Sunday, November 15, 2009

The Real Lesson of Ft. Hood--As Liberals See It

Never mind the innocence of the murdered and wounded victims. Ignore the jihadist perpetrator. Don't get hung up on murderous passages in the Koran. Dismiss from your mind the imams and Islamist literature which the terrorists espouse. Forget the fact that the victims were unarmed and believed themselves to be in a place of safety. The real lesson to be learned here is that we must not draw conclusions which will lead to violence against Muslims.

And we all know that there has been far too much violence against Muslims in America since September 11, 2001. Massacres in the streets. Mosques full of innocent women and children burned to the ground. Muslim shops and offices blown up. Muslim women dragged out into the streets and beaten solely because they were wearing the hijab or burka. It's worse than the Holocaust. And now we face it all again because a confused, demeaned and persecuted Muslim army officer defied the religion of peace by murdering thirteen of his fellow soldiers at an army base.

That's the liberal, politically-correct twisted version of the lesson to be learned from Ft. Hood. The real lesson to be learned is that when a Muslim declares himself a "Muslim first and an American second," approves of the murder of non-Muslim civilians by stealth murderers as well as sneak attacks by Islamic "freedom fighters" on American troops overseas, you have a potential terrorist. When that same person gets a medical education and advances to the rank of major in the U.S. Army, all the while very publicly and loudly proclaiming the virtues of jihad, you have a potential terrorist. When that same person informs his superiors that he believes that all Muslims should be released from military service to avoid killing their fellow Muslims in a war against terrorism, you have a potential terrorist. When that same person is provided a forum with his fellow medical students to discuss medical treatment and instead gives a speech about beheading the infidels and pouring boiling oil down their open necks, you have a potential terrorist. And when you have all of those traits in one man, you have a terrorist looking for an opportunity.

Let's take a quick look at how our illustrious public figures and official military spokesmen handled the aftermath of the attack. They all shared a few points in common. We must not draw conclusions. We must not damage our lovely melting-pot by singling out individual religions and ethnic groups for special attention (of the negative sort), and we must not foment anti-Muslim violence.

President Barack Obama said the following to the grieving families at the Ft. Hood memorial service: "It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy, but his much we do know. No faith justifies these murderous and craven act." Well, Mr. President, I can think of one that does. In fact, one whose core belief is violence against all non-believers. One whose very name, Islam, means "submission," not peace. It is indeed hard for decent human beings to comprehend the twisted logic, but not for a fundamentalist Muslim. And it wasn't a tragedy--it was a mass terrorist murder.

Politically-correct General Casey tells Americans: "As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse." Has Casey gone crazy, or is he just full of dope? Casey is the most political general since Colin Powell, and he knows which side his bread is buttered on. To hell with his gruesomely murdered troops, we must maintain diversity. I don't think diversity means retaining jihadist officers in the American Armed Forces, but apparently, he does (or at least his political mentors do). Better thirteen dead unarmed American soldiers than one Muslim with hurt feelings.

Evan Thomas of the great intellectual publication Newsweek says: "I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going. And it just, these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse." Ah, there's that "tragedy" again. And yes, the terrorist was indeed a nut case--most jihadists are. But it's not a mental disease, it's a theology. And those thirteen innocent dead mean nothing in the face of coming hatred and violence against Muslims.

"Tingle up my leg" Chris Matthews lectures: "That's what I'm afraid of with this stuff from the right wing and the columnists I'm reading today: It scares me because they say, basically, nail everybody. Profile everybody who is from that part of the world and treat them like the enemy." Well, Chris, I have some news for you. Jews who enlist in the military are frequently given extra vetting because the military has experienced past breaches by Jews who identify closely with Israel. They weren't worried about the Jews committing mass murder of their fellow Americans. But there have been security breaches in which secret information about the military and its operations have been passed on to our allies in Israel. So the army exercises caution, and the Jewish recruits accept it as part of their proof of loyalty solely to the United States, not as an opening round in the next mass attack on Jews in America.

As for profiling everybody from that part of the world, and assuming that their enlistment in the military may have ulterior motives, it's not a half-bad idea. Proof? Fort Hood. A Muslim enlistee who clearly acts as a loyal American, and is perfectly willing to be questioned about any possible terrorist connections, known or unknown to him, and who serves honorably in the military is a good soldier. The terrorist at Ft. Hood was not, and he let everyone around him know it whether they wanted to hear it or not.

How can you defeat an enemy when you cannot identify one within your own ranks? You can't fight Islamic terrorism if you refuse to acknowledge that there is any connection between Islam and the terrorists. You can't avoid becoming the victim of jihad if you continue to promote the lie that jihad means "internal struggle" rather than its true meaning: undeclared, asymmetrical, mass murder of anyone who doesn't believe that Allah is the only true, merciful god. But of course to tell the truth would produce a violent backlash against Muslims in the United States, just as it did after 9-11. Or did it?

The worst physical assault on a Muslim after 9-11 was a near-deadly beating of a man wearing a turban in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately for the statistics, the man wasn't even a Muslim. He was a Sikh, but to ignorant haters, anyone wearing a turban was a Muslim. And with all the ignorant haters out there, the amount of violence done against Muslims in the wake of 9-11 was next to nil. In 2006, while there were 967 physical attacks on American Jews ranging from a push to a serious beating or murder, there were only 156 "attacks" on Muslims, most of which consisted of crimes ranging from dirty looks to calling a Muslim a camel jockey, but no serious physical injuries. You see, when political correctness turns hateful thought into a crime, it's easy to jack up the number of violent crimes which aren't really even crimes at all, let alone violent.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the first news report of a burned-out American mosque, or a mass public burning of Korans, or even an isolated physical attack on a Muslim preaching jihad. But given the attitude of this administration, the liberals, the mainstream media, and Muslim apologists and fake civil rights workers, do not be the least bit surprised if there's another terrorist attack on American soil within the near future. The loss of the will to fight terrorism and call its perpetrators by name is a tragedy. The homicidal acts themselves are pure murder, not tragedies. And if what I'm saying offends anyone, tough. But it is simply not going to cause any Christians or Jews to rush out and kill a Muslim or two. On the other hand, the cartoon at the top could quite conceivably be putting me on a hit list right now.

Patti did a nice job discussing the reasons behind the righteous anger most Americans feel toward the Ft. Hood murderer: Terrorist Hasan

14 comments:

LL said...

All Muslims are not Nidal Hasan.

Nidal Hasan needs to be stood up against a wall and shot (legally), having been convicted - not pardoned by the mainstream media or by his Muslim brother, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm,mmm,mmm)

StanH said...

There have been many attempts, by the Islamic goons, since 9/11 to hit America again. I find it troubling that it happened on Barry’s watch. Sadly I believe that this was just a warm-up, and much more is headed our way with feckless Barry at the helm. Weakness encourages attack, and no one is weaker than our Barry. God help us!

LawHawkSF said...

LL: This is not the first attack by a Muslim soldier against his fellow soldiers, but the others were overseas and far less horrendous (although I'm sure the victims' families consider them just as important).

Obama is just an anti-American lefty fool. I don't think he's any more Muslim than he is Christian. He's whatever he thinks will get him the most votes. He doesn't actively want Hasan to go free, but he wouldn't exactly mourn if it happened either.

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: Terrorists smell weakness like dogs smell fear. And it emboldens them. They know that they can sacrifice a good jihadist now and then for the greater good of killing lots of innocent civilians and trusting soldiers. And they get their cover from the administration and the mainstream media. There can't be a coordinated attack on Islamofascism if they keep pretending that it's just an insignificant minority having nothing to do with "true Islam." Suicidally naive.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I blame part of this on Bush and his administration.

LawHawkSF said...

Joel: There are damned few innocents here, including Bush. Clinton before him spent more time begging for understanding of good Muslims than he did acting to stop terrorist attacks. I blame the perpetrators,not Bush or Obama, but I detest those foolish enough to keep hiding the painful truth. Obama will bear more responsibility in the long run because he apparently believes that nice words and sweet sentiments can stop mad theological ideologues from acting. And his bringing five terrorists to the United States mainland for civilian criminal trials is further proof of his suicidal foolishness. Bush at least pursued the war on terror, even if his public statements about Islam were weak and misguided. Obama merely opposes "man-made disasters."

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I find it very troubling that once again, there is little or no outrage from the Muslim community. If this Hasan is not tapping into their sentiments, then why are they not out there accusing him of wrong-doing, condemning his actions, and showing everyone that it bothers them that he did this in their name? The silence is deafening.

As for the military, in my experience, most generals are politicians first and foremost.

HamiltonsGhost said...

Lawhawk--The violence (premeditated murder) is caused by a theology that encourages death or submission for everyone who doesn't believe in Allah. It's not an offshoot of Islam, it's part of a core theology that won't allow for modern interpretations of scripture ("exegesis"). Those Muslims who would bring Islam into the 21st Century are considered to be no better than the infidels. Jews and Christians have largely come to understand that certain divine pronouncements are eternal, and others relate to the times surrounding them. Too many otherwise decent Muslims might just as well be living outside Mohammed's cave fourteen hundred years ago.

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: That is part of why I believe that Islam will continue to be dangerous. If only 10% (and that's still a whole lot of people) are radical fundamentalists, then the religion has been completely hijacked by them since there are so damned few Muslim voices of opposition and public vilification of the behavior of the "minority." Or as the old legal saying goes "silence shows consent."

LawHawkSF said...

HamiltonsGhost: Excellent summation of a major problem with Islam. It needs to be moved forward into the stone age if its theology will ever have meaning for any reasonable human being other than as a bloody sword. And when they've succeeded in getting rid of the Christians and Jews and other infidels, they'll go back to fighting their theological civil war. The Sunnis want the Shiites dead for their impurity. The Shiites want the Sunnis dead for their impurity. And the Wahhabis want them all dead. As it stands today, Islam is nothing more than a huge blood and death cult.

Writer X said...

Tragedy, incident, situation--all of these words have been used to describe the terrorist massacre at Ft. Hood. When a man guns down people for what they represent rather than who they are, what else can you call it beside terrorism?

I feel that Obama and his party (even generals in the military!) behave like one big dysfunctional family with no one being able to tell it like it is. Frustrating. On this issue, I feel that most reasonable-thinking Americans can agree and most poeple have been less than impressed with the Obama administration on the handling of this issue, especially as it impacts all of us.

I also agree with Andrew: Until Muslims stand-up against this hijacking of their religion, the table will not turn. I'm starting to think that most Muslims--men, especially--are a bunch of wimps. I have seen Muslim women behave more bravely.

LawHawkSF said...

WriterX: You're in the business of words, and you know how they can lead people down the primrose path. So many weasel words to avoid saying "militant Muslim terrorist attack."

As for Obama, there was a series of humor books put out starting in the early Sixties. It was called "Who's in Charge Here." The idea was to take news photos of politicians and put balloons above their heads describing what was being thought or said. This continued right up to the Carter administration. After two years of Carter, the publishers changed the name of the books to "Nobody's in Charge Here." Sound familiar?

Writer X said...

LawHawk, LOL! Those humor books would be so appropriate for today. Maybe the Obama version should be entitled "Nobody Has a Clue"?

LawHawkSF said...

WriterX: Or possibly "He's In Charge Here," with everybody in the picture pointing at somebody else. Complete with large bus in the background.

Post a Comment