This is a good point. Liberals can only comprehend domestic opposition to the US (or the "West" more broadly) under a framework of social contagion. They are doomed to reverse the cause and effect eternally. Hasan is one prominent example, but this is the case in general. Before Hasan was in the spotlight, widespread hatred of "Israel" was TikTok's fault. Or going further back, it couldn't be that the public broadly rejected Hillary Clinton, it had to be Russian bots on Facebook. The public is never allowed to be correct in their judgement of things like "genocide is abhorrent," or "we need to disarm and dismantle the fucking pigs," or "Brian Thompson deserved it." The explanation always has to be that the public is immature, or it's being tricked. The cause must always be externalized to some "outside agitator." Why else would the humble slaves raise their scythes in anger against their benevolent masters?

From the Liberal point of view, the institutions are tautologically legitimate. They can never fail. They can only be failed by substandard leadership. They are fundamentally incapable of separating concepts like "democracy" from their idols, the US and "Israel." They cannot possibly comprehend why the destruction of the US and "Israel" are prerequisites to justice, democracy, civil liberty, academic freedom, cultural inclusivity, world peace, and all the other great things Liberals generally believe in abstract.

I've said it before, but Anastasia's portrayal of the Russian Revolution, as the result of hapless masses ensorcelled by a dark wizard, is unironically how liberals see their opposition.

I hadn't thought about this, but it makes too much sense

He's the perfect target for this, traditionally masculine and attractive and enough white-passing to be a great man but enough guy named Hasan to be the public enemy