Fort Hood's 9/11

[Peikko 1,575]

After the 7/7 London transport bombings woke at least some people up to the phenomenon of British ‘sleeper’ Islamic terrorism – and, equally important, to the way this was continuing to be denied by the British establishment – the reaction across the pond was, to say the least, complacent. What on earth had happened to the British lion? Americans asked, scratching their heads in amazement at how a country which had once stood united in determination to fight the enemies of democracy on the beaches was now apparently indifferent to the spread of jihadi fanaticism and support for religiously inspired violence amongst its own citizens. Americans were particularly astounded that Islamists were even being recruited to serve in the British police and other parts of the establishment.

The fact was, however, as I have written and said on a number of occasions, America was going in a similar direction, albeit more slowly and with a quite different demographic. While the vast majority of its Muslim citizens appeared to be people who really had come to the US to get a slice of the good life and had signed up to American values, there was a growing element amongst US Muslims which was becoming steadily radicalised. Worse still, the FBI and other counter-terrorism agencies had been influenced by their appeasement-minded British cousins in the security world peddling their wholly false analysis of Islamic terrorism as having nothing to do with religion, encouraging US officials similarly to downplay or passively allow the rise of US radicalisation. (See for example this story about the silence over a Hizb ut Tahrir conference in Chicago.)

Now we have seen the horrific outcome – the Fort Hood attack which left 13 people dead and dozens more injured by army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who reportedly screamed the jihadi battle cry ‘Allahu akhbar!’ before he opened fire. There can be no doubt whatever that this was a jihadi attack upon America, not least from the evidence that has now surfaced of Major Hasan’s attitudes for months before his rampage – evidence that the US authorities simply ignored. The Times reported:

His name appears above radical internet postings praising Islamic suicide bombers — something that the FBI was alerted to six months ago. He had frequent arguments with soldiers at Fort Hood because of his declarations that fellow Muslims ‘should stand up and fight against the aggressor’, and his vocal opposition to US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He even appeared to celebrate the shooting dead of a soldier at an army recruiting centre in Arkansas in June, carried out by a Muslim convert. He said at the time that Muslims should strap on suicide bombs and detonate them in Times Square.

These were the extraordinarily provocative statements and actions of the army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan in the months before his deadly shootings at Fort Hood — a massacre that began with him shouting ‘God is Great’ in Arabic.

Yet not only did the US authorities ignore these warning signs that its army psychiatrist was an Islamist fanatic – it has been revealed that he was even a member of the Homeland Security panel advising on the presidential transition -- but much of the media reaction to the atrocity on both sides of the Atlantic has demonstrated an astounding state of denial. The BBC tried to close off any possibility that this was a jihadi attack and then appeared to lose interest in the story altogether; while the Guardian maintained that the victims of the atrocity were not the American military but the Muslim community, on the basis of revenge attacks against them of which, thankfully, there has been as yet not one sign. (This is the same Guardian that, week in, week out, runs mendacious or distorted pieces about Israel which contribute to a climate of frenzied hatred of Israel and its Jewish supporters which results in dramatic spikes in the number of attacks on British Jews). See Robin Shepherd’s blog entry for an excellent analysis of this extraordinary coverage. And see Robert Spencer here and here and C Edmund Wright here for some discussion of Jihadi Denial Syndrome in the US.

Now it has been further revealed that Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a ‘spiritual adviser’ to three of the hijackers who attacked America on 9/11. Nevertheless, people are still suggesting that he just snapped -- possibly under the impact of, wait for it, post-traumatic stress arising from military conflict. In other words, he was not a religious fanatic but was merely deranged. But religious fanatics are deranged. How else to describe the people who cut off the heads of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg and so many others; or who strapped suicide bomb belts onto hundreds of Iranian children to turn them into human bombs against the Iraqis; or who want to murder thousands of their fellow British citizens because the Islamists ‘love death’?

Oh I forgot; they are all just resistance fighters against Israeli oppression.

One really has to wonder, looking at this reaction to the fanatic psychiatrist whom the US authorities employed to counsel their soldiers, just who really needs the clinical treatment here.

Link

[_Simpson_ 250]

On an individual basis, I don't give a ####### who wants to call this guy a terrorist based on speculation derived from the media. I do however take issue with media pundits who do so in order to score cheap political points. The OP's article was what I was objecting to because it does exactly that in spades. That was the whole thrust of my argument, not what you personally can and can't conclude based on the scant facts available to the general public.

Tell me this one thing. In your opinion, was the OP article an example of a well researched, objective piece?

If the only reason for making such a assumption was to score cheap political points then I would have a issue with it, but as you know I think that there is some valid points to what some of these pundits are saying.

Tell me this one thing. In your opinion, was the OP article an example of a well researched, objective piece?

I agree, this was not a well researched, objective piece. Example, like when it makes the assumption that once Muslim organizations make public statements objecting to this they go laughing behind the scenes(I do believe that some organizations are like that but not a lot) or that Obama needs to step up to the plate and call him a terrorist, he is the president and doesnt have that luxury of pointing out the obvious. I think Obama has handled this situation correctly. I do however think the article brought up some good points, like how PC might of had something to do with him not coming under more scrutiny.

Facts not supposition, simple. Where do you get your 'facts' from Simpson?

I took a bunch of facts and came to a reasonable conclusion.

How, based on what?

From the OP:

..."But Hasan isn’t the sole guilty party. The US Army’s unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. 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 Ft. Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor."

What part of that is based on fact and evidence? I see a lot of invective derived from the original premise (that this was a known terrorist who one could forsee was going to commit a murderous terrorist act) but no evidence of army policy that would lead one to believe that the army is ham strung by the strictures of political correctness. When, exactly did the army become so hung up on political correctness? What policies are in place that prevents the army from taking 'meaningful' action in cases where it is 'obvious' that there is a problem with a 'dysfunctional soldier'? I don't see any evidence of this. I don't remember reading one article prior to this incident that suggested the army was struggling with these problems and that such an incident was bound to happen.

This appalling opinion piece had one aim, that of painting the current president as unfit to call himself an American, and someone under whom even the army has gone to the dogs and where those wretched muslims will win the war by default because America is too pc to deny a us muslim their rights as a citizen. The author of this is:

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."

This is appalling, wretched and inciteful nonsense. Who knew?

MC I would like to mention that I already said that this piece was not a well researched, objective piece. About the PC aspect of it, yeah we dont have evidence and no one in the army will say otherwise. I feel that since 9/11 we have been real carefull not to offend or falsely accuse our Muslim residents. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing but I think we have gotten a little carried away.

[Peikko 1,575]

Carried away?

I honestly am not sure what you mean. The investigation is still ongoing but as things stand so far nothing was done about this person, not because people were being too PC but because despite the oddities in his behaviour and attitude and even (somewhat more incredibly to me than his religious zealousness) his apparent incompetence at his chosen profession it was concluded by people who are supposed to know these things that he was not dangerous.

Clearly, this was something of a failure because he turned out to indeed by very, very dangerous. However, very often after these mass killings by lone gunmen, although there is often an indication that all is not well, the signs are too difficult for people to be able to confidently predict that such events are necessarily going to take place enough to be able to not only say for certain that they are dangerous, but that they must be removed from society before they commit whatever heinous act they may end up committing. That is the difficulty as I see it.

Would that all would be mass murderers joined terrorist organisations, that would make things a lot easier for everyone.