I continue to be puzzled/annoyed by the reluctance to call the Fort Hood shootings a terrorist act. If we're going to label Scott Roeder--a man with a history of mental illness and extreme religious and political views who allegedly killed George Tiller--an anti-abortion terrorist, then I don't see the problem in calling Nidal Hassan a terrorist, since there's plenty of evidence* that his actions were motivated, in part, by his religious and political views. The fact that he also appears to have been under severe psychological duress doesn't make him any less of a terrorist than Roeder.
That said, there's the larger question of what political lessons to draw from Hassan and the Fort Hood shootings, and I think Megan McArdle is spot-on when she writes:
[I]t wasn't new information that there are Muslims in the world who object to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would like to kill a bunch of Americans. It was always possible that one of them, somewhere, was going to find their way to somewhere where they could do damage. I can think of half a dozen easy ways to kill a significant number of people without getting caught, if I wanted to. So could most of you. The terrorist's job is made harder by wanting a certain sort of spectacular crime, not merely a death toll. But not much harder.
As of last week, what information did we have that would lead to any useful political response? Were we going to start kicking Muslims out of the government and the armed forces? That's unconstitutional, would brutally wrong the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community that is not involved in terrorism, and would deprive us of a valuable source of translators and other advisers to our military and intelligence efforts. We know that some number of Muslims living in this country hate our government and want to act against it. We also know (by the rarity of attacks, if nothing else) that this number is small, and any loose networks are poorly organized and largely ineffective. Given this, there's not very much you can do with this information, other than what we're already doing, which is have the FBI try to track down terrorist plots. Something that they seem to be doing very well when the attacker is not a lone gunman with no need for a support team. This particular attack would have been very hard to stop for anyone, without doing terrible, terrible things to our Muslim citizens.
Of course, this is why I think it's important not to shy away from using the t-word when discussing the Hassan shootings: so that people of good will can then move on to make McArdle's point, which can't be said enough, since there's no dearth of people loudly making the arguments McArdle is taking head-on.
*-- When I say "evidence," I'm talking about the reports of relatives and colleagues of Hassan who describe him as upset by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and increasingly radical in his religious beliefs. I'm not talking about this Brian Ross report for ABC News that Hassan had tried to reach out and touch Al Qaeda. Given Ross's sorry track record on some of this stuff, I'll wait for another reporter to confirm it before I believe it.
Related Links:
"Ford Hood and Terrorism (Continued)", by John B. Judis
"A Bit More on Fort Hood and Terrorism", by Jason Zengerle
"A Bit of a Bit More on Fort Hood", by John B. Judis
Print
COMMENTS (7)
I was hoping your first link would explain the connection between calling the Ft Hood shooting a terrorist act and finding meaning in it, but it just linked to your earlier piece which had the same problem. I guess I don't understand what you mean by "meaning" because it seems to me that McArdle is making the same point as Fallows- that it'd be a mistake to draw any larger meaning from this. Yes, you could say the shootings mean that Muslims want to attack America, just like you could say that the OK City bombing meant that Americans were prepared to violently rebel against the government, but you'd be 99% wrong.
I was hoping your first link would explain the connection between calling the Ft Hood shooting a terrorist act and finding meaning in it, but it just linked to your earlier piece which had the same problem. I guess I don't understand what you mean by "meaning" because it seems to me that McArdle is making the same point as Fallows- that it'd be a mistake to draw any larger meaning from this. Yes, you could say the shootings mean that Muslims want to attack America, just like you could say that the OK City bombing meant that Americans were prepared to violently rebel against the government, but you'd be 99% wrong.
"I continue to be puzzled/annoyed by the reluctance to call the Fort Hood shootings a terrorist act. If we're going to label Scott Roeder--a man with a history of mental illness and extreme religious and political views who allegedly killed George Tiller--an anti-abortion terrorist, then I don't see the problem in calling Nidal Hassan a terrorist, since there's plenty of evidence* that his actions were motivated, in part, by his religious and political views. The fact that he also appears to have been under severe psychological duress doesn't make him any less of a terrorist than Roeder."
Yes, my point exaclty.
However, when you refuse to call it a terrorist act because it might adversely af ... view full comment
"I continue to be puzzled/annoyed by the reluctance to call the Fort Hood shootings a terrorist act. If we're going to label Scott Roeder--a man with a history of mental illness and extreme religious and political views who allegedly killed George Tiller--an anti-abortion terrorist, then I don't see the problem in calling Nidal Hassan a terrorist, since there's plenty of evidence* that his actions were motivated, in part, by his religious and political views. The fact that he also appears to have been under severe psychological duress doesn't make him any less of a terrorist than Roeder."
Yes, my point exaclty.
However, when you refuse to call it a terrorist act because it might adversely affect the Mulsim community here you in fact not helping that community at all. You are treating them as a protected minority which is to say as a passive people who can't speak up for themselves.
We need to go with the truth and not pretend that a terrorist act didn’t happen. It did.
It’s up to the Muslim community to respond to what happened. If they are against it, as some I read said they were, they need to speak out and condemn Major Nidal or any one would be terrorist within their midst. Such condemnations will do more to reassure they rest of us than the pretense that Nidal didn’t commit a terrorist act.
Let's get real.
But jackson, we do not know that a terrorist act happened. What we know is: 1. A guy shot up his workplace; and 2. The shooter was a Muslim.
The very next day, another guy shot up his (former) workplace elsewhere in the country. He was not a Muslim. To date, no one is harshing anyone's buzz for failing to call Shooter Number Two a terrorist.
There are only two ways to conclude from evidence at hand that the Fort Hood shooting must have been an act of terrorism: 1. Stretch the definition of "terrorism" such that any act of generalized violence is counted as terrorism, in which case all mass murderers are equally involved in terrorism, and the word has lost all useful meaning; or 2. Admit that b ... view full comment
But jackson, we do not know that a terrorist act happened. What we know is: 1. A guy shot up his workplace; and 2. The shooter was a Muslim.
The very next day, another guy shot up his (former) workplace elsewhere in the country. He was not a Muslim. To date, no one is harshing anyone's buzz for failing to call Shooter Number Two a terrorist.
There are only two ways to conclude from evidence at hand that the Fort Hood shooting must have been an act of terrorism: 1. Stretch the definition of "terrorism" such that any act of generalized violence is counted as terrorism, in which case all mass murderers are equally involved in terrorism, and the word has lost all useful meaning; or 2. Admit that by "terrorism" we simply mean, "any violent act committed by a Muslim," which, while honest for a significant percentage of those on the call-Fort-Hood-terrorism bandwagon, is naked bigotry of the ugliest sort.
Give this thing time. If the shooter really did intend his crime as a terrorist act, I give the government something approaching 100 percent odds that they will be able to prove it, and soon, what with the perpetrator up and talking. But more fundamentally, terrorism is not just violence. It is violence conducted to achieve a political objective. It is violence as communication. In other words, if the public isn't immediately certain that an act is terror, then it is by definition a failure. Since the Fort Hood shooting was essentially indistinguishable from any other workplace or schoolyard mass shooting, such as the one that took place the very next day, then even if it is terrorism, it's failed terrorism.
"The very next day, another guy shot up his (former) workplace elsewhere in the country. He was not a Muslim. To date, no one is harshing anyone's buzz for failing to call Shooter Number Two a terrorist."
Context is all, rhubarb.
"The very next day, another guy shot up his (former) workplace elsewhere in the country. He was not a Muslim. To date, no one is harshing anyone's buzz for failing to call Shooter Number Two a terrorist."
Context is all, rhubarb.
"I continue to be puzzled/annoyed by the reluctance to call the Fort Hood shootings a terrorist act."
gw:
I know how you feel. I react the same way to the terrorist act committed by the IDF in slaughtering hundreds of children in Gaza.
It's always frustrating, of course, when we feel certain about something that others vehemently deny. Worse, there is no way to resolve it.
Whatcha gonna do, right?
george
"I continue to be puzzled/annoyed by the reluctance to call the Fort Hood shootings a terrorist act."
gw:
I know how you feel. I react the same way to the terrorist act committed by the IDF in slaughtering hundreds of children in Gaza.
It's always frustrating, of course, when we feel certain about something that others vehemently deny. Worse, there is no way to resolve it.
Whatcha gonna do, right?
george
If he allies himself with an international terrorist cause, which is what it looks like, so that one has to make things up to make it look otherwise, then it is a terrorist act. Otherwise, start calling a pear "a pear shaped fruit" (it might simply look like a pear, that's always possible).
Jeffrey Goldberg has a nice piece in his blog at Atlantic:
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/what_is_the_less... or view full comment
If he allies himself with an international terrorist cause, which is what it looks like, so that one has to make things up to make it look otherwise, then it is a terrorist act. Otherwise, start calling a pear "a pear shaped fruit" (it might simply look like a pear, that's always possible).
Jeffrey Goldberg has a nice piece in his blog at Atlantic:
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/what_is_the_less... or http://snipurl.com/t69ez .
Some dark musings:
Not only does Fort Hood have a meaning, but even the murderer's first name, "Nidal", has a meaning. It means "struggle" in Arabic, and is a key term for Palestinians, that often stands for THE (Palestinian national) struggle. Thus, the famous terrorist "Abu Nidal", was "Father of the Struggle". Sometimes, identity turns into destiny. Who knows what to make of the name in this case, but parents' hopes and concerns are sometimes expressed in the name, and undercurrents from the same source sometimes catch. Ask a good family therapist.
Some dark musings:
Not only does Fort Hood have a meaning, but even the murderer's first name, "Nidal", has a meaning. It means "struggle" in Arabic, and is a key term for Palestinians, that often stands for THE (Palestinian national) struggle. Thus, the famous terrorist "Abu Nidal", was "Father of the Struggle". Sometimes, identity turns into destiny. Who knows what to make of the name in this case, but parents' hopes and concerns are sometimes expressed in the name, and undercurrents from the same source sometimes catch. Ask a good family therapist.