- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Credit D. Poesel for forwarding the article.
Call This Horror By Its Name: Islamist Terror
By Ralph Peters
On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting, “Allahu akbar!” (“God is great!”) committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.
What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.
This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.
When the terrorist posts anti-American hate speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as “Palestinian” in a Muslim spouse-matching program and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an “Islamist terrorist.”
But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as “Islamist terrorism” in ObamaWorld.
And the Army won’t. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America haters is safer than calling terrorism “terrorism.”
And the media won’t. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second was that he wasn’t killed on the spot.
Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming “harassment” drove him temporarily insane. There’ll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn’t dare pursue or carry out the death penalty.
Maj. Hasan will be a hero to Islamist terrorists abroad and their sympathizers here. While US Muslim organizations decry his acts publicly, Hasan will be praised privately. And he’ll have the last laugh.
But Hasan isn’t the sole guilty party. The US Army’s unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Fort Hood.
Given the myriad warning signs, it’s appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Fort Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.
Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would’ve been gone with the simoom. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.
Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. At least 38 people were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don’t roll in this maggot’s chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.
There’s another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist wacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who’ve been assigned to his care? And he’s not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?
For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I’m ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him.
Get ready for the apologias. We’ve already heard from the terrorist’s family that “he’s a good American.” In their world, maybe he is.
But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense?
A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she’s becoming too Westernized.
Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we’re assured that “Islam’s a religion of peace.”
I guarantee you that the Obama administration’s nonresponse to the Fort Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.
Ralph Peters’ latest novel is “The War After Armageddon.”
-
Although I understand and agree with much of this article their are some points to consider carefully.
[quote:u8wywnhu]When the terrorist posts anti-American hate speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as “Palestinian” in a Muslim spouse-matching program and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an “Islamist terrorist.” [/quote:u8wywnhu]
I this paragraph is taking all the points mentioned into consideration, then yes I can agree, but let’s be careful here;
“loudly criticizes US policies”?
Since when is this wrong? Many people disgree with US policies, this does not make them Terrorists.Recently a (Christian) Greek orthodox priest was attacked in Florida by a man who’s claiming he thought he was a terrorist because he wore a long black robe and had a long beard,
The story can be read here:
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe … 050707.eceThe shooting is a terrible tragedy, when we have more information, I believe we will be able to call it an act of terrorism, all I’m saying is let’s be careful we don’t go over board and lump all muslims or anyone we can mistake for them as terrorists.
-
Agreed, but I think the author here is presenting the facts as a whole. I don’t think he means that anyone who loudly criticizes US policy is terrorist.
I think what he’s saying is its probably safe to conclude you’re a terrorist when:
You post anti-American hate speech
You praise suicide bombers
You loudly criticize US policy
You are a military psychologist who tells your military patients their sacrifice for country is not worth it
You demonstrate radical Islamic beliefs when you refuse to photographed with female colleagues
You consider yourself Palestinian when you are an American Soldier
You dress in the fashion of Islamic Jihadists
You murder 12 soldiers in cold blood for no apparent reason.Now, each of these things by themselves might not lead to terrorist, but when you add them all together, it smells like terror.
No one is going to get the jack boots out and start kicking down doors and confiscating everyone’s porn…Not yet anyway. But we can’t be afraid to call it like we see it. Are we going to need a signed affidavit from his guy declaring him a terrorist. Heck, this guy could have just been acting on his own, with out any connection to any terrorist organization. But just because he’s not a card carrying member of Hamas, doesn’t make him any less a terrorist.
What’s the definition of a terrorist?
* S: (n) terrorist (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities)OK. Based on the article. Now the facts could be wrong, and my fact checker is out training with local Air Force Security.
Did he employ terror as a political weapon and did he use his religion as a cover.
I say the fact that he was clear about what he stood for and attacked US military installation in that manner may qualify him as a terrorist. The fact that he may be acting alone doesn’t disqualify him. His religion was a big part of who he was, in the way he dressed and in his actions.
Let’s not candy coat it- terrorist.
-
Well, that certainly PISSED me off, though Im afraid Damian is right. The Army won’t do a damn thing because they fear persecution for discrimination charges from congress and our so-called President Obama whose a Friggen islamic-sympathizer/socialist/communist douchebag. Political Correctness is saving this guys ass and weakening the U.S. Military Command. An Islamic Soldier of the U.S. Army who has radical views and obviously disdain for the U.S. opens fire on a U.S. base in Texas, I imagined he used an M-16. The sad part is he wasn’t killed on sight. They should’ve saved time and money and put one in his head right there
-
The fact is the military moves slow in getting rid of even their problem personnel. Every major gang has members receiving training in the military, and some are even stealing weapons. MS13 tags can be found on buildings in Iraq, and many members of white power groups said nobody bothered them while they were serving.
Fact is like in self defense you have to make your move if you think something will happen. Its better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission. If that man’s superiors saw him as a problem, which they documented he was, what more do they need to do to make a move?
I have a friend, “Jimmy” who works as a contractor and is a translator. Couldn’t find a more patriotic American and when he discovered another man openly talking about how much he hated the US and how he was just working as a translator to learn about American troops, and make money he turned him in right away. He didn’t respect his politics and he didn’t give him a break, because the man was a fellow Arab.
You shouldn’t stereo type, but when it is clear what someone up to people need to act.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
