Okay. We’ve now been told 12,000 times that we can’t rush to judgment on the Fort Hood shooter. We can’t assume that just because he had numerous contacts with a raving jihadist firebrand, or gave an anti-American lecture, that he was in any way influenced by said firebrand or might have been a dangerous ideologue. We have to take it slow, wait for more evidence, sift it carefully, etc.
Looks like that’s what the Army was doing all those years as they missed a number of warning signs on the future shooter.
Of course it would be stupid and wrong to broad-brush Muslims as a group. There is no group guilt, only individual guilt. The shooter alone did what he did. And he may have acted for a number of reasons. We should look at each of those reasons and give each the weight it deserves. And we shouldn’t let the fear of religious profiling, or some myth of a post-Sept. 11 crackdown, which never happened, prevent us from seeing whatever truth is there.
In that connection, it’s nice to see two nationally syndicated columnists from very different political perspectives agree. David Brooks and Eugene Robinson both say that we can’t let an admirable impulse–not wanting to paint all Muslims with a bloody brush–blind us to the dangers of a radical few.