Fox's mass leap to label Ft. Hood shootings 'terrorism' is classic ethnic/religious hysteria
Obwon
Fox's mass leap to label Ft. Hood shootings 'terrorism' is
classic ethnic/religious hysteria
Posted: 13 Nov 2009 03:00 PM PST
Download WMV
http://crooksandliars.com/medialoader/10743/9c8a1/wmv/Hannity-Malkin_11-11-09.wmv
Download Quicktime
http://crooksandliars.com/medialoader/10743/9c8a1/mov/Hannity-Malkin_11-11-09.mov
The meme had been brewing for a few days among some of the
Fox News guests -- particularly Michelle Malkin -- brought
on to talk about the Fort Hood shootings, but it was Bill
Sammon, during the broadcast of the memorial for the slain
soldiers, who apparently made it official at Fox:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/foxs-bill-sammon-pushes-rights-favor
The Fort Hood shootings were a terrorist attack --
comparable to 9/11 and Oklahoma City -- by a radical
Islamist engaged in Muslim "jihad."
Now, it's not only the conventional wisdom at Fox News, it's
one of their major attack points -- they're claiming that
because President Obama and the rest of the media aren't
adopting their presumptuous and hysterical meme, they're
being "soft" on terrorism.
The meme gained momentum when Glenn picked up Sammon's ball
and ran with it the next day, declaring:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911110041
"If you don't call [Hasan] a terrorist, it clears a path for
... an extremist terrorist plan." That night, Sean Hannity
explored the question at length with Michelle Malkin, as you
can see from the video atop this post.
For Malkin and Hannity, "political correctness" -- which
they blame for the military's failure to stop Hasan -- is
actually code for "the refusal to engage in ethnic and
religious profiling". Because such profiling, it's clear, is
what they think the military (and the government generally)
should do to prevent future such shootings.
The worst offender, though, has been Bill O'Reilly, who --
as you can see below -- not only harangued Sally Quinn for
her reluctance to declare Nidal Hasan a "terrorist," but
then devoted his leadoff Talking Points Memo segment last
night to chastising the president and the rest of the media
for their reluctance to embrace the meme.
Download WMV
http://crooksandliars.com/medialoader/10739/9c8a1/wmv/OReilly-Terrorism_11-12-09.wmv
Download Quicktime
http://crooksandliars.com/medialoader/10739/9c8a1/mov/OReilly-Terrorism_11-12-09.mov
This exchange with Quinn was especially revealing:
O'Reilly: But you have a hard time saying the words
"Muslim terrorist," and so does Obama. He has a hard time
saying it. I don't know why you guys aren't saying it. You
know, why, why?
Quinn: Well, I think, first of all, there are different
kinds of terrorists. As I said, Timothy McVeigh --
O'Reilly: He's a Muslim terrorist! What do you mean,
different kinds of terrorist? He killed people under the
banner of jihad! That's who he is! What do you -- look, what
do you want, him to come to your house with a strap-on bomb?
The guy did it for jihadist reasons! "Allah Akbar!" That's
the slogan! He mails Al Qaeda! Miss Quinn, you're a
brilliant woman, and I'm not saying that facetiously. You
are. A third-grader gets this, and you're resisting it! I
wanna know why!
Quinn: Bill, you're making a very good case. I mean,
he's Muslim, and he may well end up being a terrorist. We
don't know for sure --
O'Reilly: I know for sure! Ninety percent of the people
watching me know for sure! I don't know why you don't know
for sure! What else do you need?
Quinn: I mean, you can call the guy who blew up -- you
know, who shot up the Holocaust Museum a terrorist --
O'Reilly: Did he yell "Allah Akbar?" If he yelled "Allah
Akbar," and he e-mailed Al Qaeda in Yemen, I'd call him
that, Miss Quinn!
Quinn: OK, he's a Muslim terrorist.
O'Reilly: Thank you.
O'Reilly seems to have a peculiar idea of what constitutes
"terrorism." His definition of the word seems to be "any act
of violence by devout Muslims", or something along those
lines.
That, of course, is quite a distance from the the legal
definition of terrorism (from U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38,
Para. 2656f(d)):
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm
(2) the term �terrorism� means premeditated, politically
motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets
by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
This term, in fact, perfectly describes Holocaust Museum
shooter James Von Brunn,
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/what-motivated-89-year-old-shoot-hol
who was, beyond any serious doubt, a classic right-wing
"lone wolf" terrorist.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/von-brunn-lone-wolf-killers-act-alon
It is in fact still not clear, however, whether the
description fits Nidal Hasan's motives in shooting 13 people
to death. It is true that all kinds of evidence is emerging
showing that Hasan was increasingly becoming politically
radicalized.
What that evidence doesn't establish, though, is that he
engaged in this horrendous act on behalf of those radical
beliefs, or whether those beliefs simply formed part of the
context in which he acted. There certainly haven't been any
organizational ties established. We probably won't have any
idea until Hasan himself starts talking, or at least his
attorneys begin preparing his defense.
It's important to remember what mass-murder profiler Pat
Brown told Fox's Brian Kilmeade:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/right-wingers-have-been-looking-fres
It's fitting, of course, that Malkin -- who penned an entire
book defending this internment of an entire ethnic group
based on hysterical fears, largely in pursuit of her thesis
that racial, ethnic and religious profiling is perfectly
justifiable in the post-9/11 world.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/08/michelle-malkins-revisionism.html
Malkin has never dropped this theme, embarking at one time
on an attempt at organizing vigilante "watchers" to keep an
eye on the evil Muslims in our midst.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/04/populism-malkin-style.html
Of course, as I and many others explained at the time, all
that the Japanese internment episode really demonstrated was
the utter futility and waste -- not to mention the gross
insult to the Constitution -- that such profiling actually
represents:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/08/racism-and-relocation-centers.html
Would racial profiling of Muslims and Arabs really gain
us anything, security-wise, in the long run? And would any
of it be worth the price?
Michelle Malkin would have us think it would. Her case,
though, is built on faulty method, faulty logic, faulty
"facts", and an obviously faulty moral compass. Her book is
best left shunned, untouched, and eventually, ignored.
Unfortunately, it will not be, at least as far as the
"conservative movement" is concerned. Even if utterly
discredited, Malkin's meme will continue to recirculate
among the Fox News right, as well as more extremist
elements. At some point it will become "received wisdom" as
a talking point for right-wing pundits and radio talk-show
hosts.
Well, now it has. And the national discourse, as a result,
is headed in a bad direction indeed.
This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file:
Download Now
http://crooksandliars.com/medialoader/10743/9c8a1/wmv/Hannity-Malkin_11-11-09.wmv
---