But here's what I think about this particular case. It doesn't really say anything about Islamic terrorism in a way, because it's kind of hard to say that what Abdulazeez did comes from any kind of collusion with any group. More like with the case of Nidal Malik Hasan, Abdulazeez seems to be a tender-headed person who used a gun, like Loughner or Holmes, to shoot up a place for unmanifestoed reasons. This idea that guys in their twenties or thirties just pick up a gun and take out bunches of folks isn't even widely seen as terrorism, sometimes. But there really isn't a great way to account for lone wolves like this. Basically, anyone can get a gun if they aren't on some kind of watchlist (and sometimes if they are) And presto--you can go ahead and do a kind of terror, now.
The terror-minded folks of Yemen or wherever need to notice that one does not have to be especially novel and work up some exploding underpants or other freaky innovation--oh no. We have guns in the US, lots of them. Anyone here who can lawfully (or not) get hold of guns can do whatever terror they can to the limit of their gunslingage. It really looks like Abdulazeez had an issue about being piss-tested to work as an engineer for a nuclear plant.
His family claims he had depression--but I feel like his expression of his depression isn't really normal for depressives, and trying to say he was mentally ill is burdening the mentally ill with sharing his distinctively murderous view. And they don't deserve that, and many Islam-practitioners here in the states wouldn't think his shootings were anything like a matter of jihad--just murder.
No comments:
Post a Comment