TERRORISM Hits Fort Hood

I am going to say the truth and not what cow-towing liberal press is trying to spout about the Fort Hood terrorist.  Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is a perfect example of a domestic Islamic terrorist.  A man with ZERO battle experience does not have any sort of "trauma" or "stress" to calmly and carefully shoot people while shouting "Allah Akbar!" ("God [of Islam] is great") at a military base.  Let's call a spade a spade, and stop trying to deny Islamic terrorism is still a problem.

He is a cold-blooded murderer, plain and simple.  He was no different than someone strapping bombs to their chest and blowing themselves up in a public square.  It was a cowardly act.  It was behavior his superiors knew he supported and envied.  Yet, he was promoted recently to Major.

There is no draft.  He was not forced to join the Army.  He joined of his own choice.  He also had the legal option to protest any orders to go to a war he did not approve of.  He also had the option of being honorably discharged as such.  No, he chose to murder 13 people and try to murder nearly 40 others!  This means he knew what he was doing, planned what he was going to do, and did it, knowing full well the consequences of doing it.  I hold no compassion for him.  I make no excuses for his behavior.  I say shame on any news organization or government entity trying to spin this into something else to support their agendas.

My compassion, prayers, and best wishes go to the real victims in this terrorist attack.  To the news agencies spinning this into something it isn't (CNN etc.), I say "SHAME ON YOU!"



"
Thirteen
people are dead because we take the multi-cultural airbrush to blur and
obfuscate the critical frontline of the ideological battle against the
pathologies driving our enemies.

" –
Mark Steyn

24 Responses to “TERRORISM Hits Fort Hood”

  1. the guy had already been suspected of terrorist activities,they should have sent him to antartica to shrink penquins

  2. Oh God, please don’t tell me you believe that drivel?Guys “snapping” don’t say goodbye and give gifts to friends the day before and then coldly and calmly pump bullets into people shouting “Allahu Akbar!” calmly and with surgical precision.  This wasn’t a breakdown of the military, it was a breakdown of the bureaucracy of political correctness.The guy had a cushy job, and was never in any combat situation.  There was no “stress” to make him snap.  The guy knew what he was doing.I find it interesting a Canadian web site devoted to “globalization” (left wing) would choose to spin the story in that way.  Another “Shame on You!” to that site.  Dahr Jamil also happens to be someone who writes anti-us-military books with views similar to the Major himself.  It’s like Anita Dunn writing about Barack Obama.Our military is not perfect, but people are not forced to join, and they do have means to avoid duty they may have strong conflicts of interest with.  The so-called “he was stressed about something he was going to do” doesn’t fly.I have a great idea, regardless of what anyone believes about this.  How about we fight all wars to WIN?  None of this cow-towing to the UN, none of this “We don’t bomb mosques” bull.  We win the war by the enemy suing for peace (surrendering) and not when we think we are done.  We do it with everything the soldiers and generals need.  If civilians are hiding the enemy, then they are the enemy.  We pound them until they give up.  Anything less is immoral.  If we aren’t going to fight this way and get the war over with quickly, then bring them home.  This 7+ years is ridiculous.This is how the last World War was fought

  3. I don’t believe everything I read and there’s not much anybody can be sure about by reading just one author’s opinion.  Similarly, I post stuff I think is worth considering and that people may not be getting by their own preferred channels.In this case, I don’t know the details of this breaking event and I have to say I don’t really care for a couple of reasons I’ll explain below.  What is interesting in this article that I have read extensively elsewhere and find very significant is that the American military empire is pushing the country very hard economically (accounting now for over half of Federal expenditure) and in manpower.That doesn’t really matter if you think the fight is worth while to preserve the Empire against the efforts of its enemies.  Good luck with that.  Have you read Paul Kennedy’s “The Rise and Fall of Great Nations”?  An American patriot writing in the late 80s using history to caution Americans against over-extending themselves military.  Just another man’s opinion, but no left-winger either.Now about this particular case, as I say, I think you know more about the details than I do.  But I’ll tell you why I am less interested.  First point is that it doesn’t look much different from American 14 year-olds going to school and gunning down their fellow students.  Or the guy who whacked 50 in the McDonalds in San Ysidro in 1984.  It’s a bit late to get concerned about domestic terrorism and worry about foreign subversives as it seems more like just a part of American life.  And I think my second point is that if the US government is going to support the persecution of people overseas (e.g. Palestinians), one is going to have to expect some fall-out.  I’ve said for over thirty years that it isn’t in the interests of the American people to meddle in the affairs of those still living in the 14th century BC and settling disputes “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”.I don’t think there is any excuse for this guy’s actions and I’m not making any.When things go awry, it’s good policy to avoid blaming others and think about what it is that got one into the situation.  Put US troops on the ground in Saudi (during the first Gulf War)?  Still think that was a good idea?  In the interests of the American people??  And that’s if-and-only-if you believe the official conspiracy theory that 19 hijackers…  not a shred of evidence.

  4. [this is good] You sound more and more libertarian every time I read your comments (a compliment I must say).One small error in your well thought out comment though.  The largest chunk of the American Treasury is actually spent on Medicaid and Medicare (government healthcare), and the so-called stimulus packages cost more than ALL of the wars COMBINED and then some.  Nevertheless, the purpose of the federal government is to:*  Provide for the common defense*  Promote the general welfare.*  Secure the blessings of liberty now and in the future.That’s it.  So the largest expenditure should be defense, not health care, not bailouts.  The reason why Medicaid and Medicare are always left out of the equation is only because it is done that way on purpose.  If private company’s tried to get away with such sneaky accounting they’d be shut down.Paul Kennedy’s book is an excellent example of paying attention to history, which progressives openly ignore (“look to the future.  The past is the past.”).Why is culture falling apart?  I honestly believe it is the lax morality, the progressive attitude taught in schools that teach people they are entitled to things and everyone is shielded from failure.  Instead of getting an award for hard work and accomplishment, everyone gets an award to not make them feel bad.  A society where achievers are not encouraged because it will make the underachievers feel or look bad.  A society where accomplishment and success is punished for the sake of “fairness” to those less willing to work hard for their own success.Society that is so messed up because of this progressive drivel that people call the police because McDonalds ran out of their favorite condiment, or they are too stupid to understand that coffee is HOT:

    A society where doctors have to raise their rates by almost 60% (to pay for malpractice insurance) and do unneeded tests for fear that some ambulance chasing lawyer is going to sue them because momma’s angel Johnny overdosed and the doctor didn’t save his life with magic.A society so en-griped of fear of litigation, that they ignore the tell tale signs of a terrorist of fear of a law suit or bad publicity.A society that thinks that the lives of millions of people dying of malaria each year is worth not spraying the miracle pesticide of DDT, all because of a fictitious and PROVEN fraud “study” claiming DDT harmed the eggs of birds (the author just made it up).A society that whines and moans about wars in the Middle East, our government kissing the asses of Saudi Kings, the high prices of gasoline, the profits of oil companies (a mere 2%!), and yet will not allow those oil companies to drill in the world’s LARGEST oil reserve on the planet (ours) and will not allow nuclear power so that the nation doesn’t have to rely on the Middle East for energy.A society that blames others for lapses in individual responsibility.A society that thinks a perpetual handout to the lazy is “charity” and not “slavery” which keeps them lazy and dependent.A society that convinces others that everyone else owes them something because of the bad behavior of their ancestors.A society that is now telling you that no matter what you do or accomplish, the government is going to take most of it away and give it to someone else.

    I think the best explanation for the US government and the US society, in general, is best summed up in a political cartoon I saw recently that speaks volumes in a simple picture.  I have posted it.  It’s the one with the shark.What’s the real problem world wide?  Too many bureaucracies and oligarchies telling others how to live and operate (the UN anyone?).  People need to fight for their own freedom to appreciate it.  Sure, if a friend and ally asks for help, give it, but keep your nose out of everyone’s affairs unless asked for help and with a good reason.

  5. Thank you, SuperSparky!!(If you hadda called me a socialist I woulda said your Mama was a commie…  :))But if you call me a libertarian, then I am deeply touched.  It IS INDEED a compliment.  The world is still not ready for liberty and won’t be any time soon.You’re right about the government accounting too.  Really hard to follow.  The bail-out exceeds all the previous wars.  It’s all off-budget.  We have a quibble about “defense” vs “empire”, (maybe?), but it sounds like we’re in agreement about the Founders wanting to keep our noses out of the rest of the world’s problems, and I’ll add that they hoped for a happy country, not a great power.  I’ll be having more to say about this in my own blog.

  6. A bit of trivia for you:Barrack Hussein Obama (mmmm mmmm mmmm) has authorized more spending; has increased the deficit; has put the country into more debt than all of the previous Presidents, since Washington, COMBINED.  Which means he has spent more money in 8 months than this nation has spent in its entire 233 years before him.  Not one dollar has benefited the economy, lowered unemployment, nor strengthened our nation’s financial stance.  I wonder how Jimmy Carter’s “misery index” would fare on Obama?  It bit Jimmy in the ass in 1980.  It’s already biting Obama in the ass after a year.There is talk of another so-called “stimulus”!!!  These people are insane.  I’m not kidding here.  We literally have the patients running the place now.  They think it’s the land of Harry Potter.  Ooops, that would be the UK, which is virtually bankrupt now by the same type of spending….hmm

  7. You had me in absolute agreement up until the point you provided a quote from Mark Steyn doing the very thing you demand people on the other side of the issue not do.See, I agree with you – the dude’s a filthy terrorist scumbag, and if he survives (still in a coma?) I’m all for the death penalty. Point blank, pre-meditated murder, try him in a civilian court of law like we did to Timothy McVeigh and inject him forcibly into the afterlife.Yet, after that wonderful message about spinning it to make it something it’s not, you provide some ridiculous quote to suggest that the dude is not guilty, that it’s his ideology and that it could have been stopped by recognizing that? That’s garbage, man. You’re taking the blame away from where it is due.

  8. You misunderstand my purpose for placing that quote.  True, Hasan is 100% guilty for his actions.My reason for the quote was all of the political crap that caused people to fear acting on the obvious signs of a person about to kill.  Political correctness and appeasement of those wanting to cause harm is going to breed people like Hasan.Mark Stein’s statement is a good one.  Had our military brass (not the honorable men and woman on the ground) acted like military and not politicians, then this guilty man would never have been in a position to enact his murder spree.  The difference between what the media was doing and what I was stating is that they were trying to find an excuse and blame someone else.  I am not doing so.  Hasan is a murder, and deserves 100% of the punishment.  The military brass allowed him to remain, they deserve a portion of the moral responsibility.Put it this way.  If you see someone swimming and a shark is near by and the shark eats them.  Sure, it’s the sharks fault, it did the dead.  Nevertheless, you have a responsibility to warn the swimmer.  Perhaps if you had warned the swimmer, the deed never would have happened.  I don;t make excuses for the shark.

  9. The problem here is that you’re attempting to apply your take on the matter to Mark Steyn’s quote. The two of you are on different wavelengths.  Realize what exactly the quote says, and what the “critical frontline” he is referring to is. You understand, appropriately, that it’s political correctness that is at fault here and that if they’d taken obvious signs and acted on it, people would still be alive.I’ve done some research on Mark Steyn, checked out an excerpt of his book, and he makes it very, very clear what he considers the frontline. Not political correctness, but the religion of Islam itself. He blames the religion, and our failure to eradicate it from the military, from our society, and from the world, not the political correctness.

  10. I heard Mark give the quote whilst substituting for Rush Limbaugh, as I added the quote after I had already completed my article.  The context in which he gave it was for political correctness and placating radical Islam.  This is why I added the quote.Whatever Mark says in his books, may be what you said (I have not read a book of Mark’s), nevertheless, the context in which he said it on the radio was within his opening monologue of the dangers of political correctness and yes, the dangers of ignoring or placating radical Islam.In all honesty, the enemy is radical Islam and political correctness is what lets it fester.  Regardless of which point of view Mark Stein said it, I tend to agree with it.  The war on terror is a war with radical Islam.  I must say that those that claim they follow the religion of peace in one breathe and in another breathe scream “behead the infidels (or Jews)”, would seem to me to have a major flaw in their claim of being a peaceful religion.  Others considered not radical that refuse to speak out against such behavior also tend to have an issue supporting the “peaceful” mantra as well.While that certainly is not the reason why I included Mark’s quote, it does certain have its valid merits.As to eradicating the religion of Islam, well I do not think he meant in the same way they (radical Islam) intend to eradicate other religions that they openly say must be done by force.  Any modern Christian would say eradication simply means conversion, and not with the threat of losing your head in the process.Even radical Islam’s rules state that all enemies must be “invited” to convert to Islam before utter destruction.  True, Osama Bin Laden did such a thing before he started his Jihad.  Yes, even Hasan did as well.  The problem is nobody listened.The comment stays.  It is perfectly appropriate.

  11. Substituting for Rush? That says it all, I suppose.Makes sense in the context of what you say Steyn said on the show then, if not in context of Steyn’s full views of what constitutes the true frontline. Maybe he can’t get away with being more radical than Limbaugh on Limbaugh’s show if he wants to be a substitute speaker. Note that I’m not telling you to remove it, I’m criticizing the quote’s usage in context of the overall article. You can stand behind the surface merits of something without having to do an about face just because there’s more to it than what Steyn was willing to say.On a separate note, I think you should actually read Steyn’s book (have to get my copy from the library, online edition is only a sample) before attempting to soften its point for him. He won’t thank you for it and neither will anyone else except those people want to agree with some of his ideas but are too soft to handle the whole truth of what he believes.It’s like the difference between you and Ben. While I can agree with you on things, I will likely never agree with Ben on much of anything, because the man is the very definition of extremist.

  12. Um, Are you talking about BEN Stein?  I happen to have quoted MARK Stein, a British ex-patriot.Ben Stein made the movie “Expelled” and was in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”; and is a noted economist and TV personality.  MARK Stein is not BEN Stein.  Ben never substituted for Rush Limbaugh.Has someone jumped the gun here????

  13. woops, almost perpetuated a mistake.  That’s Mark STEYN (not Stein).  The article has always had it spelled correctly.To summarize:BEN STEIN – Monotone TV personality, economist, and movie star (technically), Jewish conservative (would be somewhat outspoken to a religious group wanting his race’s destruction)MARK STEYN – Conservative author, speaker (Heritage Foundation), and radio personality (not Jewish).

  14. I was referring to Ben, the Vox-user, not Ben Stein. Relevance based on the fact that the pair of you have ideas in common, but radically different levels of of the same ideology.

  15. Never heard of Ben.

  16. Specifically referring to ben932.vox.com. Could have sworn we’d spoken about him over in the comments section of JudgeBob’s blog, but I guess that was someone else. Take your on views on Islam, multiply them to the nth extreme and add in proactive genocide, and you have an idea of what Ben’s about.

  17. Well, I most certainly do not believe in any group’s genocide.  I do, however, believe in the just punishment of tyrants and murderers no matter which “religion” they espouse.  What I think is key here, is that I believe placating evil merely encourages it; becoming “pals” with an obvious enemy merely prepares you for a sound knifing in the back.  Denying that the current enemy is of the Islam faith and is middle eastern is irresponsible.  Profiling is a legitimate and valid defensive practice.  Doing searches of native American grannies in wheel chairs is stupidity beyond bounds (I saw that last week in DFW airport on my way to San Diego).  Political correctness is an enemy to safety.  It protects the guilty at the disregard for the innocent.Just like Governor Huckabee’s so-called “compassion” in his numerous clemencies.  His compassion for the guilty showed a lack of compassion for the innocent.  This Fort Hood situation and that cop killer can be attached to the same bureaucratic irresponsibility, disregarding the innocent to placate the guilty.

  18. With the exception of your comment about placation, I agree completely. It’s not really about placation; saying that suggests they’re negotiate the enemy into stop being evil by forgiving evil acts that they’re trying to be pals with the enemy (seriously now, we’re talking about Huckabee here. Do you honestly perceive this guy as chumming it up with murdering scumbags rather than doing it for the politics?). Instead, they’re under the naive belief that either a> with time even evil acts are forgiveable b> the person can be reformed enough to make their past deeds forgiveable c> Compassion for the living matters more than compassion to the dead because the dead are still with us or d> that whatever they’ve achieved politically justifies the ends.Foolishness in the first three cases, despicable in the last. I suspect it’s the last that applies in both the case of Huckabee and Fort Hood.  

Come on, you know you want to say something.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: