaking of German in schools and on the streets. Or think of the internment of Japanese-Americans -- and the confiscation of their property -- during World War II. The practical POV. Consider the fact that many German-Americans of World War I had a habit of being loyal to Kaiser Bill. The German-American Bund was active in the USA prior to World War II -- I believe they wore blue shirts, but I'm not sure. But neither were most German-Americans nor most Italian-Americans interned during the second war, joining up just like everybody else precisely because they didn't want to be shoved around by Gauleiters and similar vermin. They'd mostly signed up for the American culture. The case of the Japanese in a more race-conscious world was a little different, but the Isei, the first generation immigrants, were more likely to retain Japanese culture and Japanese loyalties. Internment may have been cruel in many cases, and an instrument to deprive hard-working people of their property in just as many, but it wasn't baseless. The Internet attacks on "Islam" since Thursday's tragedy lie firmly within this tradition of nativism, bigotry, and hysteria. The shooter was Muslim, and what else do you need to know? Apparently, not much. The realistic POV. Not quite. The shooter was a Muslim who followed one of the radical strains of Islam. Let's not waste limited time and resources looking at the ocean when we need to troll for the fish swimming in it. The writer displays his own ignorance of Islam. Apparently 'not much' means that he doesn't understand Sunnis, Shi'a, Wahabis, etc. This says more about him than about us. Lots of Shiite Medes and Persians have come to this country and assimilated quite well. The reason they're here is the religious nuts running their former country, and they've mostly bought into the prevailing culture here, which recognizes freedom of thought. The guys running over their daughters for becoming too westernized are, I believe, exclusively Sunni, which is not to say that no bad habits at all have been brought from the Olde Countrie by the Men of Shia. I think the Hezbollah fifth column is pretty small in this country, and its members are always subject to seduction by a culture that's not afraid of a beer on a hot day, a ham sandwich, or boobies on a pretty girl. So we're looking at a particular strain of Sunni Islam for the most part, not at all Islam. But irrationality and bad faith are hardly exclusive to the political right. The Fort Hood shootings have also triggered bouts of left-wing hysteria. I'll buy that for a dollar. An extreme variation takes the form of the old syllogism, "My enemy's enemy is my friend." You don't like the war in Iraq; neither did Hasan; ergo, he must be OK in your book. Never mind that Hasan gunned down more than three dozen innocents, or that he reportedly defended suicide bombers in Web postings. He's against all the right things, so you're for him. ... said Molotov to Ribbentrop... More commonly, left-wing posters have refused to acknowledge any tension between freedom and security -- or any threat to the United States from radical Islam. Hence the bizarre attacks on news organizations for noting Hasan's ethnic and religious background, as if any such information is irrelevant. The Legacy Media's POV. It isn't. There are people living here who want to commit acts of terror, and We tend to think of Texas as mesquite and cattle and Stetson hats and and oil and the occasional space center, but it's actually pretty cosmopolitan... In 1993, Kuwaiti immigrant Eyad Ismoil was living in Dallas when he was recruited to drive a bomb-laden van into a parking garage beneath the World Trade Center. Five years later, Lebanese-born Wadih el Hage -- Osama bin Laden's personal secretary -- was arrested in Tarrant County, Texas, for his involvement in the bombings of two US embassies in Africa. After 9/11, a federal jury convicted five members of a Texas-based Islamic charity of funneling money to terrorists. And just last month, authorities arrested a 19-year-old Jordanian immigrant, Hosam Smadi, for allegedly attempting to blow up a Dallas skyscraper. Texas is also the second largest state in the union, both geographically and in population, ranking behind Alaska in the former and Caliphornia in the latter. None of that means that Hassan was part of a terrorist conspiracy, of course, or that we should view every Islamic immigrant with suspicion. I view every Islamic immigrant wearing a brassiere cup on his head or who keeps his wife and/or daughters in a burka with suspicion. If you can tell at a glance they've rejected our culture then chances are better that they're the enemy. At few more will get tossed into that category when they open their mouths to denigrate the kufr culture around them. There are varying levels of suspicion, unless one's actually paranoid, so a personable fellow named Moe running a lunch counter doesn't make the needle twitch too badly. But it does mean that we have a serious security problem on our hands. And it's simply irrational to deny it. To deny what? Irrationality is the stock in trade of the left. If it's counter-intuitive they're for it, whether it's correct or not -- maybe more for it if it's not. Indeed, by wishing the problem away, we put off the discussion that we so urgently need. What should we do about potential Islamic terrorists in our midst? Kill the ones that're armed, deport the rest. How can we protect national security and individual liberty, all at the same time? Seems to me that terrorists place themselves there on purpose. The same way they hide behind women and kiddies. These are tough questions, as old as the republic itself. But we'll never get good answers unless we really talk about them. So far, it's not clear that we can. After all, we've only had since 9/11/2001 to think about it. Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history and education at New York University. He is the author, most recently, of "Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory." |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #6 TW: Not quite. The shooter was a Muslim who followed one of the radical strains of Islam. Let's not waste limited time and resources looking at the ocean when we need to troll for the fish swimming in it. I guess I should make it clear that I feel that the majority of muslims would not partake in this kind of behavior. That very same majority does seem to tolerate it way more than they should, however. I wish they would think about this and come to some kind of coherent position about this, meaning both in word and deed. If I hear someone is muslim, it doesn't mean much more to me than hearing someone is male or white or gay whatever. When I hear that a some kind of violence has been perpetrated by a muslim however, the first thing I find myself thinking that the following information is going to suggest some kind of jihadist act, and I'm What is the last time you heard of a muslim holding up a convenience store? |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-11-08 20:02 |
| #5 Not sure how to embed, but here http://www.lifeisajoke.com/pictures388_html.htm |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2009-11-08 14:45 |
| #4 --requires agreement on a few basic ground rules: civility, reason, and tolerance Civility? Reason? Tolerance? Dude has clearly not read the Koran. “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191 “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123 “When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5 “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Koran 3:85 “The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.” Koran 9:30 “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” Koran 5:33 “The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.” Koran 9:28 “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.” Koran 22:19 “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.” Koran 47:4 “The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” Koran 8:65 “Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” Koran 3:28 “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Koran 8:12 |
| Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007 2009-11-08 11:50 |
| #3 This is not a what the right and left got wrong issue. It's a typical misinformation and guesswork in the opening hours of a big story. That's unfortunately the world we live in when we get the news instantly. Don't like it, turn off the electronics and read the sanitized version in Newsweek. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-11-08 09:45 |
| #2 ...security and diversity, unity and freedom. ♪♫ One of these words is not like the others ♪♫ ♪♫ One of these words just doesn't belong ♪♫ |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2009-11-08 09:24 |
| #1 can we get the picture of someone with their head in their A$$ for this one? |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2009-11-08 08:16 |