The Clipboard: A Man Named Muhammad

From an article¹:

Note: This is a follow-up to an earlier article (posted here as Monomaniacal Theories About the Sniper) by the same author. A prime example of this sad decline is the reaction, in some quarters, to the news that Williams-Muhammad and his seventeen-year-old accomplice are unconnected to any group, foreign or domestic. As I wrote in a previous column, those who see an "Islamo-fascist" under every bed have been quick to point to the sniper attacks as evidence of of Al Qaeda's omnipresence. That this premise has now been disproved hasn't stopped the journalistic division of the War Party from, somehow, feeling vindicated. Such is the blinding power of ideology. (link)

Does it mean anything that the sniper suspect is Muslim? Justin Raimondo says not.

---

Complete text of the article, A Man Named Muhammad, by Justin Raimondo

The response of some to the capture of the Maryland sniper, John Allen Williams, a.k.a .John Allen Muhammad, illustrates an idea that has been preoccupying me of late: the relationship (if any) between ideology and truth. Ideology of any sort inevitably distorts the mental processes, and a writer – that is, a serious writer, and especially one who has certain vivid opinions – must be constantly on guard against this insidious deterioration. Since 9/11, and our forced march to war in the Middle East, what has struck me most has been a rapid degeneration of the public dialogue, including news coverage as well as published commentary.

A prime example of this sad decline is the reaction, in some quarters, to the news that Williams-Muhammad and his seventeen –year-old accomplice are unconnected to any group, foreign or domestic. As I wrote in a previous column, those who see an "Islamo-fascist" under every bed have been quick to point to the sniper attacks as evidence of of Al Qaeda’s omnipresence. That this premise has now been disproved hasn’t stopped the journalistic division of the War Party from, somehow, feeling vindicated. Such is the blinding power of ideology. Writing in the National Review Online group-blog, James S. Robbins, who decided on the Islamic terror option long before the capture of the deadly duo, avers:

"This may be more preaching to the choir, but remember Hesham Mohammed Ali Hadayet, the Egyptian shooter at the El Al ticket counter at LAX last July 4? The media was very reluctant to conclude the obvious, namely that he was motivated by radical Islamic beliefs and hatreds. As I pointed out in my piece on the sniper a week ago Islamic terrorism should have been the default assumption, in that case and this one. I think the people who a year ago were complaining about the intelligence agencies failing to connect the dots should examine their own critical analytical failures."

What about Robbins’ own "critical analytical failures"? These led him to posit, a few days prior to the arrests, that the timing and location of the attacks indicated a new phase of Al Qaeda’s offensive:

"Clearly, they have been looking for ways to strike back at us since the failure of their follow on attacks after September 11. This may be it. Remember that we are at war."

Contemptuous of facts, evidence, and all the other old-fashioned, pre-9/11 paraphernalia of public discourse, Robbins and his fellow warriors of the laptop are waging a war on reason, What motivated a murderous rampage on this scale – aside from sheer insanity? Wiliams-Muhammad’s conversion to Islam ten years ago is seized on by Robbins as if it verifies his theory of "Islamofascism" as the root of all evil, but it does nothing of the kind. Nothing is known, at this point, of the murderer’s motivation.

As a portrait of Williams-Muhammad as a typical serial killer emerges – enraged loser, loner, and drifter – the utter wrongness of the "it’s Bin Laden" school of thought is readily apparent. But never do these people acknowledge error: ideologues, like madmen, are so married to their own delusional systems that they can explain away any discrepancy. In this case, they’re blithering about how it was an example of "leaderless resistance," as Instawarmonger puts it,

"They’ve arrested the two guys wanted in the sniper case, after witnesses spotted them sleeping in a car at a rest stop. Other accounts suggest that they were "sympathetic" to Al Qaeda. This story reports: 'Several federal sources said Muhammad and Malvo may have been motivated by anti-American sentiments in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Both were known to speak sympathetically about the men who attacked the United States, the sources said.'"

Allegations of the pair’s "anti-Americanism" are anonymously cited in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer story linked to by Reynolds: their accuser is apparently a Mr. Singh, as identified by CNN. But this MSNBC story cites Felix Strozier, Williams-Muhammad’s former business partner, as saying "he was a man with strong opinions who took his Muslim faith seriously. However, he wasn’t aware of any anti-American sentiment."

Before the War Party blames the sniper attacks on Noam Chomsky, and names Susan Sontag and Gore Vidal as unindicted co-conspirators, they should take a deep breath and examine the facts. Muhammad spent ten years in the U.S. military – and even signed up for the Louisiana National Guard. How many of our chickenhawks can boast of a similar record? If this guy hates his country – instead of just people in general – he sure had a funny way of showing it.

But facts make little difference to those who have an agenda. Our war-birds were singing the same song before the case broke, and the effective debunking of their pet theory has hardly caused them to miss a beat. Reynolds even cites a story linking Muhammad to an alleged "terrorist training camp" in Alabama. But the police chief there denies it. As a local television station reported in July:

"State officials say an investigation uncovered no evidence that a camp near Marion was used as a terrorist training camp. Wednesday night, ABC News said the camp could have possible ties to Osama bin Laden’s terror network. … Marion Police Chief Tony Buford said he was misquoted. Buford said the camp is used by police officers from Alabama and Louisiana for training that includes target practice."

The "terrorist training camp" turns out to be a kind of theme park for the age of terrorism called "Ground Zero USA" run by some British guy apparently trying, in his own small way, to cash in on the terrorist scare. But nothing scares off an ideologue looking for factoids to support his preconceptions (or, in Reynolds’ and Robbins’ cases, their fondest hopes. Because then, you see, it would show that they were right all along, and that the rest of us should just shut up and follow orders). As Reynolds writes:

"The TV people are still playing this as 'a new kind of serial killer’ – but it’s not. It’s terrorism. It may be terrorism of the 'leaderless resistance’ variety – or not – but unless this is a huge screwup by the authorities it’s pretty obviously Islamic terrorism, and neither the authorities nor the media commentators are enhancing their credibility by pretending otherwise."

Speaking of living in a pretend world of illusion, doesn’t anybody find it odd that a 42-year-old Islamic jihadist would go on a murderous spree with his 17-year-old "play son"? Here is someone who has been through two broken marriages, and a bitter custody battle in which he was accused of kidnapping his children from their mother. Now he has gone on a rampage, all the while pretending to be this kid’s "father." Whatever ideational delusions caused Mr. Williams-Muhammad to go on a killing spree, they seem more psycho-sexual than religious or ideological.

But that tentative conclusion is based on the available evidence, which is something today’s war-ideologues don’t bother with. Because, you see, "everything’s changed" and we don’t need logic anymore.

Is John Allen Williams-Muhammad an Islamic warrior on a jihad against American infidels? I don’t think so, although subsequent revelations may well prove me wrong. Instead, I tend to believe the scenario I sketched out in my recent speech to the St. Louis College Libertarians was all too dead-on accurate:

"In Rome, they fed people to the lions, and staged extravaganzas of sadistic cruelty as popular entertainment: today, the same sadistic streak is the leitmotif of our culture, as violence for its own sake preoccupies the American imagination – not only on television, but in real life. Last month, within an eight week period at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, five murders were committed by Special Operations soldiers returning from Afghanistan – they killed their wives, brutally beating, strangling, and mangling them, as if possessed by some demonic force. An investigation into the 'causes’ of this phenomenon is now underway, but permit me to advance my own theory: that the violence unleashed in America’s foreign wars is rebounding back here, in our own country."

And you read it here first….

P.S. I am sitting here listening to the horrific Connie Chung ask a cousin of Muhammad what the suspect thought of the prospect of going to war with Iraq. Answer: he didn't have much of an opinion "one way or the other." Sorry, warmongers – better luck next time.

reference=http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j102502.html