The Fort Hood multiple murder story and the BBC

Whoosh and it's all but gone. Today the Fort Hood murder story has almost disappeared from the BBC news front page, all that is left is Obama praises army base heroism. So we travel to World News where we find the Fort Hood murders are still the top story. So how are the BBC reporting the story, what are the prisms through which they see the horrific events? The top story is the aforementioned Obama reaction piece which tells us that "President Barack Obama praises the "valour" of those who responded to the deadly attacks at a US army base in Texas. " This piece like many others on the BBC news website then goes on to "investigate" the possible causes of the murderer: "Investigators are waiting for Maj Hasan to emerge from his coma but have examined his home and computer records to try to find any clue to the motive of his attack.

Reports suggested that he had been increasingly unhappy in the military and that his work at his previous post - Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC - had been the subject of concern.

His cousin told US media that Maj Hasan had been opposed to an imminent deployment overseas, describing it as his "worst nightmare".

He also said that Maj Hasan had been battling racial harassment because of his "Middle Eastern ethnicity."

The manager of his apartment complex told Associated Press news agency that Maj Hasan's car had been badly scratched recently by an army employee who had returned from Iraq and objected to Maj Hasan's faith.

AP also quoted a former classmate on a Maryland university course as saying that Maj Hasan was a "vociferous opponent" of America fighting conflicts in Muslim countries."
It's a mystery isn't it? He had become "increasingly unhappy in the military", a "vociferous opponent" of America fighting conflicts in Muslim countries", hmmm no I can't fathom it either. Further, much further down the article the BBC do finally report what may be a clue as to motive

"The commander of the base, Lt Gen Robert Cone, told NBC News that, according to eyewitnesses, Mr Hasan had shouted the Arabic phrase "Allahu Akbar!" [God is great] before opening fire."

Let's see: "increasingly unhappy in the military", a "vociferous opponent" of America fighting conflicts in Muslim countries" and shouted "the Arabic phrase "Allahu Akbar!" [God is great] before opening fire." Almost inexplicable isn't it?!


The next BBC "report" is the bizarrely entitled "Shooting raises fears for Muslims in US army " in which "The BBC's Penny Spiller considers how it may affect the thousands of Muslims in the US military?" Oddly enough bearing in mind that this is not the first incident, remember in 2003 when Sergeant Hasan Akbar threw hand grenades and opened fire on a tent full of sleeping soldiers in the early hours of the morning; he killed two officers and injured 14 other personnel. This was in Kuwait as his unit prepared to move into Iraq. Back then the murderer's family said he had been suffering religious and racial harassment from other soldiers, although no witnesses came forward to say this at his trial. The prosecution described him as a "hate-filled, ideologically driven murderer", which seems closer to the truth.

I may be wrong here but might the story be to ask how many other Muslims in the US military might take similar action against their fellow soldiers and how at risk normal members of the US military might be? Maybe the BBC will consider this angle elsewhere...


The next BBC piece is entitled "Coping with stressed soldiers" and repeats the mantra like claim "While it is still unclear what led a US army major to shoot dead 13 people on a Texas army base" before going on to consider the psychological stresses face by the military. It's a good piece on a worthwhile subject but I feel it is a diversion from the subject at hand.


The next BBC piece is by Mark Mardell and he gets right into the defensive speculation

"The truth is of course cloudy. The alleged murderer was clearly a Muslim, but there is very little to suggest that he adhered to a hard-line interpretation of his religion or that he had political or religious motives.

He may or may not have posted something on the internet defending suicide bombers. But he also appears to have been traumatised by the idea of being sent to a combat zone. "

What no mention of the shouted "Allahu Akbar!", no that can't be relevant.

"Still, people will speculate - as I am doing. Life may become more uncomfortable for his innocent co-religionists, a regrettable consequence of any such attack."

Again worries over what the 'backlash' might be rather than over whether another similar attack might take place.

"We search for certainty and for answers. Some will go down blind alleys: reports of his "religious attire", for example, may turn out to be a red herring."

Interesting how Mark Mardell states as fact that "Some will go down blind alleys" and links that to the factual "religious attire" of the murderer. Very neatly done.

Mark Mardell's piece, after he has excused Barack Obama from any responsibility - in the Mardell world praise for the Obvamamessiah is a key part of any article he writes - end thus

"Still, searching for patterns and for answers is part of what it is to be human. I loathe cliche, but perhaps, for once, this is a "senseless tragedy", devoid of deeper meaning."

"perhaps"? Perhaps not. Do take a read of the comments underneath Mark Mardell's piece; they split between the bleeding-heart liberals who have swallowed every piece of the multicultural phrasebook and can regurgitate it at will, the islamaphobes (although quite a few of their comments have likely fallen foul of "house rules") and the sorrowful realists who can see what happened because they allow themselves to look at the facts and are deeply worried about where we are heading.