The predictable divide between those that view what happened at Fort Hood as mass murder and those who quickly look for a point of justification is on display to all who care to pay attention.
Evidence of Maj. Hasan’s Jihadist ties and beliefs grow, so, in turn, does the energy aimed at casting the argument in some context other than the perception of premeditated terrorism.
There are fundamental, irreconcilable and consistent differences in perception at play. Those who see evil in the world and in this situation are opposed by those who cannot breach their belief that there is no true or pure evil. There is only understanding and justifications based on some manner of perceived, correctable injustice.
This difference in perception creates a dangerous quandary. If we cannot agree on the underlying facts how do we address the problem?
Was Maj. Hasan picked on as the motivation for his actions? Much of the currently available information tends to indicate that outside the possibility of an incident or two he was treated as part of a protected class; protected by a culture of political correctness that remains ignorant to consequences.
If the real problem, as General Casey opined, is the possibility of a backlash against Muslim soldiers than the prescription must be yet more political correctness, more sensitivity to Islam and more protection of Muslims in the military and by extension throughout the intelligence and bureaucratic communities.
If, however, the problem is a Jihadist, Salafist mentality and a commitment to radical interpretations, the recognition of the problem becomes significant and demanding. The most critical demand being that the problem is addressed absent artificial “correctness”. The addressment must be based, not on what we would like to be the case, but on what is actually the case. If mass murder in the interest of and motivated by radical perceptions and beliefs is excused we insure more of the same. We insure and participate in a tacit agreement with the radical justifications for such a horror.
The question to those who embrace the idea of victim based justification is simple; how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to the unreality of blanket victimology and political correctness? At what level of body count do we accept, as fact, what Islamists have unapologetically told us they intend for us? Are those selfsame Islamists who are clear in defining their intentions and tactics to continue their status as a protected class?
The issue is not a peaceful interpretation Islam, it never has been. The issue is the radical interpretation of Islam. The issue is that evidence of a pervasive presence in government institutions of those who embrace radical interpretations represents many points of jeopardy. Maj. Hasan is just one of them and not the first!