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
One of the things helping jihadists attack this country the most could be the policy Obama signed last year forbidding our military from mentioning jihad, Islam, or any such terms that could anger our enemies. Granted, this nonsense started under the Bush administration. But when it comes to our national security, which is government’s primary responsibility, it doesn’t matter who is to blame. What matters is that we fix it.
Case in point: In December, five Muslims were arrested for allegedly attempting to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson. The incident is still under investigation.
From Fox News:
Five suspects, detained in December, were part of an Arabic translation program called “09 Lima” and use Arabic as their first language, two sources told Fox News. Another military source said they were Muslim. It wasn’t clear whether they were still being held.
And from CBN News:
A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators suspect the “Fort Jackson Five” may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, DC area Muslims that traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas.
Now this, from The Palmetto Scoop:
Army officials, however, denied the allegations and said none of the men were Muslim.
So 09L’s – who speak Arabic, Dari, Pashtu, Farsi or Kurdish as a first language, who may also be in contact with other Jihadists in Pakistan – aren’t Muslim?
Why are we learning of this two months after the fact? When a non-Muslim commits a violent act, such as the man who killed the abortion doctor “Tiller the killer,” journalists pass along everything there is to know about the man. However when the perpetrator happens to be Muslim, and especially when the crime is an act of jihad, we don’t see a name or any religious connection until the last few paragraphs – if they are reported at all.
Why is this right? What kind of Mickey Mouse leadership stands by while Maj. Hasan spouts his jihadist rhetoric for years before murdering 14 innocent Americans, then says they have no freaking clue as to the alleged assailant’s motivations? And then has the audacity to warn of anti-Muslim backlash rather than have soldiers be on the lookout for other jihadists in the ranks. And then has the audacity to say that the loss of the Army’s “diversity” would be a greater “tragedy” than the 14 Americans that Hasan murdered.
Let’s not “jump to conclusions” my ass, Army! How about let’s not jump FROM conclusions.
What matters is the truth. If the truth hurts the feelings of the jihadists who declared war on us 1300 years ago, then so be it. Regardless what our Commander-in-Chief thinks, the U.S. military is not there to soothe the feelings of our enemies, or to become a proving ground of diversity. The military is there to deter our enemies from attacking us. When all else fails, the military KILLS our enemies. And while the forces on the ground have been working miracles, our leadership has been undermining their work at home with asinine policies that prevent us from looking into religion or ideology.
How many more Americans will die before Washington gets their heads out of their asses? Thousands of Fort Jackson soldiers could have been endangered by an attack on the food supply. When will these politicians realize that Americans don’t like to live under the threat of terrorism?
Victor Davis Hanson has a good point at National Review Online:
[…] Major Hasan should have been treated the same way a lone-wolf Nazi would have been treated in 1943 — once it was revealed that he was mouthing Hitlerian doctrine on a U.S. military base and communicating with Nazi-sympathizers in Argentina.
But under the Bush and Obama administrations, Islam and jihad are no-fly zones for government. Could you imagine the fallout had FDR banned the government from mentioning Nazis in a negative light? Or mentioning – as candidate Obama did regarding Hamas and Hezbollah – that Hitler does in fact have “legitimate claims?”
An American-born, pro-jihad cleric has reportedly praised the failed Christmas airliner attack and claimed the alleged perpetrator was his student.
Anwar al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. Before leaving the U.S. in 2002, he served as an imam in Denver, San Diego, and the Washington, D.C. area. While in San Diego, he became the “spiritual advisor” for two of the 9/11 hijackers (and had contact with a third). He also admits to having advised the man who gunned down 14 unarmed Americans at Fort Hood, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Al-Awlaki now lives in Yemen, and counter terrorism experts believe that he works for al Qaeda.
In a recent Al Jazeera interview al-Awlaki stated that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23 year-old Nigerian student who attempted to detonate a bomb on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, was in fact a student of his.
Al-Awlaki’s pro-jihad internet lectures and materials are very popular, and he is even said to be active on social networking sites like Facebook.
Abdulmtallab allegedly attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in December while en route from Amsterdam to Detroit by hiding a bomb in his underwear. He has stated that more attacks are planned, that his is the first of many forthcoming plots. He is currently in federal prison in Milan, Mich.
“Brother mujahed Umar Farouk — may Allah relieve him — is one of my students, yes,” said al-Awlaki in the interview published on Tuesday. “We had kept in contact, but I didn’t issue a fatwa (religious ruling/declaration of war) to Umar Farouk for this operation.”
Al-Awlaki expressed his support of the failed Christmas attack, but said that he would have preferred a military target.
“I support what Umar Farouk did after seeing my brothers in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan being killed,” al-Awlaki said. “If it was a military plane or a U.S. military target it would have been better…(but) the American people have participated in all the crimes of their government.”
The other two known terrorism cases that he had ties to were indeed military targets. The victims in Maj. Hasan’s Fort Hood massacre were mostly soldiers. And Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar – the 9/11 hijackers that al-Awlaki mentored – were two of the five operatives who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 64 passengers and 125 people in the Pentagon. Hani Hanjour – another Flight 77 hijacker – attended services at the Dar al Hiraj mosque in Falls Church, Va. while al-Awlaki was an imam there.
“Some 300 Americans are nothing compared to thousands of Muslims they have killed,” he said of the innocent civilians on the flight to Detroit.
But according to a recent study, the same could be said of al Qaeda.
A West Point study found that 85% of al Qaeda’s victims are in fact Muslims.
“Working in the American Army to kill a Muslim is a betrayal to Islam. America today is yesterday’s Pharaoh; it is an enemy to Islam. A Muslim is not allowed to work in the American Army unless he intends to walk in the path of Brother Nidal [Malik Hasan].”
– Anwar al-Awlaki
(in an interview with Al Jazeera – translated by NEFA Foundation)
Imam al-Awlaki was the “spiritual adviser” to two of the 9/11 hijackers, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan (the Fort Hood shooter), and to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (attempted to detonate a bomb on a flight to Detroit). He was born in the U.S. and lived here until 2002 before fleeing for Yemen.
A top military commander has stated that courts-martial for three Navy SEALs charged with allegedly mishandling a terrorist detainee will continue despite pressure from both Congress and the American people.
The three SEALs were part of the platoon that captured of Ahmed Hashim Abed, a top al Qaeda leader during a nighttime raid in September. Abed is the suspected mastermind of a 2004 ambush who killed four Blackwater security contractors – including a former SEAL – in Fallujah, Iraq.
Petty Officer Matthew McCabe is the only SEAL accused of actually assaulting Abed, and also faces charges of dereliction of duty and making a false statement. According to the Newport News Daily Press, court documents state that McCabe’s alleged assault amounts to a punch in the stomach.
Petty Officers Julio Huertas and Jonathan Keefe also face charges of dereliction and making a false statement. Huertas has a third charge that is pending investigation.
The trial is still set to continue despite a massive outpouring of public support. Thirty thousand Americans have signed Congressman Dan Burton’s (R – Ind.) online petition calling for the military to end the prosecution. In December, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R – Calif.) sent a letter signed by 33 members of Congress to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting intervention. Later that month, Rep. Burton sent another letter, this time signed by 40 representatives asking that the charges be dropped. Over 98,000 people have joined a Facebook group supporting the SEALs, and over 114,000 have signed an online petition at Human Events.
“Instead of medals and commendations, our heroes are being met with twisted jurisprudence,” wrote Rep. Burton. “This sends a backwards message to our men and women in the military who are charged with carrying out dangerous missions and must often use aggressive force in dealing with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.”
Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, commander of the Army’s Special Operations Command Central and the convening authority of the case, responded to the Rep. Burton’s letter on December 15th, stating that he is more concerned with an alleged cover-up than he is with Abed’s “relatively minor” injuries.
Gen. Cleveland wrote that Abed’s “alleged injuries were inflicted several hours after the operation had ended, and while in the custody and care of the U.S. at Camp Schweidler’s detainee holding facility.” But how could medical personnel determine exactly when Abed so-called injury took place, and how could they know that the injury wasn’t self-inflicted, or as a result of his capture?
“If the injuries were insignificant, why are the reputations of 3 expert warriors on the line?” asks Kay Day at The US Report. Indeed, Gen. Cleveland could have simply let the matter go, but opted for non-judicial punishment, which the sailors declined; accepting the punishment could have ended their career in special operations.
But did the alleged abuse even take place?
Lesson 18 of al Qaeda’s training manual says to convince the judge that the member was tortured and to complain of mistreatment to the court. It could be that Abed was just doing what he was trained to do – continue the battle from the courtroom (apparently the only environment that SEALs are vulnerable), whether the allegations are true or not. Unfortunately, it appears that the Pentagon is willing to risk the careers of three of the nation’s best warriors in order to find out as anyone above Gen. Cleveland could put an end to the trial as well.
Consider the effect this has on not just the special operations community, but also our conventional forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today’s battlefield has become an extension of the courtroom for our troops and has already had a significantly negative effect on our warfighting capabilities.
Day also asks, “Did military politics and political correctness perhaps play a role in their raising the allegations?”
Entirely likely. Especially when we consider the military’s PC reaction to November’s Fort Hood massacre, where Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire, killing 13 and wounded dozens more. Rather than asking commanders to be on the lookout for more jihadist activity from within the ranks, Army Gen. George Casey asked them to watch for a backlash against Muslim soldiers. Gen. Casey also said that “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” As to military politics, the current administration’s view of “engaging the enemy” is not done at gunpoint, but diplomatically. Therefore, it behooves military leaders to behave accordingly in order to earn their stars.
Worse than a perceived loss of the Gen. Casey’s beloved “diversity” is the loss of our military’s desire to serve and fight. The Pentagon must take into consideration the loss of morale and unit integrity that today’s Armed Forces experience because of cases like these. A soldier that is expected to fight both on the battlefield and in the court room can not win a war.