11 November 2009
John Muhammad and the Fort Hood Killer
Was the reason for the Fort Hood Killer’s crack-up any different from that of John A. Muhammad, the Beltway Sniper? The Commonwealth of Virginia executed the latter without concern about his presumably Muslim background. His shooting spree was no less terrorizing than Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s. They both deserve severe punishment for their brutal crimes.
And yet, Dorothy Rabinowitz, in her November 10, 2009, Wall Street Journal Op-Ed article, “Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer,” implies that Maj. Hasan committed a conspicuously dangerous brand of terrorism because it was clearly motivated by “virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments.” It rightfully outraged patriotic supporters of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was no less inhumane than the sniper terrorism that took place around Washington D.C. eight years ago. Both acts were perpetrated by persons who had lost their sense of social equanimity, if ever they had it, owing to equally mysterious causes.
It is important to understand, however, that as our society becomes more technologically advanced, it is becoming more vulnerable to extreme violence. As we shrink the information intervals between us, our security becomes more fragile. Those with murderous intentions can more easily employ weapons and take opportunities to threaten the safety of innocents. We cannot simply identify this threat with a religion or ideology; the very structure of society must be shored up to withstand the many menaces that technology enables.
Was the reason for the Fort Hood Killer’s crack-up any different from that of John A. Muhammad, the Beltway Sniper? The Commonwealth of Virginia executed the latter without concern about his presumably Muslim background. His shooting spree was no less terrorizing than Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s. They both deserve severe punishment for their brutal crimes.
And yet, Dorothy Rabinowitz, in her November 10, 2009, Wall Street Journal Op-Ed article, “Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer,” implies that Maj. Hasan committed a conspicuously dangerous brand of terrorism because it was clearly motivated by “virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments.” It rightfully outraged patriotic supporters of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was no less inhumane than the sniper terrorism that took place around Washington D.C. eight years ago. Both acts were perpetrated by persons who had lost their sense of social equanimity, if ever they had it, owing to equally mysterious causes.
It is important to understand, however, that as our society becomes more technologically advanced, it is becoming more vulnerable to extreme violence. As we shrink the information intervals between us, our security becomes more fragile. Those with murderous intentions can more easily employ weapons and take opportunities to threaten the safety of innocents. We cannot simply identify this threat with a religion or ideology; the very structure of society must be shored up to withstand the many menaces that technology enables.
Comments:
Post a Comment
