alpipkin.com

Contemplations of a United States Constitution loving, big-government hating right-wing extremist whacko-bird

alpipkin.com - Contemplations of a United States Constitution loving, big-government hating right-wing extremist whacko-bird

Ft. Hood, Muslims and political correctness

The tragedy at Ft. Hood Texas last Thursday is difficult to come to grips with on several levels. How did an Army officer lead his jihad life in as open a manner as it is being reported without causing any more consternation than he did? It is very apparent he openly espoused his radical beliefs verbally to other officers and enlisted men (though I can forgive enlisted trooper as it would be difficult for them to accuse an officer of anything) as well as a post on Scribd.com he is purported to have written.

I want to address two aspects of this act of terrorism. First, how did our military come to the position of such extreme political correctness and secondly, what is it that drives the main stream media and liberal politicians to attempt to create excuses for Hasan’s action.

To the military. Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey Jr. in an interview on CNN on Sunday said “You know there’s been a lot of speculation going on, and probably the curiosity is a good thing, but we have to be careful, because we can’t jump to conclusions now based on little snippets of information that come out.” Rather than acknowledge the obvious, General Casey was concerned instead that undue speculation could “cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers,” and that while Hasan’s action was a tragedy, “it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.” [Emphasis mine]

There have been dire warnings of a “backlash against Muslims” following every terrorist attack since 9/11 and in actuality, attacks against Muslims has dropped significantly since 9/11. The chart below developed using data from the FBI gives lie to this oft repeated canard.

FBI Stats

As to Casey’s second point, “diversity” has become a detraction. Why would we want to include someone in our organization who has repeatedly shown signs of not wishing to be there, not to mention repeated references to “jihad?”  That would be like having someone on your football team because he has purple skin, even though at every game he  throws the ball to your opponents every chance he gets. Those on the Left believe in diversity for diversity’s sake. However, isn’t the role of our military serves is to first protect and defend the United States against all enemy’s, foreign and domestic?

If there are elements within the military that pose a potential danger to other troops or to US citizens, shouldn’t it be the military’s priority to discover if there is a real threat, and if so, neutralize the threat? And do this regardless of diversity? Every passing day brings new revelations of Major Nidal Hasan’s past behavior and acts showing he openly exhibited very strong jihadist views. He doesn’t seem to have attempted to hide his beliefs from his patients, co-workers or superiors. Yet nothing was done! For at least the last three years … nothing was done!!

It seems very apparent that political correctness has become more important to our military commanders that protecting our country. At least 13 people are dead as a result. Someone needs to be held accountable, and I say it begins at the top … General George W. Casey, and continues down until we find a soldier willing to stand up to the weenies who cry “diversity” without meekly replying “yes Senator!”

Now on to weenie excuses:

If you’ve read a newspaper or watched TV news since last Thursday you’ve heard “Hasan was suffering from, a.)post-traumatic stress disorder, b.)pre-post-traumatic stress disorder, c.)post-post-traumatic stress disorder, and my person favorite, d.)vicarious trauma. Let’s forget that as he was killing people with a gun that he somehow obtained without his name being connected to it, he purportedly was yelling Allahu Akbar (God is Greatest). Nothing here … just move along.

James Tarranto, Editor of the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page, commented today on what he believes to be the reasons for liberals jumping to make excuses for Hassan’s actions. “The liberal left has embraced the notion that America overacted to 9/11, acted beastly to Muslims and now needs to “reach out” and atone.” Second, “it is comfortable to think 9/11 was a one-off rather than the most horrific example (so far) of  a continuing threat,” and third, “the impulse to protect a religious minority from prejudice and discrimination is a noble one.”

There is probably some degree of truth to each of his points, though the last is a bit difficult for me to swallow. I don’t believe liberals give one wit for a Muslim’s religion any more than they do mine. “Standing up” for a Muslim’s religion is used for nothing more that poking a stick in the collective eye of the nation’s mostly Christian population. Were a liberal challenged to truly risk something they actually cared about by publicly taking a stand for a Muslim, I suspect they would fold like a cheap suit. Narcissism doesn’t support charity for charity’s sake.

I do believe however, that Tarranto missed a very important reason for this seemingly Herculean effort to excuse Hasan’s actions. Liberals view themselves to be of greater intelligence than us hayseeds. Because they can’t imagine someone with beliefs strong enough to exhibit such behavior, anyone who actually exhibits such behavior is a mystery, requiring mental gymnastics to come up with a victim classification for them.

All of the accumulating evidence supports his acts as those of an Islamist extremest. Not that that is a classification with sterling  credentials of sanity!

Category: Culture, Jihad, Military
%d bloggers like this: