Let Us Prey
WorldNetDaily must be reading our mind:
The second they heard about the Fort Hood massacre, millions of thinking Americans wondered in their gut: “Oh God, is this another crazy Muslim terrorist carrying out a one-man jihad, as has happened so many times before?”
Actually, our early wondering was whether the Adkisson Brigades had been activated for Guy Fawkes Day. Then, as “multiple shooters” were mentioned, we considered Seven Days in May. Our actual gut reaction when we heard the shooter’s name was “Oh fuck.” Followed minutes later by “envisioning tonight’s very ugly WND headline.”
As in: “Oh God, is this shooting going to result in another crazy anti-Muslim jihad, as has happened so many times before?”
The rush to exploit a tragedy for political point-scoring and book sales is something we’ve already noted, and will continue to note as particularly egregious examples come to our attention. (They’re all egregious on the face of it, but we must be selective.) But the question we posed Saturday morning — Did Hasan act alone? — remains top of mind.
So: What do we know Tuesday morning that we didn’t know three days ago?
Answer: Nothing conclusive.
We’re learning more about Anwar al-Aulaqi, an imam at the San Diego mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers, and later an imam at the Virginia mosque where Hasan worshipped. Aulaqi applauded Thursday’s shootings in a blog post Monday. But Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen who was strongly suspected in the 9/11 plot but never charged, left the country seven years ago and now lives in Yemen. A spokesman for the Virginia mosque called his statement “really disgraceful.” And even Pete Hoekstra says that Aulaqi’s two known responses to Hasan “were maybe pretty innocent.”
The difficulty with assessing the information that’s come to light is that Hasan was a devout Muslim and a psychiatrist in training. So much of what we’ve seen could have been the work of a man attempting to profile jihadists instead of seeking to join them — which was apparently the conclusion of authorities who looked into reports at the time.
And in this case, investigators are telling the AP that “they have no evidence that Hasan had help or outside orders in the shootings.”
It’s possible, based on the known facts to date, that we’re looking at a politically motivated lone wolf. It’s just as possible, looking at the same facts, that Hasan is a lone wolf who cracked for some other reason. We don’t really know. And anybody who claims otherwise, now as Thursday afternoon, is just exploiting the blood of dead soldiers for their own ends. Including grandstanding senators from Connecticut.
Investigators: Fort Hood suspect acted alone [AP]
Hasan e-mails to cleric didn’t warrant inquiry [WaPo]
What’s behind America’s politically correct ‘love’ of Islam? [WND]
Share via: 
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Twitter
TJ/ Jamie Sommers /TJ
karen marie
redmanlaw
Promnight
JNOV
FlyingChainSaw
Loading ...
7:50 am • Tuesday • November 10, 2009
I’m a little confused about all the wrangling over whether or not this was an act of “terrorism.” Seems to me that based on what we know this was a series of politically motivated killings, no different in substance, really, from any number of attacks on abortion clinics. To that extent, of course it is an act of “terrorism.”
What it doesn’t appear to be is an act perpetrated by an organized group with a fairly well defined command structure.