timing and final message

Submitted by myth (Germany), Nov 9, 2009 at 07:46

Again and again I am suprised at how much support material Mr Pipes pulls out of the sleeve just like that, respect! The backward-in-time approach of finding explanations in the past is a typical in media. Noone would go back as far as 1400 years to identify a single book. Looking forward, searching for motives we must accept that the islamic context does provide a powerful motive to kill and die in such an act, and a very popular one these days. More important is the act itself. What does Major Nidal himself deliver as his last message, final words and deeds to us who are still alive ?

Mr Pipes is correct to focus on the qurans handed out before the killing. On the other hand this does not look entirely convincing? Is there anything in the act itself, arab clothes he maybe wore, I think the allahuakbar call was there, but anything deeper ? Shooting people with a pistol is fairly western-style killing, not much islamic taste in it. Was he discriminate in who he killed ?

As for the timing, from the perspective of Major Nidal, there is is always the question when exactly to do this, given it is his last action in life. Regardless of islamic motivation I would never question he was in a suicidal state of mind that very day. Does the US military have a substantial problem here ? Yes, I would say. People in a job that essentially means killing, or at least supporting others who do, with an opportunity to being killed,are placed in some sort of psychological extreme condition, even worse such a condition may motivate people to join armed forces in the first place. Naturally a muslim aware of the islamic jihad doctrines and aware of the context that the us fights wars on majority muslim territories, will think about the matter. These three ingredients: psych.extreme condition,jihad doctrine, real war, in a muslim mind consitute a high level risk. How is are the armed forces to deal with this ? Denial, investigate muslim soldiers, do without muslim soldiers?

I tend to go for the third, for the first is dangerous and as for the 2nd a military organisation does not have a convincing basis to speak against a doctrine of warfare.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".