UPDATED: Ft. Hood Massacre An Act of Terrorism?
It is, in my opinion.
This is an act of terrorism until proven otherwise, not the other way around (which was what the media and the government have trained you to think). We’re always told that terrorism can be immediately ruled out. Why? Because the media and the government are afraid of offending Muslims. It’s true, and I’m not afraid to say it.
Why do I say this should be considered an act of terrorism until disproved?
- The alleged shooter is a Muslim
- His name is listed on radical Islamic Internet postings
- He disapproved of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
- He fought his deployment to Iraq
- Allegedly stated that Muslims had a right to stand up to their aggressors (referring to America)
Given that information I’d say it’s prudent and to assume terrorism until proven otherwise. Is that profiling? Maybe. But I don’t care. Any sane, logically-thinking person would agree with this given the facts as we know them. Only politically-correct appeasers would disagree with this assumption.
(Just so I’m clear on my terminology: an act like this doesn’t need to be backed by a recognized terrorist organization for it to be termed an act of terrorism. Whether he acted alone or not is irrelevant with respect to characterizing the incident.)
So there you go you cowardly morons in the media, I connected the dots for you.
UPDATE: We can add one more piece of evidence supporting my assertion that this was a terrorist attack. It’s now being reported that the Muslim shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, was acting very strangely the morning of the shooting, including handing out Quarans to anyone who would take them.
It’s also being reported that Hasan was shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (God is great) before he opened fire.
This was another terrorist act committed in the name of Islam by a Muslim. Make no mistake about it.
UPDATE 2: Mark Steyn is filling in for Rush Limbaugh today. He must have checked out The Conservative Beacon for his show prep because he just made the same point I made in this post, almost verbatim. In particular, that just because Hasan isn’t affiliated with an organized terrorist network doesn’t mean he isn’t a terrorist.
He terrorized. He terrorized in the name of Islam. Ergo, he’s an Islamic terrorist, or Islamofascist for short.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
@AG: I hope you’re right, my friend. We need to return the feelings we had as a nation in the aftermath of 9/11.
I also believe it’s appropriate in the wake of this attack that we have a legitimate debate on the military’s policy of allowing Muslims. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be allowed to serve, but this ought to lead to a debate as to whether the benefits of allowing Muslims to serve outweigh the potential risks.
What religion are all of these attacks committed in the name of? Answer: Islam. Not Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Christianity. Fair or unfair, that’s reality.
Yes, it’s true, not all Muslims are terrorists. But almost all terrorists are Muslim. That’s a fact. We can’t hide from that forever.
A very powerful position to have. This incident will cause a resurgence in those feelings just right after 9/11, I can already see it coming.
The Muslim community has condemned the shooting, it’s a definite defensive move in order to prevent possible backlash on their community.