When the name, looks, behavior and vocal opposition to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan by a devout Muslim turned Islamic terrorist, culminates in the killing of 13 and injures 28 at the largest US military instillation in the world, by one of our alleged own, resulting in the second major Islamic attack on the United States since 9/11, is called something other than terrorism, we are living in a sad state of political correctness – hardly representing transparency.
This political correctness descends from the White House through all political operatives that have access to the media and thus infiltrates the opinions of the mainstream press.
It is a classic case of media manipulation, creating an inaccurate public perception of a horrific event. For what reasons, we can only speculate, but it appears to be political correctness.
When the scene fits the profile of terrorism, the assailant vocally behaves like one before the act and during the execution of the carnage crying out the words of ‘Allahu Akbar’ – ‘God Is Good’, it is difficult for the American people to accept that this was a single, isolated act by a psychopath, as some would like us to believe.
Major Malik Nadal Hasan, a devout Muslim, a military psychiatrist, scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan was the alleged shooter. Military reports said that he fired some 100 rounds from an automatic pistol, which means he would have had to re-load 5 times.
It was but a few hours after the terrorist act, that the media interviewed, family and colleagues of Hasan who collectively said he consistently voiced opposition to the war on terror – because he saw it as a war against Islam. He obviously saw himself on the wrong side with respect to his religion and followed his teachings, whether they are from Islam or the Taliban.
It was a premeditated act; he had to purchase the pistol and the automatic weapon as well as the rounds of ammo, plan a way to get the arms on the base, and the day before began giving away personal items – even his Quran.
It is a known fact that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have targeted US Military installations and US Prisons for the recruitment of disciples for their cause. The cells they create range from a single individual to one of many – the end result is the same, whether organized from a central group and a plan, or executed by one – carnage
Among the intelligence community it is believed that there is a fine line between the practice of Islam and the segue to becoming a radical Islamist.
All of the signs were there, the red flags were flying, but our intelligence agencies missed the motives of Major Hasan. How many more Hasan’s are in the military?
It is despicable that our politicians from the White House throughout the congress can’t identify the Ft. Hood incident for what it was – terrorism. No, it would rather not try to identify the religious issue for political correctness.
You see we readily identified 9/11 as a terrorist act because it consisted of four acts, closely coordinated and a terrorist group took credit for it. Major Hasan’s single act was no different than any one of those carried out on 9/11. They were all carried out by psychopaths on a planned mission of terrorism.
Yes, if it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, talks like a Duck – I’ll bet it’s a Duck.



4 users commented in " Call The Ft. Hood Carnage For What It Was – Terrorism; Not Something Else, For Political Correctness "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackPlease name one intelligence agency that believes”that there is a fine line between the practice of Islam and the segue to becoming a radical Islamist”; and your source for that information.
The comment comes from multiple sources and is a composite of individual beliefs, not necessarily one agency. For obvious reasons the sources requested anonymity. As you might suspect, for political correctness, no single agency would make such a statement in today’s environment.
I might refer you to the lead story on the subject of the Fort Hood shooting in Today’s New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html?_r=1 , not only does it contain some interesting developments – but it too has difficulty in identifying sources, especially when it comes to intelligence agencies.
It makes reference to the FBI, but does not identify a source from within. When quoting the source the Times says “he and the other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity.” The article generically refers to counterrorism and military officials. It concludes comments and quotes from others within the intelligence and military communities by identifying the source as “officials said” at least 5 times.
Your question of source raises an issue in the field of journalism, which has been hotly debated. And that is if you can’t identify the source directly with a name, should you use the material at all? Some would go as far as to say one should not quote a source such as the “White House said” or the “FBI said” without identifying a person.
Over the years I have talked to agents within the intelligence community and never identified the source unless I was given permission to do so, and that would apply to the agency or the individual. There is an understandable sensitivity within this arena that does not apply to all sources of information.
It is a judgment call, especially if you know the source to be sound and the information critical to the story.
Sorry for the long answer. I’m sure the debate will continue in the field of journalism.
Is radical Islam one of the most serious threats to our nation as well as to other nations? Absolutely. Must we be constantly vigilant to this threat? Yes. Is this type of enemy that operates outside of national boundaries and integrates itself into the civilian and now military population the most difficult to combat? Certainly. Considering the above our intelligence agencies have performed superbly in tracking and aborting more threats than is known to the public. The dedication of skilled men and women in the intelligence services combined with the most advanced technology have kept us safe and continue to do so. I think we can agree on these facts.
Concerning the NY Times article that you refer to you omitted an important fact for the anonymity of individuals. That fact being that the matter is currently under investigation. There is no difficulty in identifying individuals. These are legal precautions. As far as other information in the article is concerned it is sufficient to say that “sources within the FBI”, or “officials said” because they are presenting information they possessed and reviewed. Individual names are completely irrelevant and serve no purpose in identifying.
Now to your statement: “Among the intelligence community it is believed that there is a fine line between the practice of Islam and the segue to becoming a radical Islamist.” Then you say that the comment comes from multiple sources and is a composite of multiple beliefs not necessarily from one agency and that your sources requested anonymity. Since there are a number of agencies involved and we can assume many individuals I have to say that it strains credulity. Either your writing under a pseudonym and your really Bob Woodward or you should be writing fiction. I would be curious to know in what capacity you interviewed or discussed intelligence information,over the years,
with agency personnel. But of course this must be highly classified information and you can’t divulge it.
But now to what concerns me most. Your statement reflects one of the most basest of acts that have plagued humanity over the ages. That is condemning an entire population over their religious beliefs. The most horrendous and inhumane deeds that individuals have done to each other over the ages and still continue to do so, have that common thread. In defending ourselves we have to be strong and understand the violent nature of our enemy and combat it completely until they are defeated. But we can’t become them or we lose.
Interesting how you defend the New York Times use of nefarious sources, yet portray mine as fiction. There has been more proven fiction in the Times than on this website. It is also interesting how you begin the debate on the basis of a source of a comment, disbelieve it, and then move on to the substance of the column. Where were you on the first round? There seems to be a pattern to this dialog, perhaps to the left of Rham Emanuel?
Leave A Reply