Isn't it fairly clear that the term "terrorism" is being applied to what Hasan did due to his religion rather than the acts themselves? Put another way, as ThinkProgress' Matt Duss put it: "the definition of terrorism is not 'any violence by any Muslim anywhere at any time for any reason'." But that -- along with the repellent claim from those who self-lovingly label themselves "brave" that saying "Allahu Akbar" is "suggestive of terrorism," rather than suggestive of someone who is Muslim -- is exactly what seems to be driving discussions of this attack. It's likely that there will always be a lack of clarity about exactly what motivated Hasan, but the only way to define it as an act of "terrorism" is to indict ourselves in the same way.
We see this all the time in the media, when reporters say, "Some have suggested," or they coyly pose a question while what they're really do is highly suggestive. Was the Fort Hood shooting a an act of terror? Is all violence terror? Assuming the approved definition of terrorism, why are we above blame? How about our drone attacks? It is not as precise and foolproof as the government explains while pumping more and more money into the production of more.
It's beyond arrogant. To put it another way, if you knew a person like America, you'd probably be scared shitless of him or her. We've anointed ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment