Friday, December 9, 2011

Islamic Coverups From The White House

There just seems to be no end to the Obama administration's efforts to pretty up Islam and divorce the murderous actions of its radical followers from the "religion of peace" face the administration wants to put on it. The latest outrage is the report from the Department of Defense calling the Fort Hood massacre a matter of "workplace violence."

Yes, it was workplace violence, all right--punctuated by the triumphal shout of Allahu akbar. The perpetrator didn't "go postal," he "went jihadist."

Thirteen people were murdered that day at Fort Hood. Many others were seriously wounded. The military authorities, knowing what their political superiors expected, urged caution about making a determination that religious fanaticism had anything to do with the attack. The terrorist was known within the military community as a bit of a nut who had become increasingly radical in his Muslim beliefs. He wasn't quiet about it. He would spout violent Islamic phrases at anyone willing to listen. And even without that information, shouting "Allahu akbar" while murdering thirteen unarmed soldiers might have given them a clue.

I tend to think that President George Bush really knew that Islam is not by any means the "religion of peace." But he cautioned against tarring every Muslim with the terrorist label, and asked the American people not to retaliate mindlessly and randomly against Muslims in their community. That was probably a wise thing to do after 9/11, and I give him credit for doing his best to avoid vigilantism in the aftermath of a terrible mass murder.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, seems to believe to his core that Islam really is a peaceful religion and that the obvious must be ignored in order to get the ignorant American masses to turn away from the lynchings they would commit without him. He is a fool, and overly-solicitous of a religion that is fundamentally supremacist, violent, and medieval. He is at best a weak-kneed cafeteria Christian, and likely thinks that most Muslims in America treat their religion the same way he treats his. He ignores the radicalization of Muslim immigrants and the growing fundamentalism of Muslims born in the United States.

There have been thirty-three clear but unsuccessful Islamic conspiracies to kill American soldiers on American soil or to blow up domestic military facilities since 9/11, with an even larger number being investigated. So far, the terrorists' plans have largely been thwarted and the conspirators arrested on charges ranging from traditional conspiracy and "attempt" charges to straight-up charges of terrorist activity.

Our military facilities serve the same symbolic purpose for Islamists as did the World Trade Center. They are symbols of American power, and Islamist organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood want to deflate American power while enhancing their own. Human lives mean nothing to these jihadists, except to frighten some of the people who should be least afraid. Because of the Obamist political correctness, most military personnel are still unarmed on their own bases "for security reasons." Somehow that didn't stop mass murderer and Islamist terrorist Nidal Hasan from mowing down his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

More importantly, in order to avoid the horror of ethnic or religious profiling, the military is doing little or nothing to weed out the growing number of Islamists within the ranks. The administration would prefer the horror of mass murder to the hate crime of weeding out those who would do their fellow soldiers serious harm.

In 2009, Army Private William Long was murdered outside an Arkansas recruiting center by a Muslim fanatic who clearly stated that he was avenging Muslim deaths and acting as an agent of a Yemeni Al Qaeda offshoot. Another private was seriously wounded. But like the "workplace violence" at Fort Hood, this terrorist attack has been declared to be a "drive-by shooting." Who do these idiots in the administration and their counterparts in the military think they're fooling? Anyone with an ounce of sense knows what really drives these killers.

In Seattle this year, two Muslim radicals planned to attack a military installation with guns and hand grenades. Around the same time, another militant army private, Nasser Abdo, was charged with planning a second attack on Fort Hood. And then there's good old Jose Pimental, a Muslim convert, who had made plans to kill soldiers returning from Afghanistan. Both Abdo and Pimental stated that they learned everything they needed to know about committing terror against the military from Anwar al-Awlaki's Inspire Magazine, particularly an article entitled "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom." The Fort Hood murderer was also an al-Awlaki disciple.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has been investigating the Islamist and homegrown terrorist threat within the United States, particularly the military, for months. His reward has been to be vilified in the mainstream media and Democratic circles as an Islamophobe. The vicious personal attacks on him for daring to question the wisdom of treating Islam as the religion of peace have not deterred him or his investigation.

In a joint session of the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees this past Wednesday, King declared: "There's a definite threat from Islamic radicalization in various parts of our society, including within the military, and we can't allow political correctness to keep us from exposing the threat for what it is." In a corresponding response to the reclassification of terrorist activity to "workplace violence" and "drive-by shootings," normally reluctant Senator Susan Collins (R?-Maine) said: "Political-correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's Armed Forces at home."

It's past time to stop using euphemisms and politically-correct avoidance of offending those who need to be offended and start calling this ongoing problem by its right name: "endemic, metastasizing and deadly Islamofascist terrorism." If that offends those who practice the fundamentalist form of the religion of peace, tough. These acts are not "tragedies." They are not "workplace violence." They are not "drive-by shootings." They are not "man-caused disasters." They are clearly and unequivocally Islamist terrorism.

21 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

Terrorism by any other name would smell just as bad. Workplace violence covers up very little, but it does serve to direct anger towards a straw dog. Since our politicians operate under group-think and seem to think that ordinary people can't see anything except through the filters politician's prefer, this will stand for as long as we elect RINO's, democrats, and other self-serving kooks.

I just hope that this next Republican Convention is brokered and not won outright by any one candidate. There is a small possibility of this happening.

The Precinct Project aims to be an upset. If this is in place with enough "Tea Party Types" then we have a chance to get a solid conservative. Not a TRUE one. There ain't no such thing.

Tennessee Jed said...

well said, Hawk . . . but I am afraid your pronouncement will continue to fall on deaf ears as long as America haters control so much of government. I am amazed how a particular group has been able to dominate !"journalism," "academia," and "entertainment/arts {sic} "pop culture." To this, I fear, not only must we worry about elected officials and political appointments, but federal government seems to be heavily populated with leftist sympathizers. This last is natural when you think about it since leftists naturally gravitate towards cushy protected civil service jobs. When I think about it in this way, AND add in the threat of jihadism from within with a government that hates the country, it is a grim view, indeed.

tryanmax said...

Joel, thanks for the link. Leave it to Nebraska to be different. But at least I now know where to go for more info.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I'd like to see a return to the old precinct-level politics (that's what I cut my political teeth on back when we had real conventions rather than annointings). Anyone who has seen an old newsreel of a genuine "floor fight" knows what real political excitement was. The proverbial "dark horse" was much more likely then than now.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: One of the goals of the political elite is to "get 'em while they're young." The left has been highly successful at doing that. When a large portion of a people owes what they have to the government, liberty is truly endangered. It is grim, indeed.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: Nebraska really is an interesting place, starting with their unicameral legislature.

tryanmax said...

LawHawk, everybody keeps saying that.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: I think the unicameral legislature is a great idea. If the only difference between the two houses is how the districts are gerrymandered, why waste taxpayer money and time with two sides of the same coin?

Joel's point is well-taken. Local politics has become a matter of deciding among the candidates who have already been picked on the state or national level. That's somewhat backwards. A stellar local district attorney or small town mayor no longer has much of a chance of showing up on a statewide or national ballot.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
We are governed by a bunch of whiny parasites. Our current conditions however are based upon our selves. We ignored the little steps as insignificant derivations. We allowed our educational system to commandeered by pinko-unionists and turned the worlds best into crap.
Why don't we get the commies and jihadists out of the country. We can let folks take care of themselves and each other. Abolish all forms of welfare and unionism.
There are no companies to large to fail just as there are no countries that cannot fail.
Any thing that is driven off a cliff will crash.

AndrewPrice said...

Calling it workplace violence is pretty stupid and I can't see anyone taking that seriously.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: Whiny parasites. I like that. If we don't roll back most of the massive "government assistance" programs soon, it will be too late. Once there is a clear majority of welfare recipients, there will be no way to stem the tide. We're within inches of that situation right now.

As for unions, until the Supreme Court declares collective bargaining unconstitutional, we're stuck. That's unlikely. But we can get control of the NLRB and stop the government from acting as the unions' cheering squad. Each state could pass right-to-work laws, crippling the power of the union bosses to force unions on unwilling workers. And since it was an executive order that allowed federal employees to unionize, it could be undone by a corresponding executive order.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I agree that nobody who doesn't have a particular agenda could possibly ignore the clear facts. But unfortunately, the administration and the bureaucrats continue to take this nonsense seriously, even if they don't really believe it themselves. I can't think of a period in my lifetime where an administration has been so purposefully and willfully blind to a national security threat.

There are probably a few people around who do remember that Germany was our friend, and Hitler was just putting his house in order, posing no threat to the United States. Many of them also knew that Japan was a relatively benign, somewhat exotic faraway Asian nation that would never attack America.

Pearl Harbor changed all that. But somehow, 9/11 has not had the same effect on the left, the administration, and a large segment of the American population. Clarity of thought and a clear understanding of who the enemy is escapes the minds of far too many Americans. Even many of those who are willing to admit that the things described in the article are directly related to radical Islam will still immediately issue the standard guilt-ridden statement that "it's not all Muslims" as if that settled the issue or solved the problem.

LawHawkRFD said...

Semi-related news: It has just been announced that New York City's Saint Nicholas Orthodox Church will be rebuilt after all. It was utterly destroyed in the 9/11 attack. While the city officials were kissing the backside of the Ground Zero Mosque backers, they were just as busy standing in the way of those who wanted to rebuild the church. Permits were denied, land swaps were nixed, and the city officials simply didn't care whether an historical Christian had been destroyed by Islamists. Apparently, the parishioners and local leaders were finally able to prevail against the odds. God bless them!

BevfromNYC said...

LawHawk - in other related news, ConEd has takeb Park51 of Ground Zero mosque fame, to court to have them evicted for non-payment of rent to the tune of $1.7M so far. A judge blocked the eviction, but ordered Park51 to pay up or explain why they can't.

So it looks like the Greek Orthodox Church will be rebuilt and maybe there won't be any new mosque near WTC masquerading as a "community outreach center".

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Thanks for the update. Maybe a little justice will come out of this after all. On the other hand, I'm sure there are hundreds of Saudi princes who can pony up the back rent, which is just walking-around money for them. But we can hope.

Individualist said...

"Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of your Mom"

Wow Lawhawk I now know why William Ayers crowd likes these guys so much.... they are jealous. Even Charles Manson is a "moderate" terrorist in comparison.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: Don't ya just love the weird use of English in that title?

To this day, Obama still claims that Ayers is "just a guy I know." I guess if someone would believe that he would also believe there's no Islamic connection to the terrorist attacks. And you're right. Ayers, Dohrn, and Manson were amateurs compared to these guys.

T-Rav said...

St. Nicholas Church being rebuilt, mosque builders suffering more woes...not too bad a day.

I was just reading about the possibility of a brokered convention a few minutes ago. That would be pretty interesting--not least because it might provide an opening for genuine conservatives to win the nomination.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I'd certainly like to see something that would shake up this lineup we currently have.

LawHawkRFD said...

The "brokered convention" concept seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. Here's another article on the subject: Could A Dark Horse Win?

T-Rav said...

LawHawk, I just read that. It's unlikely, I think, but there is so much instability in the field right now there's really no telling what will go down. I'll say this much, it would be a political junkie's dream come true to watch that happen.

Post a Comment