Posted on 11/08/2009 1:24:05 PM PST by jazusamo
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was declared "not a terrorist" before the facts were out - even before officials were sure whether the attacker was alive or dead. Failing to honestly name a terrorist attack despite the evidence is as destructive and dishonest as leaping to call an attack terrorism without the facts to support that.
Apparently, the claim was based largely on the fact that Maj. Hasan appears to have been a lone gunman. However, terrorism is defined not by the number of people involved, but by the motivations and intentions of the attacker. If reports about him are true, Maj. Hasan clearly was a terrorist.
He reportedly was upset about the activities of the United States in the Middle East and purportedly had made postings about suicide attacks on jihadist forums. He told an associate that "maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor"; he was videotaped on the morning of the attack wearing traditional white clothing in the manner of someone about to martyr himself. The same day, he divested himself of belongings and handed out Korans, and he shouted the battle cry of the jihadists, "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire. If these reports are true, this was not just terrorism; it was Islamic jihadist terrorism.
It is unclear whether Maj. Hasan acted alone or others were involved in this attack. It would not come as a surprise to learn more people were involved. If so, it will constitute a major counterterrorism failure.
Troubling questions are emerging. What diverted authorities from doing a more thorough job of investigating Maj. Hasan six months ago, when he was suspected of jihadist tendencies? Why was he allowed to remain on active duty in the Army, live amongst the troops and prepare for deployment to a combat zone?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
AMEN!
In the Washington Times???????
This is HUGH and SERIES !!!
SOMEONE.....quick....get me the smelling salts!
"I already read the Times and Post.
The Washington Times and the New York Post."
Ignoring the truth is a deliberate act of treason by this administration.
Quick, get into the shower.
The Times.....not the Post.
If it had been the Wash Post I’d have had heart failure.
And puts us all in danger of attack. Wonder how many sleepers have been emboldened by the weak reaction of the WH, the military and the political leaders? I suddenly feel like a sitting duck.
This is what the scum sucking PC crowd wants us to think. I wonder if they are on the side of the terrorists?
Yep, it’s pretty close to it.
WRONG. Being Muslim is probable cause in a post 9/11 world, but because truth is untouchable to our PC socialist overlords, we will see more dead Americans. The new kneejerk mantra of the left ("So what if he's Muslim, that's not terrorism!") is the exact opposite of what common sense tell us.
Second it!
m_bttt
I believe a lot of the PC crowd are on their side though many are too dumb to realize it.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is a islamofascist terrorist, plain and simple!!
“Anyone who shouts “Allahu Akbar” and opens fire on a crowd of unarmed people is a terrorist. If Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is not a terrorist, no one is.”
No, there’s still those mean old right-wingers who criticize liberals. Janet Napolitano told me so.
Good for the Times.
The PC crowd wants to turn legitimate concern into prejudice against all Muslims. It’s not prejudice at all, it’s trying to save innocent lives from people who will kill them.
...it’s a shame that it takes a Korean owned paper to print the truth about what happened...likewise with the Times in the UK....all our US state controlled media does is reiterate Dem talking points.
Fixed. Geez, even an article trying to be un-PC remains PC. We must never, ever forget or whitewash the fact that these terrorist acts are wholly Muslim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.