The Fort Hood gunman’s testimony to a panel of military mental health experts is a rare glimpse into the motives of a Jihadist mass murderer. He says he wished he had been killed in the rampage because that would have made him a martyr. Then this:
In the documents, he described in blunt and unapologetic terms how he killed soldiers as he stepped into a medical processing building on Nov. 5, 2009. He said he wore earplugs to muffle the sound of his semiautomatic weapon, and shot into areas that had the “greatest density of soldiers.” In the end, 13 people were dead. “I don’t think what I did was wrong because it was for the greater cause of helping my Muslim brothers,” he told the military panel.
The three pages of documents were from a 49-page report of a military panel known as a sanity board, which concluded that Major Hasan was fit to stand trial.
Right-vs-wrong is a less potent concept in his sane mind than Muslim-vs-infidel. In fact, Muslim-vs-infidel is his version of right-vs-wrong. This is the appeal of fundamentalism – giving one group inherently more moral value than another. It is a strong current Islam, but obviously common to all groups, and made much more dangerous by religion. But that it is a function of fundamentalist religion is indisputable.