Nidal Malik Hasan, the jihadist Army psychiatrist who killed 13 and wounded 32 soldiers and civilians in November 2009, is awaiting the results of a mental health exam that will determine whether he is fit to stand trial.
Not to jump to conclusions–as we were cautioned by the government and media, who ironically failed to follow their own advice following the Tucson shooting–but available evidence shows a man who knew exactly what he was doing. Looking back, Hasan had given the system every opportunity to prevent this massacre, but despite being openly jihadist, the system–infused by decades of political correctness–failed.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said, “[A]s horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” Once I heard that, I figured it would not be long before Congress enacted a jihad version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for the military.
But back to Hasan’s mental report, one has to wonder which of these two are the crazier: the man who was simply following an ideology that told him to kill non-believers, or the non-believers who refuse to admit that the ideology exists, then kowtow to the ideologues who only find appeasement in the killing of the non-believers?
Remember that following the massacre at Fort Hood, the Pentagon released an 88-page report on the incident entirely devoid of any reference to Islamic supremacism. I think that Americans would be better served if it were the federal government was being given the mental health evaluation.
On Nov. 5, 2009, a US Army officer opened fire in a Fort Hood (Texas) medical facility, killing 13 and wounding 30. On Jan. 8, 2010, a man opened fire at a townhall-style event at a Tucson, Ariz. grocery store, killing 6 and wounding 20. Both events appear similar, but media reaction and impact are drastically different.
The sole suspect in the Fort Hood shooting is Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist. Eyewitness reports state that Hassan shouted “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is great) before opening fire on soldiers preparing to depart for Afghanistan.
The sole suspect in the Tucson shooting is Jared Lee Loughner, a 22-year-old who lived at home with his parents after being suspended from college. Loughner opened fire on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and constituents at a townhall-style event at a grocery store.
Both shooters used automatic pistols with high capacity (20- or 30-round) magazines. Loughner used a common 9mm Glock pistol, and Hasan used a 5.7mm FN Five-Seven, which fires bullets that can penetrate the body armor used by law enforcement. While the Tucson shooting has resulted in a surge forward on the gun control issue, there was virtually no push after the Fort Hood shooting, despite Hasan’s use of the so-called “cop killer” gun.
Americans were advised “not to jump to conclusions” on Hasan and his motivations. But in the immediate wake of the Loughner shooting, media parroted shameless politicians and activists who said that the shooter may have been a member of the U.S. military, or that the “anti-government” Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservative radio hosts provided the motivation for the Loughner killings.
Meanwhile, the media made virtually no effort at all to bring attention to the Ft. Hood shooter who was a Muslim. Politicians repeatedly assured us that Hasan was a “lone wolf” terrorist, and to date have still not mentioned the well-documented Islamic motivations behind the massacre. The media did make the leap to suggest that Hasan suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder – despite the fact that he never went to war.
The Loughner shooting isn’t the first time public figures made quantum leaps to conclusions – New York City’s mayor Michael Bloomberg raced to the microphones to pin the 2010 Times Square bombing attempt on an opponent of health care legislation. Even terrorism is an opportunity to score cheap political points.
It appears that Loughner’s alleged right-wing motivations have been discredited by the facts (how many conservatives burn American flags and list The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf among their favorite books?), and that conservative media isn’t to blame (we have since learned that he didn’t listen to radio or watch television). Perhaps he wasn’t right or left, but just a nut with a gun. But the New York Times is still shamelessly pushing the issue, suggesting that Republican governor Jan Brewer and opposition to immigration and the health care bill created an environment conducive for politically-motivated mass murder.
As the facts begin to undermine the disinformation campaign being waged on the American people, it seems that “heated political rhetoric” is now the last remaining instrument of blame for those exploiting the tragedy.
If we want real examples of heated rhetoric (also known as constitutionally-protected free speech), we should look no further than those who have publicly wished for the deaths of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and many other Republicans or conservatives. Our president is guilty of this rhetoric himself, and his supporter Bill Ayers has gone so far as to bomb government buildings. But it appears that the so-called left and their allies in the media are about the only ones trying to take advantage of tragedies for political gain.
We can only speculate as to the media’s motivations behind covering for Hasan. Most likely, they would have used the Fort Hood shooting to push for gun control as well, but the Islamic factor likely carried far more baggage than would be acceptable, so this case was simply swept under the prayer rug.
However, we can clearly see that media and some politicians have taken full advantage of the Tucson murders – regardless of the facts – to push their political agenda: marginalizing and ultimately silencing their opponents in addition to stripping gun rights.
Apparently those in media and government will stoop to any level in order to accomplish their objectives.
Hasan Ft. Hood shooting: ‘Secondary trauma’ to blame?
Governor strives to restore Arizona’s reputation
The New York Times
Obama: ‘If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun’
The Wall Street Journal
In an opinion piece for a major newspaper, a White House official lashed out at critics of the Obama administration’s ability to defend against terrorism. John Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, wrote in a USA Today op-ed on Tuesday, “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”
Does Brennan truly think criticizing government’s self-admitted “shortcomings” and “systemic failures” constitutes serving the goals of al Qaeda? And with the spate of al Qaeda attacks on our homeland, our concerns are anything but “unfounded fear-mongering.”
What Brennan sees as attempts to score “cheap political points” might be more accurately viewed as Americans expressing unease with poor handling of the War on Terror.
His sub-heading reads “Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad.” But the administration certainly didn’t disrupt the Fort Hood jihadist massacre. To be fair, the shooter served under both Obama and Bush – despite being a card-carrying member of Soldiers of Allah (literally). While the government can’t disrupt every attack, officials should at least correctly identify the reason the attack happened in the first place. In this respect, the government failed miserably.
The 86-page report on Ft. Hood released by the Pentagon following the attack avoided any mention of the jihadist ideology that appears to be the motivation behind the attack. But the report did mention “animal rights,” “disgruntled employees,” and “white supremacy” as factors in terrorist attacks.
I ask Mr. Brennan: Does the administration’s whitewashing of the jihadist attack on Fort Hood help or hurt al Qaeda?
One of the nation’s most elite soldiers is not willing to pull any punches when it comes to Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan, the perpetrator of the most deadly attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
“He’s a terrorist,” Jerry Boykin stated in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. Boykin is a retired U.S. Army three-star general, one of the original members of Delta Force, and former commander of U.S. Army Special Forces.
While that may be quite obvious to many who understand the actual definition of terrorism and the threat of jihad under Shariah law, the fact is avoided at all costs by the military, government, and media.
Gen. Boykin also placed the blame on military leadership for allowing a “jihadist” to openly serve in the armed forces, and admitted that the media is persecuting Christians.
“I think everybody in America realizes that the persecution of Christians is acceptable in our society today by both the leadership and the media, but no one wants to offend a Muslim.”
Boykin should know: while the Army allowed a jihadist to continue serving in the same branch of the military, they terminated Gen. Boykin’s career when he began making statements related to religion regarding Islam and the “War on Terror.”
Doug Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network has conducted an investigation into November’s AirTran Flight 297 in which according to eyewitnesses 13 Muslim men behaved in a manner that caused the pilot to turn the plane around.
Atlanta’s WSBTV has video here.
The airline and media have told one story, and passengers have told another. It appears to me that this incident is another operation by jihadists to terrorize airline passengers and create an environment conducive to predatory lawsuits like the 2006 case of the “Flying Imams” of USAir Flight 300. USAir settled with the imams for an undisclosed amount out of court in October.
According to the witness in the video above, the pilot announced that they were returning to the gate due to the “security situation.” However, the witness said that there was no recognizable presence of law enforcement at the gate. Despite having terrorized their fellow passengers, all but two of the Muslims were allowed back on the plane. While on the flight, the remaining Muslims caused further disturbances.
After thousands and thousands of attacks by the so-called “religion of peace” since 9/11, why are we still bowing to these jihadist Muslims? The U.S. should have learned its lesson on how fatal political correctness has become after the Fort Hood massacre. While we contort ourselves and leap from conclusions, Americans die. Our legal system becomes a battleground for the jihadis. AirTran officials were willing to gamble with the lives of 70 passengers plus crew that these Muslims were bluffing. The safety and security of passengers has become secondary to protecting the airline from predatory lawsuits. We have come so far that the media and airline were willing to cover up the incident.
It’s entirely possible that AirTran will write these Muslims a check for their terrorist-like behavior. Yet an 80-year old grandmother has to stand in line to have TSA agents check her shoes for traces of explosives? All because they are Muslims and she isn’t. Aren’t we equal under the law, or is there a separate Constitution and legal system for Muslims?
There is – it’s called Shariah law. And if America doesn’t stand up to behavior like this, it will be here shortly.
From Barack Obama’s remarks at Fort Hood:
It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.
Really Mr. President? Perhaps you missed the whole Allahu Akbar/al Qaeda/Muslim first, American second/beheading non-Muslims and pouring boiling oil down their throats thing.
But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts…
Maybe you should brush up on the Qur’an.
…no just and loving God looks upon them with favor.
But Allah is apparently quite pleased with the murder of infidels, and Muhammad – his prophet – was a terrorist himself.
And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.
With the same Justice Department that allows the Black Panthers to intimidate white voters? Not likely.
From the Army Operations Field Manual:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Now, the attack at Fort Hood was both:
- A “calculated use of unlawful violence.”
- “Intended to coerce or intimidate” both our government and our society in the pursuit of Islamic religious goals.
Therefore, why does our media and government avoid calling it what it really is – terrorism?