"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Fort Hood Shootings: In Dealing with Islam, Political Correctness is a Suicide Pact

Will Malven

During the hours of news coverage following the tragic shootings that occurred at Fort Hood, one thing that stood out above all others was the reluctance of the news agencies to state the name of the perpetrator of this heinous act. Well after Fox and other news networks knew the apparent identity of the gunman, great care was exercised to avoid identifying Nidal Malik Hasan by name.

From the time that the shootings took place it took the Fox News Channel four and one half hours to provide the identity of the perpetrator by name. Shepherd Smith, the news anchor, even stated that he was "reluctant" to say the name of the perpetrator, because they were concerned about any reaction the name might evoke, until it was confirmed by the Department of Defense. He was not alone in this reluctance, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was also provided with the name of the alleged perpetrator but would not say who it was until it was confirmed by the Defense Department.

I am all for making certain that a reporter has his fact right before he goes on camera. In fact I would prefer to get my news more slowly if that delay is motivated by a desire to get the story right, but that has not been the case in our mainstream media for some considerable time.  For decades now the press has been more inclined to get the story out immediately and then correct the information as facts change...but not this time.

Compare how the Fort Hood shooter's identity was handled by the media with that of Jason Rodriquez following the tragic mass shooting that he perpetrated in Orlando, Florida yesterday.  Within an hour of the shootings occurrence, everyone who was watching the news knew the Mr. Rodriquez's name.

Why? Why the discrepancy? Certainly, some of the delay Thursday was due to the natural difficulties associated with obtaining information from sources on a military base. Access to information necessarily is more controlled on a military base than it is in the general public, but once the identity was known with some degree of certainty, why didn't the press reveal it with the same eagerness that it has displayed in other cases of this type? Why was the senator "uncomfortable" with identifying who the killer was? Why was the press so forth coming with the identity of the man in Florida and so slow to reveal the name of the shooter in Texas?

The reason for this reluctance is clear and has been manifest in our national media ever since the attacks on 9/11 were revealed to have been perpetrated by radical Muslims. There was, and still is, a reluctance to be seen as being critical of Islam and radical Islamists, by the mainstream media.

They have never been so scrupulous when dealing with Christians when, on very rare occasion one commits a heinous act. Every time a protest occurs at an abortion clinic, the protestors are readily identified as being a member of a "fundamentalist Christian" organization, or an "extreme right-wing Christian" group.

Why is it that liberals as a general rule are so reluctant to talk about radical Muslims or even to use the word terrorist when discussing radical Islamists who have been attacking American people for the past four decades?

Even in protecting our citizens, today's law enforcement organizations are proscribed from using, "racial profiling," as a tool for detecting potential terrorists. To an outside observer, it would appear that our political leaders are more concerned with not offending some special interest group...like the Muslim community...than they are with protecting and saving American lives.

Every time an attack like the one at Fort Hood occurs, we are admonished not to draw any conclusions about a certain group of people from the actions of one individual or small group of individuals. We are instantly and repeatedly reminded of non-Muslims who have committed horrible acts. The names of Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski or some other lone crazy who perpetrated mass murder are readily at the tip of liberals' tongues to remind us that it's not only Muslims who commit these kinds of acts.

There is almost a religious fervor in their efforts to prevent anyone from concluding what is patently obvious to any objective observer, that Islam, the "Religion of Peace," spurs more of its adherents to violence than any other organized religion or political group on Earth.  There's not even a second place in this category.

Liberals are especially prone to use moral equivalency to excuse what is clearly a dangerous proclivity among Muslims throughout the world.  From the blog "Confluence" here is a typical liberal’s comment:

"...Islam is no more violent than any other religion.  Fundamentalism is our enemy and that can be found in Christianity as well as Islam. I am not going to condemn a religion or its followers because of the deranged actions of one their members and I caution others who I respect to refrain from doing so as well..."

This comment is made in the face of facts that surround us in the world today. This was not an isolated act nor am I saying all of this "because of the deranged actions of” one individual. Radical Islamists are committing violent acts against their own people and against non-Muslims all over the world today. Bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq have killed dozens of civilians and our troops. Muslim terrorists are fighting and killing people in the Philippines, Somalia, Indonesia and America.

This liberal fool continues:

"Fundamentalism is our enemy and that can be found in Christianity as well as Islam. I am not going to condemn a religion or its followers because of the deranged actions of one their members and I caution others who [sic] I respect to refrain from doing so as well.  The last thing we need is a backlash to come down on the innocent heads of Muslim men, women and children."

More false moral equivalency. How many terrorist attacks have "fundamentalist Christians" committed over the last four decades? How many American citizens have they killed? How many acts of indiscriminate murder? Such claims as this author "riverdaughter" makes are as dishonest and agenda driven as they are ludicrous.

Liberals and other who wish to excuse Islam always mention Charles Whitman who killed 14 and wounded 32 in 1966 at the University of Texas, or  George Jo Kennard who drove into a Luby's Restaurant and killed 23 people on October 16, 1991, or Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 and killed 168 people, or Seung-Hui Cho who murdered 32 people on April 16, 2007, or Jiverly Wong who killed 13 and wounded 4 on April 03, 2009.

While all of those are horrible occurrences, they have no common thread. They each are isolated, disparate events. Juxtapose those events with the fact that, according to the State Department, there were 248 "Significant Terrorist Incidents" that occurred between May of 1961 and the end of 2003 throughout the world.  Out of those, 133 or 54% have been caused by Muslim extremists.

Even disallowing 43 attacks against Israel which could be blamed on the long term war between Arabs and the Israelis, and 18 attacks against targets in Iraq which could be blamed on the American presence there, Muslims were responsible for 72 terrorist attacks throughout the world between 1970 and 2003. [As a side note, another group, also a cause celebre for liberals, communist (whether it be the FARC in Columbia, AFRC in Sierra Leone,  or even the Red Brigade in Europe), have been responsible for 49 terrorist attacks.]

So is it reasonable to wonder when someone named Nidal Malik Hasan who is a devout Muslim and who has been very outspoken in his opposition to Americas presence in Iraq and Afghanistan if there is more to the attack at Fort Hood than him being mentally ill?

The reasons for paying extra close attention to any and all acts of violence that are carried out by Muslims are obvious and the risk to our national security and the safety of every American citizen in not doing so for reasons of political correctness is great.

The level of idiocy and intentional blindness required for our government to take the approach to these acts of violence that isolated events and that one must not bring the words Islam or Muslim into the dialogue for fear of offending certain people is approaching that of criminality.

Evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that, far from being a Religion of Peace, Islam is a grave threat to our nation and our citizens and for that reason, perhaps America should consider removing all of our men and women in uniform who are Muslims from active service and banning any further enlistments of Muslims.

For those who claim "It's not fair," you're right it's not, but then it's not "fair" that 13 of our very best and brightest were killed Thursday by a Muslim with a grievance against America and our involvement in the Middle East. It's not "fair" that 3000 Americans were killed on 9/11. It's not "fair" that we have lost over 4000 of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not "fair" that 13 families are now in mourning for their lost loved ones and another 38 families are worried sick over how their loved ones are doing in their efforts to recover from the wounds Dr. Hasan inflicted on them...for no reason.

So don't tell me it's not "fair" to profile swarthy looking men between the ages of 17 and 40 because I don't care if it's "fair" or not; fairness is irrelevant. Those swarthy looking men have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and members of our military...not because they are suffering from PTSD or because "he was a troubled man," but because they hated America and chose to follow the path of a radical religion that teaches hatred and murder of all who refuse to submit to its teachings.

There may be nothing more to these deaths than the sad story of a sick individual who suffered a severe psychotic episode and killed a lot of people similar to the others liberals are so quick to mention, but to make that assumption without even investigating the obvious issues surrounding this man's history and the apparent care with which he planned this massacre is just plain stupid, arrogant, political correctness run amok.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!