No doubt Army Maj. Nadal M. Hasan rendered himself a public disgrace from the barrel of his gun—his shame spelled out with the blood of heroes on his trigger-fingers with 12 soldiers dead and 31 wounded. But Dr. Walid Phares of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies calls the Ft. Hood attacks, “the largest terrorist attack since 9/11.” As Dr. Phares tells it, “what the world has seen and is eager to learn about cannot be described just as a ‘horrific outburst of violence’ performed on the American military, rather it is part of an ideological war, generated by radicalization, and inciting individuals to perform such acts.”
In an ever-growing media narrative casting Hasan’s race, name, and faith as the reason for the Ft. Hood attacks, Dr. Phares panders to the wide misconception that terrorism is synonymous with Islam—an increasing sentiment demanding that the American Muslim community become an apologist for the actions of one.
Some in the Muslim community have complied. Already organizations like the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America have publicly condemned Hasan, and have urged the public to view him as an individual, and not a representative of the Islamic community—this in response to received hateful e-mails and phone calls, following the Ft. Hood attacks. No question their silence on this matter would be seen as an explicit endorsement of the attacks, inviting a backlash of hate from the public that would surely go beyond phone calls and e-mail.
But in a poignant response to this, Marine and Executive Director of the Muslim Veterans Council, Qaseem Uqdah is quoted by the Washington Post as saying, “as with Timothy McVeigh, the sniper, we focused on the person, not their religion. You wouldn’t take a Christian or a Jewish soldier who did something like this and look at other Christians and Jews and say, ‘Can we trust them?’ ”
That we as Americans did not have the urge to vicariously punish Timothy McVeigh through the projection of our hate toward Christian Americans and Christian organizations, speaks to the level of absurdity associated with holding an entire faith [Islam] hostage for the lone actions of one individual. The Nation’s John Nichols put it best when he said “it should be understood that to assume a follower of Islam who engages in violence is a jihadist is every bit as absurd as to assume that a follower of Christianity who attacks others is a crusader.”
But this hybrid tension of racial-religious bias has flown in the face of reason, penetrating the investigative apparatus of the Ft. Hood attacks. Many of Hasan’s colleagues have accused him of making statements in support of Muslim insurgents. Add that to the fact the FBI is reviewing internet postings speaking favorably of suicide bombing published by an individual calling himself “Nadal Hasan,” including reports that Maj. Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” before the shooting, and the notion of a Ft. Hood Jihad becomes ripe with plausibility.
But what constitutes terrorism in Ft. Hood, Texas is nothing more than an isolated incident of workplace violence in Orlando, Florida. As it unfolded, we all watched the aftermath of a shooting spree at the engineering firm of Reynolds, Smith and Hills carried out by Jason Samuel Rodriguez, a former employee of the firm who had been let go for performance issues more than two years ago. Latest reports have the death count at 1 with a total of 5 wounded.
An Orlando Jihad?
No word yet on Rodriguez’s faith. No statement from any faith-based organizations urging citizens to view him as a criminal individual, and not a representative of an entire religion. And as far as ScoopDaily can confirm, neither the Orlando Police nor the FBI is conducting any investigation into Rodriguez’s past to look for possibilities of a terrorist motive.
As far as law enforcement officials can conclude, Rodriguez buckled after dealing with the pressures of divorce, bankruptcy, mental-health treatment, unemployment, and soaring debt. But the last time we checked, the entire nation was dealing with these problems. Certainly Hasan’s personal problems didn’t past muster in explaining away the terroristic implications of his actions. Why the exemption for Rodriguez?
As it stands, both men murdered innocent victims in random shooting sprees, the main differences are that one shooter is of middle-eastern dissent and practices Islam, while the other is not of middle-eastern dissent and does not practice Islam. By all accounts, both shooters had performance issues on the job, and both carried out their acts of violence in their respective workplaces.
Despite all this, these two incidents symbolize two starkly different versions of the same reality—with Ft. Hood serving as the latest example of terrorism, and Orlando being nothing more than an easily dismissed instance of workplace violence.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Would you like to join in the discussion? Comments
When white Fundamentalist Christians with names like “Jones” and “Smith” start blowing themselves up in the name of Jesus in the same numbers that dark-skinned Muslims do in the name of Allah, I suspect we will start looking at the religious aspect of their actions.
For you to become righteously indignant at this is to put your head in the sand. The shooter in Orlanda was pissed at his former employer. The shooter in Ft. Hood was pissed at America. If you want to argue that the shootings were no different then I have to question your motive.
I understand that liberals don’t want to have to admit that, yes, a terrorist attack happened while President Obama was in office but stop politicizing the deaths of these folks. We shouldn’t blame President Obama any more than we should have blamed President Bush for 9/11. Both were unforgiveable terrorist acts and should be condemned as such.
November 11, 2009 at 11:11 amHave something to add?