Replies

I have a hard time believing the Army didn’t try and deal with this guy. I’d lay odds that the word to leave this guy alone came from the top (Obie).

Zero...Jumps all over the Cambridge police and calls them “stupid” before getting the facts. However, a Muslim kills 13 innocent people and Zero tells us not to jump to conclusions....F-U BHO!

Do a search using the words “terrorist attack”.

Notice how many stories are Muslim related?

Do a search using the words “honor killing”.

Notice how many stories are Muslim related?

Call me a bigot, racist xenophobe - whatever. But I see a pattern emerging!

And the fact that our own government denies (lies) that there is a clear link to the pseudo-religious cult named Islam and terrorism makes me wonder if our own government is complicit.

(Please spread the word)

“We demand that those Soldiers killed or wounded in the Fort Hood terrorist attack all be awarded the Purple Heart!”

Force the Chief of Staff to say YES or NO!

Let me be contrarian and suggest that calling the attack at Ft. Hood "terrorism" is only slightly less head-in-the-sand about the real issue than the patently absurd "He just went 'postal'" or "We don't know his real motive" blather from the media and the military brass.

The attack at Ft. Hood was treason. The attack at Ft. Hood was jihad. But was it terrorism? The traitor, motivated by, one common interpretation of the Quran, alas, within the mainstream of Islamic jurisprudence, attacked soldiers, not civilians. Terrorism involves civilian targets, not merely cowardly acts of war: it is a tactic specifically directed against democratic polities, intended to induce surrender or policy changes by creating fear in the population at large.

Insisting on calling it "terrorism" is part and parcel of the already-too-PC nonsense of a "War on Terror". We are at war with the salafist sect of Sunni Islam (which includes Al Qaeda and the Taliban), and in a cold war with the "Hastener" sect of "Twelver" Shi'ite Islam (the Iranian regime), not with "Terror", nor even with terrorism. (As some have noted "War on Terror" is as stupid a turn of phrase as it would have been to call the Pacific War during WW II the "War on Naval Aviation".)

We are not at war with Islam qua Islam: there have been no attacks on the United States or Western interests by "Sevener" or "Fourer" Shi'ites. The "Twelver" Shi'ites who look to Ali Al-Sistani as their marja or "point of reference" are, by and large, our allies in this war. Likewise we have many Sunni allies--mostly joining our side after experiencing life under the salafists, whether in the Sunni regions of Iraq that fell briefly under the control of Al Qaeda, or in Afghanistan after experiencing Taliban rule.

Unfortunately, a combination of political correctness (mostly of the oh! please, please, don't call me a racist! variety) and the undoubted fact that we do have Muslim allies in the present war (and the future one against the "Hasteners"), and arguably need them to prevail, prevented authorities from noticing or acting on the fact that Major Hassan had gone over to the enemy and become a salafist. (The bizarre lecture at Bethesda, his no photos with women stance, and his continuing contacts with his salafist imam all support this conclusion.)

The military and our society need real understanding of Muslim culture, not a kumaya-singing PC multiculturalist 'tolerance and respect' pseudo-understanding, nor the equally-absurd "Islam is a death-cult" dismissal of all Muslims as enemies, but understanding that can sort out Muslim theological and cultural tendencies and notice which ones pose threats and which ones are our natural allies.

No Muslims in the military is a nonsensical position. No salafists in the military is prudent policy.