Shooting at Fort Hood

[NorthSideSox72]

Gays don't have some holy Gayble that says to kill the straight man if he doesn't believe in gay marraige. I haven't seen a gay person yet start shooting into a crowd of straight people shouting "Gucci is great!". I don't see gay people starting riots because someone made a bad cartoon of Liza Minelli.

 

Kap, was it me, and was this it?

Neither do Muslims. The ones who do this sort of thing just use it as an excuse.

 

[lostfan]

If you look at most (actually, probably all) major terrorist figures you see that their appeal comes mostly from personality and they either have no religious education, or it's very flimsy and just for appearances. They usually tend to have degrees in things like engineering, mathematics, medicine etc. that has nothing to do with Islam, but they self-appoint themselves as spokesmen.

[mr_genius]

this is all Rush Limbaugh's fault!!!!!!!!!!!

[bmags]

saddened but not surprised to see a call for an end of all muslims.

 

Disgusted, as well.

 

I have some thoughts, but I don't know how to express them. I think this is a topic that needs some time to digest. And especially some time for details to be hashed out.

[lostfan]

Already the Drudge/Malkin/etc. freak show started politicizing it over the weekend and talking about how Obama was so insensitive to have not visited Fort Hood yet, nevermind the fact that he's going tomorrow morning, they are acting like he's ignoring it entirely. They're incredibly predictable.

[EvilMonkey]

Already the Drudge/Malkin/etc. freak show started politicizing it over the weekend and talking about how Obama was so insensitive to have not visited Fort Hood yet, nevermind the fact that he's going tomorrow morning, they are acting like he's ignoring it entirely. They're incredibly predictable.

Where did he go instead?

[juddling]

I guess this guy was on the radar of a couple of our agencies as he was trying to make contact with al Qaeda. But we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by bringing up the possibility of him being a terrorist.

 

Link

 

[BigSqwert]

Where did he go instead?

 

*shakes head*

[clyons]

I haven't seen a gay person yet start shooting into a crowd of straight people shouting "Gucci is great!".

 

Didn't Andrew Cunanan shout that right before he shot Versace?

[lostfan]

Where did he go instead?

??

 

He's going to Texas today to meet with the families and then do a memorial service. Unless you're saying the fact that he didn't immediately drop everything he was doing and fly out within an hour of finding it happened is somehow insulting?

[lostfan]

I guess this guy was on the radar of a couple of our agencies as he was trying to make contact with al Qaeda. But we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by bringing up the possibility of him being a terrorist.

 

Link

Marc Lynch explains this better than I can. The people who matter (who, by the way, aren't the president or senior government officials) know what to do, and it's going to be done. If he's a terrorist, and he probably is, then that route is going to be pursued. But you're not going to see the government get into counterproductive chest-thumping and cheap vote-whoring like we used to do back in 2002.

Since the Ft Hood atrocity, I've seen a meme going around that it somehow exposed a contradiction between "political correctness" and "security." The avoidance of Nidal Hassan's religion out of fear of offending anyone, goes the argument, created the conditions which allowed him to go undetected and unsanctioned in the months and years leading up to his rampage. American security, therefore, demands dropping the "political correctness" of avoiding a confrontation with Islamist ideas and asking the "tough questions" about Islam as a religion and the loyalty of Muslim-Americans.

 

This framing of the issue is almost 100% wrong. There is a connection between what these critics are calling "political correctness" and national security, but it runs in the opposite direction. The real linkage is that there is a strong security imperative to prevent the consolidation of a narrative in which America is engaged in a clash of civilizations with Islam, and instead to nurture a narrative in which al-Qaeda and its affiliates represent a marginal fringe to be jointly combatted. Fortunately, American leaders -- from the Obama administration through General George Casey and top counter-terrorism officials -- understand this and have been acting appropriately.

 

It's worth walking through the connection once again, because how America responds to Ft. Hood really is important in the wider attempt to change the nature of its engagement with Muslim publics across the world. Get the response right, as the administration thus far has done, and they show that things really have changed. Get it wrong, as its critics demand, and the world could tumble back down into the 'clash of civilizations' trap which al-Qaeda so dearly wants and which the improved American approach of the last couple of years has increasingly denied it.

 

The grand strategy of al-Qaeda and its affiliated ideologues is, and has always been, to generate a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West which does not currently exist. Their great challenge is that the vast majority of Muslims reject their theology, ideology, strategy and tactics. That's especially true of American Muslims. They therefore feel the need to change the environment in which Muslims live in order to change their calculations about the appropriateness of extremist identities and ideologies and actions.

 

Terrorism is a means towards that end. The object is to create a violent, polarized environment in which Muslims are forced to embrace a narrow, extreme version of Muslim identity. They want Muslims to accept a master narrative in which the Islamic umma is existentially threatened by Western aggression, and the only theologically and strategically appropriate individual response is to join the jihad in the path of god (as they have defined it).

 

They recognize that most Muslims won't embrace this radical conception of their identity just through messaging, internet rhetoric, or preaching. To make inroads with mainstream Muslim communities, they need to change the context in which they live -- to render their status quo unacceptable and to make their narrative resonate. And for that to happen, they need a lot of help -- for the targeted governments to take inflammatory measures against their Muslim populations, for the non-Muslim citizens in the targeted countries to discriminate against them, and for the media to fan the flames of hatred and mistrust.

 

Understanding this strategy points towards some fairly obvious guidelines for judging various responses. Al-Qaeda and its affiliated ideologues don't just want their targets to overreact with blanket crackdowns on the mainstream Muslim community -- they are counting on it. They want to create a homogenous, undifferentiated Islam on whose behalf they speak and a coherent master narrative which justifies and validates their actions. American reactions which feed AQ's master narrative, lump together disparate Muslim movements, and tar a wide range of Muslims with the AQ brush therefore serve al-Qaeda's strategy. Responses which disrupt AQ's narrative, disaggregate the Muslim world and relegate AQ to a marginal fringe frustrate its strategy.

 

A lot of people -- some well-meaning, some clowns or worse -- evidently want the American response to the Ft. Hood shootings to revive the post-9/11 "war of ideas" and "clash of civilizations" anti-Islamic discourse. It's a jihad, they shout, demanding careful scrutiny of the loyalty of American Muslims. That's what they seem to mean by the demand to throw away "political correctness" and confront the ideological menace. The overall effect of their recommendations, however, would be to revive the flagging al-Qaeda brand and to greatly strengthen the appeal of its narrative. And that's exactly what we should not want.

 

I don't think it's going to happen. President Obama and his national security team clearly rejects such strategic misconceptions. They understand the importance of combining effective police work and international cooperation with a carefully calibrated rhetoric and strategic communications campaign. Americans have learned a lot since 9/11. And if the careful police work and investigation uncovers real ties to al-Qaeda, then I expect they will pursue those leads and carry out the appropriate response quietly and efficiently --- but without inflaming public hostilities, scoring cheap political points, or fueling the al-Qaeda narrative.

[kapkomet]

AP Headline this morning:

 

Obama is pressed into role as national healer.

 

This is what I mean. STFU, media. Yes, I'm glad he's going and he should go. But now he's our "national healer"? This is why the politics of all this gets sick. It's not what he does, it's how it's spun.

 

 

[Texsox]

??

 

He's going to Texas today to meet with the families and then do a memorial service. Unless you're saying the fact that he didn't immediately drop everything he was doing and fly out within an hour of finding it happened is somehow insulting?

 

In today's political climate, if he left immediately, he would have been accused of using this tragedy to promote himself. And it is tough to really complain, Bush went through it and of course Clinton's second term was all about him "wagging the dog". What we need to bring the nation together is a major event. It will not be something good, because there will be fights over credit, etc. It will be some huge national threat so that we put aside petty political b.s.

 

The last time we were together as a nation was 9-11. For about 3 days, then we started playing the blame game and it hasn't stopped.

[Texsox]

AP Headline this morning:

 

Obama is pressed into role as national healer.

 

This is what I mean. STFU, media. Yes, I'm glad he's going and he should go. But now he's our "national healer"? This is why the politics of all this gets sick. It's not what he does, it's how it's spun.

 

Do you mean like Bush the Decider standing on a mound of rubble with a bull horn? Then I say yes! How it is spun is very important. Reagan's greatest legacy was as cheerleader. A bigger than life cowboy riding in to save the day after a decade of impotent b.s. When we feel strong as a nation good s*** happens.

[kapkomet]

Do you mean like Bush the Decider standing on a mound of rubble with a bull horn? Then I say yes! How it is spun is very important. Reagan's greatest legacy was as cheerleader. A bigger than life cowboy riding in to save the day after a decade of impotent b.s. When we feel strong as a nation good s*** happens.

You know what made that moment for GWB special? It wasn't political, it wasn't crafted, it wasn't spun. It just was. And I can't hardly EVER remember a time that something like that wasn't a political spin of some sort.

 

As for Obama, it's his duty to be there today, and I'm glad he's there. I just don't like the automatic spinning/yarning taking place before he even gets there by the media (no matter the political slant - Faux, or the other side). NOT Obama himself or his administration. He's done nothing wrong here...

[EvilMonkey]

In today's political climate, if he left immediately, he would have been accused of using this tragedy to promote himself. And it is tough to really complain, Bush went through it and of course Clinton's second term was all about him "wagging the dog". What we need to bring the nation together is a major event. It will not be something good, because there will be fights over credit, etc. It will be some huge national threat so that we put aside petty political b.s.

 

The last time we were together as a nation was 9-11. For about 3 days, then we started playing the blame game and it hasn't stopped.

If he left immediately, took about 1000 reporters with him and made the speech all about how this was a tragic occasion and somehow relates it all back to him being the first african-american president and turned everythign into a photo-op, then yes, you are correct. If he would have went and told the photogs to just stay away, not so much. Did I hear right that instead of going there, he went to Camp David for a few days instead? Just asking.

[BigSqwert]

If he left immediately, took about 1000 reporters with him and made the speech all about how this was a tragic occasion and somehow relates it all back to him being the first african-american president and turned everythign into a photo-op, then yes, you are correct. If he would have went and told the photogs to just stay away, not so much. Did I hear right that instead of going there, he went to Camp David for a few days instead? Just asking.

Somehow I have the feeling that no matter how he handled this you would have found a reason to criticize.

[Soxy]

If he left immediately, took about 1000 reporters with him and made the speech all about how this was a tragic occasion and somehow relates it all back to him being the first african-american president and turned everythign into a photo-op, then yes, you are correct. If he would have went and told the photogs to just stay away, not so much. Did I hear right that instead of going there, he went to Camp David for a few days instead? Just asking.

Yes, because the photogs do such a great job of staying away when politely asked.

[EvilMonkey]

Yes, because the photogs do such a great job of staying away when politely asked.

There is a difference between photogs being there, and him having his entourage around to photograph the historic moment of the first african american president doing . Bush met with families of dead soldiers when the bodies came back to America without photographers capturing every moment of it, why can't Obama?

[BigSqwert]

There is a difference between photogs being there, and him having his entourage around to photograph the historic moment of the first african american president doing . Bush met with families of dead soldiers when the bodies came back to America without photographers capturing every moment of it, why can't Obama?

Maybe because Bush implemented a media ban on dead soldiers.

[EvilMonkey]

Somehow I have the feeling that no matter how he handled this you would have found a reason to criticize.

Possibly. But he needs to be there regardless of which party he is in, so more likely as long as he wasn't whoring out the situation for his perpetual campaign machine, I would have just kept quiet and not said a thing. There ARE posts here about Obama or about his policies/actions that I don't respond to. And I know I even complimented him on one post because I got a few messages afterwards asking me if I felt ok, I just can't remember what it was.

[Soxy]

There is a difference between photogs being there, and him having his entourage around to photograph the historic moment of the first african american president doing . Bush met with families of dead soldiers when the bodies came back to America without photographers capturing every moment of it, why can't Obama?

I imagine that it is easier to meet with dead soldiers families when those soldiers weren't killed in such a tragic non-combat zone sense. This shooting is a media circus--adding a president (regardless of race) to that mix would only seem exploitative.

[EvilMonkey]

I imagine that it is easier to meet with dead soldiers families when those soldiers weren't killed in such a tragic non-combat zone sense. This shooting is a media circus--adding a president (regardless of race) to that mix would only seem exploitative.

it IS an Army base, they do have gates and guards, would be easy to keep the press away, if they wanted to. Sure, they would be camped outside the gates, but that doesn't mean he needs to go hunting for the cameras. A quick visit could have and should have been arranged, without a gaggle of media along.

[Soxy]

it IS an Army base, they do have gates and guards, would be easy to keep the press away, if they wanted to. Sure, they would be camped outside the gates, but that doesn't mean he needs to go hunting for the cameras. A quick visit could have and should have been arranged, without a gaggle of media along.

And if he would have gone earlier you would have berated him for abandoning his duty in an effort to be photographed as the first "african-american" (who knows why you're so obsessed with that term). You would have said it was a cheap publicity stunt.

 

We need to make sure you are never in the same room as AHB. You are like the exact same person but in reverse. The world would explode: matter meets anti-matter.

[lostfan]

it IS an Army base, they do have gates and guards, would be easy to keep the press away, if they wanted to. Sure, they would be camped outside the gates, but that doesn't mean he needs to go hunting for the cameras. A quick visit could have and should have been arranged, without a gaggle of media along.

That would be historically unprecedented too. The US president is a public figure, cameras come with the territory.