The War on Terror Made Him Do It

.
As is seemingly tradition, the media is once again playing that classic game known as ‘How Can We Blame Bush?' It's the party favorite where liberals take the biggest headline of the day, and immediately link Bush to the cause in one fell swoop, eliminating all facets of rationale.

In his latest column, Dyer makes the tired argument that it is the War on Terror which breeds Muslim resentment, and by extension, is an obvious explanation for the actions of Major Nidal Malik Hasan. It was President Bush who popularized the War on Terror phrase, delivering a speech shortly after the attacks of September 11th which would outline his future plans.

As Dyer states:

The one explanation that is excluded is that America's wars in Muslim lands overseas are radicalizing Muslims at home.

Dyer's revisionist history also explains that the War on Terror itself was not in response to escalating attacks by jihadists - rather, it was part panic, part ignorance, and a heaping portion of racism.

Dyer explains:

So why did the U.S. invade those countries? The real reasons are panic and ignorance, reinforced by militaristic reflexes and laced with liberal amounts of racism.

This incredible argument is nothing new - that U.S. foreign policy is somehow responsible for the murderous actions of deranged jihadists. An argument rooted in the same vein as a Jeremiah Wright, the only phrase missing from Dyer's piece being ‘chickens coming home to roost'. In essence, the 13 lives lost at Fort Hood were lost because of the actions of our government.

Saying that the War on Terror breeds Muslim resentment is in a word, absurd.

Muslim resentment has been prevalent for quite some time, long before any tangible war had been waged. The U.S. was not engaged in a war prior to 9/11, when bloodshed was brought to our shores. Muslim fanatics on the other hand, were clearly already at war with America. It was certainly not Bush's war that contributed to the many terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. Not the bombing of the USS Cole, perpetrated by the Islamic fundamentalist group Al-Qaeda. Nor the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

It is rather stunning to sit here over eight years removed from 9/11, watching the media transform the story of that day from Americans being the victims, to Muslims being the victims; even when a Muslim commits 13 acts of cold and calculated murder in the name of God.

What Dyer fails to recognize, and what the main stream media has struggled mightily with since the War on Terror began, is that events such as this are not independent of the Muslim religion. They are, at least in part, because of extremists within the Muslim religion. Jihad, after all, is a religious term for ‘holy war'.

It is quite a simplistic attitude to believe that violence perpetrated by hard line Muslims is merely a response to American foreign policy. It is an excuse that Islamic fundamentalists want you to believe, and one which has flourished in the media. But it is nothing more than an excuse - one which avoids the harsh realities behind sharia law. Foreign policy, for example, does not enter the minds of those engaging in an epidemic of religious-based honor killings in the U.S.

The media would have you believe that the massacre at Fort Hood occurred because of every reason under the sun, other than the obvious. Hasan was a victim of taunts about his religion. He was stressed about his pending deployment. His car was keyed. His bumper stickers were removed. And now, according to Dyer, he is a product of U.S. aggression.

The problem here is that the media is far too frightened to admit the truth, preferring political correctness to an acceptance of reality. The reality being that there is a portion of the Muslim population which condones and supports violence, without reasonable justification. There is a jihad being waged upon our way of life. Hasan made himself a part of this holy war long before he shouted the phrase "Allahu Akbar!"

The media may not want to believe this, but it is true.

These religious fanatics kill over depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a cartoon. They kill when their daughter's become ‘too westernized'. They lob hand grenades at fellow soldiers while they sleep because of resentment. They behead their wives if they request a divorce.

Pointing this out however, will leave you marginalized in the media as bigoted and racist.

Accusations which have actually helped to create this current climate of political correctness; political correctness which has now directly cost innocent American's their lives.

The war may be won when Muslim fanatics such as Nidal Malik Hasan can no longer threaten the safety of our people. More realistically though, it will be won when the media finally disavows the ideology of death to innocent Americans, and once again portrays the dead as the real victims.

No, it is not the War on Terror which has bred Muslim resentment and violence. It is radical Muslim terror which has brought us to this war.

READ MORE

.
FT: 'Comforted' Military's Devotion To 'Diversity' Endures Despite Hasan Case

.

Fatal Correctness

.

The brutal massacre of thirteen unarmed soldiers and the wounding of dozens more at Fort Hood, Texas is another terrorist act on American soil that could have been prevented if not for an insidious cloud of political correctness that has taken this country hostage.

The victims of this horrific tragedy died at the hands of an enemy masquerading as a friend. Those soldiers had every reason to believe they were safe on an army base, surrounded by their patriotic brothers and sisters. They volunteered to serve their country, knowing full well that they might lose their lives on a battlefield in a foreign land. Could any of them have imagined that the end would come at the hands of a Muslim extremist wearing the uniform of an Army Major?

Evidently, it wasn't enough of a red flag to read this lunatic's anti-American bitterness, which he proudly posted on the Internet with no fear or compunction about using his own name. This is a guy who regularly wore the fundamentalism uniform of the enemy he was supposedly training our troops to defeat. This is a guy who wrote in laudatory terms about suicide bombers as he condemned US policies in the Middle East. This is a guy who reportedly told his military classmates that he was a Muslim first and an American second. Hello? Is there anyone out there with common sense? If this is national security, we are in more trouble than we realize. How many more savage time bombs do we have walking and stalking among us?

The blood of this massacre had hardly stopped flowing before members of the media were cautioning us not to view all Muslims as terrorists. That should go without saying, but what should not go without saying is that we'd better get serious about the obvious danger of excusing Muslims who make it clear that they hate this country. Discriminating against people because of their race or religion is a description of bigotry, but keeping a close eye on people who give every indication that they're dangerous is more than sensible -- it's a vital cog in the survival instinct.

In Virgil's epic poem The Aeneid, the great city of Troy was invulnerable until the Greeks devised a strategy in which a huge figure of a horse was left outside Troy's gates. Naïvely thinking it was a trophy delivered by their vanquished foes, the citizens of Troy (Trojans) pulled the towering figure into their city. They didn't know it was hollow and contained dozens of enemies who waited until the city slept before creeping out and opening the gates for the Greek army.

Like many great societies before and since, Troy was defeated from within. Greek mythology? Yes, but a lesson to be learned. Have we become naïve enough to believe that people who seem bent on destroying us should be protected, that we should allow them the freedom to carry out their nefarious plots? I don't care if the guy's name is Hasan or Henderson; if he evinces hostility toward our country or a propensity to harm us, he should be treated like the enemy he purports to be.

We must rid ourselves of the foolish notion that we're being broadminded when we ignore vitriolic loathing of our culture and our lifestyle. Refusing to take action against evil for fear of being guilty of stereotyping has resulted in flag-draped coffins for thirteen of America's finest. What occurred at Fort Hood is even more stunning because it exposes a weak-willed mentality that has become woven into the fabric of the mightiest military force in the history of the world.

When we think of political correctness, we usually view it as confined to the Hollywood crowd and other assorted leftists. The fact that it has invaded the ranks of those who defend our freedom, here and around the world, is more than a bit alarming. We must not let the death of those soldiers count for nothing.

If this unspeakable horror invokes a new paradigm in our approach to the enemies within, those who lost their lives will rest in peace, knowing that their sacrifice has taught us a lesson that will save countless other lives in the future. On the other hand, if we don't view this as a wake-up call and take appropriate action, the date of our destruction can't be far off.

READ MORE

.
CNN Zeroes-In on 'Right-Wing' Backlash Against Muslims From Pajamas Media

.

Ignoring Infiltration

.
It was Friday afternoon that I finished the draft of "The Left and Terror", at which point I logged on to waste a little time poking around the Net, something I am very good at. Imagine my shock at being confronted with the news from Fort Hood at that moment. Such coincidences tap into sources deep in the subconscious -- it was as if my own writing had somehow called Nidal Malik Hasan into existence. A disturbing sensation, one that served to curtail analysis of the event. I merely updated the piece and sent it on in.

Developments over the past days have amply confirmed the thesis offered in "The Left and Terror". What would a serious response to such an atrocity look like? We'd see swift activity aimed at halting any further such incidents. Not a "witch hunt", in the term so beloved of mass media, but a careful investigation followed by decisive action where necessary. There are undoubtedly more such individuals currently active in the military, not to mention other branches of government. We can only hope that they're dealt with before yet another massacre occurs.

Is that the response we've gotten? Not as far as I've been able to see. What the media (not the best guide in the world, granted) has presented is a world away. Obama has confronted the crisis with yet another serving of Hope and Change rhetoric. We shouldn't "jump to conclusions", says O, giving no notion of what those conclusions might be. He goes on to praise the "diversity" of the armed forces, as if the fact that Hasan the Assassin's victims came from different backgrounds somehow makes things better. It's evident that as in much else, Obama believes that such phraseology amounts to magic words that force bad things to go away.

We move on to Home Defense secretary Janet Napolitano, overseeing the protection of the country by traipsing around the global conference circuit. From thousands of miles away, she has stepped in to assure that there will be no "anti-Muslim backlash" in the hamlets and settlements of her benighted and primitive country. Good to see she's right on top of things.

Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey concurs, at least as far as forbidding any "speculation" concerning Hasan's faith. (It sounds as if he doesn't want anyone to figure out that he's a Muslim.) Gen. Casey, you may recall, made his mark by watching Iraq deteriorate under his command while stubbornly opposing the surge strategy proposed by Gen. David Petreaus. Which goes a long way toward qualifying him to deal with potential infiltration within his own ranks.

Though it hasn't yet hit the US, the "backlash" interpretation is well-nigh universal overseas, being featured in papers from the tabloid Daily Mail to the redbrick Guardian. Of course, there has never been a "backlash" against Muslims or Arabs in this country, nor is there any sign of one occurring now. Even after 9/11, uncontrolled acting-out was minimal. The sole victim that I can recall was an unfortunate Sikh who ran afoul of an unbalanced (and badly informed) man. If any other incidents took place, we'd be sure to have heard of them daily ever since, from such outfits as CAIR, not mention Napolitano and Dear Leader.

But why confuse ourselves with facts? The narrative has been set down: the problem involves not killers shooting innocents for pathological reasons, but nonexistent mobs running the streets of America, waving ropes and looking for anyone wearing a dishdash. It's not Islamists who are responsible; it's us, America and the people who inhabit it. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it can be cut down, trimmed, reshaped and refurbished and made to fit anything. Here it has been reworked to serve as the cover for the murder of thirteen servicemen and the maiming of thirty-odd others. And we're supposed to sit back and nod and say, "Obama knows best. If anything's wrong, Obama will tell us."

It will turn out to be the Army's fault. They simply didn't "adapt" themselves to Hasan's needs. They required him to do things. They insisted on sending him to Afghanistan when he didn't want to go. All those things they never require of Christian, secular, Jewish, or, Vishnu forbid, Hindu soldiers. Much will be made of the fact that somebody once keyed his car. (Always a good excuse for a massacre -- just ask all those lefties I shot after somebody keyed my vehicle for displaying the wrong bumper sticker.)

When it happens again -- as it will -- we will hear cries for more "understanding", for the armed forces to adapt to changing circumstances, for removal of crosses on military bases, for the elimination of Jewish officers in units into which Muslims might be transferred. Obama will give a speech about it. Secretary Napolitano will attend a series of conferences. As for Casey... well, who listens to retired generals anyway?

There's an interesting photo taken just after the German surrender in World War II. A GI is relaxing in a wrecked German room, laughing as he leafs through a copy of Mein Kampf. The caption stated that he'd have been "court-martialed for sedition" if he'd been seen doing that only a week before. Perhaps that was taking it too far -- very few if any American troops would ever have been tempted to take Hitler's ideas seriously. But would the same thing be taking it too far today?

World War II was not a war of infiltration -- but ours manifestly is. Eventually, after another dozen, or hundred, or ten thousand murders, we will fully wake up to that fact.

Until then, the Fort Hood massacre stands as only one more signpost on the road to the next catastrophe.

Source

txt gwot msm bias
Matthews on Ft. Hood Suspect Warning Signal: 'That's Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda, Is It?'

.

txt gwot msm bias
CBS’s Schieffer Blames Army for Ft. Hood Shooting

.

Reframing the Ft. Hood massacre

.
Despite the best attempts of the Obama administration and its media claque, very few Americans are buying the narrative that Major Hasan was a lone psycho who snapped. His PowerPoint presentation warning of "adverse events" if Muslims were made to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan has made its way to the media, he tried to contact Al Qaeda, and his radical imam inspired 2 of the 9/11 hijackers, for instance.

The pres is getting more creative in finding anything other than Islam's injunction to jihad to blame. The New York Times is claiming this is just one in a strong of violent incidents at Ft. Hood.

Fort Hood is still reeling from last week's carnage, in which an Army psychiatrist is accused of a massacre that left 13 people dead. But in the town of Killeen and other surrounding communities, the attack, one of the worst mass shootings on a military base in the United States, is also seen by many as another blow in an area that has been beset by crime and violence since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began. Reports of domestic abuse have grown by 75 percent since 2001. At the same time, violent crime in Killeen has risen 22 percent while declining 7 percent in towns of similar size in other parts of the country.

This is what the left likes to call blaming the victim, isn't it? And it has the double virtue in the Times' eyes of slandering Soldiers as violent louts.

President Obama's visit today to the Ft. Hood service is another attempt reframe the story and move on so that the memory will fade. Expect to see the following words and concepts emphasized in the President's rhetoric today and by lapdog media commentators:


Tragedy


Grief


Healing


Face the future


Unite


Strength


They may hope the memory will fade, but awkward questions about the role of political correctness in his military career demand answers. It will be fascinating to watch how Obama and the Democrats in Congress handle the inevitable inquiry.

Source

.
Harvard Prof. Equates Conservative Christians and Murderous Muslims

.

Scotland Yard and the FBI have prevented an attack on the New York subway

.
Scotland Yard and the FBI have prevented an attack on the New York subway that if successful would have been second in scope only to the attack on 9/11. Reportedly a senior member of al Qaeda gave instructions over the internet to Najibullah Zazi an airport shuttle bus driver. He reportedly used a stolen credit card to buy bomb making paraphernalia. Can we call this one terrorism or will it be classified as identity theft? The Telegraph has the story:

The plan, which reportedly would have been the biggest attack on America since 9/11, was uncovered after Scotland Yard intercepted an email.

The force alerted the FBI, who launched an operation which led to airport shuttle bus driver Najibullah Zazi, 24, being charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction.

The Afghan is alleged to have been part of a group who used stolen credit cards to buy components for bombs including nail varnish remover.

The chemicals bought were similar to those used to make the 2005 London Tube and bus explosives which killed 52 people.

Zazi, from Denver, Colorado, is understood to have been given instructions by a senior member of al Qaeda in Pakistan over the internet.

US authorities allegedly found bomb-making instructions on his laptop and his fingerprints on batteries and measuring scales they seized.

A phone containing footage of New York's Grand Central Station, thought to have been made by him during a visit a week before his arrest, was also found along with explosive residue. Zazi was also said by informants to have attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan.

The alleged plot was unmasked after an email address that was being monitored as part of the abortive Operation Pathway was suddenly reactivated. [...]

The British discovery also came at just the right time - the US had threatened to sever intelligence links over the release of Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi.

I wonder what official in the Obama White House came up with the bright idea to sever ties with Scotland Yard over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. This administration is playing Chicago politics with our national security.

We can be thankful that law enforcement personnel continue to put their lives on the line. In the past they didn't have to worry about being attacked by their own government. But with Eric Holder appointing a prosecutor to investigate the CIA and the President saying that police act 'stupidly' their jobs are made that much more difficult.

It would be a nice morale booster if the President would release a statement praising the FBI and our friends at Scotland Yard for a job well done.

[GWOT]

READ MORE

Holder to speak at CAIR-sponsored event despite ban

Rick Moran
Despite a ban on Justice Department employees participating in events involving the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Attorney General Eric Holder will appear in a forum where CAIR is one of the major sponsors.

Josh Gerstein at Politico:

Attorney General Eric Holder has agreed to give a keynote speech next week to a Michigan group which includes the local branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations even though the FBI has formally severed contacts with the controversial Muslim civil rights organization.

On Nov. 19, Holder is scheduled to speak in Detroit to the first annual awards banquet of Advocates and Leaders for Police and Community Trust, a coalition of several dozen law enforcement and community groups. An online registration form for the event includes the Council on American Islamic Relations-Michigan on a list of "official & participating organizations."[...]

The FBI claims it cut "formal contacts" with CAIR after federal prosecutors in the 2007 criminal trial of officers of a Texas-based Islamic charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, introduced documents the government said showed links between CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, which gave rise to Hamas.

"Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner," FBI Congressional liaison Richard Powers wrote in an April letter to Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

The Justice Department referred questions about Holder's speech and CAIR's involvement to the FBI's field office in Detroit which, in turn, referred the questions to FBI headquarters in Washington.

CAIR was an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Holy Land Foundation case due to some now former board members having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and some of the money raised by the group indirectly ending up in the hands of Hamas.

What good is a ban if the boss himself flaunts disobeying it?

Clearly, the FBI doesn't have a clue, as evidenced by the run around they gave Gerstein. So here you have the spectacle of our number one domestic counter terror agency having to defend its boss from charges that he is speaking to a group with ties to an outfit that supports terrorists.

What's wrong with that picture?

READ MORE