Ambush at Fort Hood
Published in Cyberpresse
(Canada) on 11 November 2009
by Mario Roy (link to original)
As has become common since 2001, the media has redoubled its zeal by warning the public to be cautious. This time, it is following the massacre at Fort Hood, six days ago. The dismal ambush killed thirteen people and wounded forty others, mostly brothers and sisters in the battalion of the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hassan. He is a military psychiatrist of Palestinian origin, and a Muslim. But neither his motives are clear, nor certain episodes of his life. And this uncertainty is frightening.
“We do not have all the answers, but we know this: the carnage has nothing to do with other Muslims serving in the army. If we act as if Islam was the problem, you can be sure that Islam will become the problem,” warned the Los Angeles Times, reflecting the prevailing opinion.
Yesterday, President Barack Obama spoke with caution at the ceremony in honor of the victims. “It is difficult to understand the twisted logic that led to this tragedy, but what we know is that no religion justifies such murderous and cowardly acts,” he said. What the president of the United States probably knows for sure, is that the event is a disaster for the military, and especially those Muslims that serve.
Out of a total of 1.4 million soldiers, the number of Muslim soldiers would officially be 3,500, but there are perhaps 10,000 or 20,000. It is not known exactly, in fact, because military personnel do not have to disclose their religious affiliations. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has made no secret it would welcome a much larger number of Muslims, useful both for domestic propaganda and in war zones.
However, the killing at Fort Hood has wrecked everything. First, it reminds us of other incidents involving Muslim soldiers, including one in 2003 that caused two deaths and 14 wounded in Kuwait.
Then, regardless of the goodwill of individuals, it will instill a climate of suspicion in a very particular environment; one where, needless to say, everyone is armed and where mutual trust is essential.
Finally, we could not invent a worse advertisement for a recruitment campaign for the American Muslim population(...)
It is therefore important to know. To determine the shooter's motives, certainly, but also what the staff knew about him before the tragedy. Whether the information was negative, or even disturbing (some suspect), and, if so, why nothing had been done before 13 people died.
“We do not have all the answers, but we know this: the carnage has nothing to do with other Muslims serving in the army. If we act as if Islam was the problem, you can be sure that Islam will become the problem,” warned the Los Angeles Times, reflecting the prevailing opinion.
Yesterday, President Barack Obama spoke with caution at the ceremony in honor of the victims. “It is difficult to understand the twisted logic that led to this tragedy, but what we know is that no religion justifies such murderous and cowardly acts,” he said. What the president of the United States probably knows for sure, is that the event is a disaster for the military, and especially those Muslims that serve.
Out of a total of 1.4 million soldiers, the number of Muslim soldiers would officially be 3,500, but there are perhaps 10,000 or 20,000. It is not known exactly, in fact, because military personnel do not have to disclose their religious affiliations. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has made no secret it would welcome a much larger number of Muslims, useful both for domestic propaganda and in war zones.
However, the killing at Fort Hood has wrecked everything. First, it reminds us of other incidents involving Muslim soldiers, including one in 2003 that caused two deaths and 14 wounded in Kuwait.
Then, regardless of the goodwill of individuals, it will instill a climate of suspicion in a very particular environment; one where, needless to say, everyone is armed and where mutual trust is essential.
Finally, we could not invent a worse advertisement for a recruitment campaign for the American Muslim population(...)
It is therefore important to know. To determine the shooter's motives, certainly, but also what the staff knew about him before the tragedy. Whether the information was negative, or even disturbing (some suspect), and, if so, why nothing had been done before 13 people died.