This was an interesting and provocative article from the WSJ, arguing that the Fort Hood killer's terrorist motive is obvious to everyone by the press and the army brass. It definitely made me think, although I'm not sure where I fall on things yet.
It bothers me that the press has been framing the Fort Hood murder as an army major disturbed about the horrors of warfare and afraid to be deployed soon. In that sense, I agree that the "victimisation" of the alleged murderer has gone too far. At some point, you have to put your foot down and make an argument that this guy is just a hateful sonuvabitch.
But it also bothers me that certain press always makes a point to put in the Major's full, foreign-sounding name. (Sort of like how certain press sources will use Barack Hussein Obama's full name. Not a factual issue, of course. Such is his name. But it's a connotational issue. What are they trying to get at when they print the person's full name?) It bothers me that the fact that he allegedly shouted "Allahu akbar" before he opened fire is repeatedly emphasized. Even if that is true, it bothers me. The phrase Islamic terrorist bothers me. Throwing around the jihad word bothers me too. It strikes me as a crude show-off demonstration (i.e., "Oh look, I know a foreign word.") of an overly used word (like "hero," overuse of which has diluted its core meaning).
Maybe I've been brainwashed by the NY Times and by my own left of center leanings. Maybe it IS absolutely relevant if he is a Muslim. And maybe there's no mental illness that can explain this kind of rampage. I don't know. For me, the religion creeping in there bothers me. But so does the excuse-making. Seems to me that people who go around mass-shooting people are just serious jackesses . . . no labels needed, religious or otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment