Jumping to conclusions: Pot, meet Kettle.

November 6, 2009

The President has urged us all not to jump to conclusions concerning the motive of Major Nidal Malik Hasan in his killing spree at Fort Hood. There are almost four dozen people who have been affected very directly by this event, 13 of whom are dead. One was a woman who was three months pregnant. So we have a motive-less murder of more than a dozen innocent people, with the wounding of thirty more.

And we must not impute a motive to the (currently comatose) Major.

When John Lee Muhammad, the Muslim convert and Beltway Sniper, was engaged in his killing spree in and around the DC area, the press, without any shred of evidence, declared the killer to be “an angry white male.” He turned out to be a black American who was also a Muslim convert.

When Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a personal friend of Barack Obama, was arrested by the Cambridge Police, the President said during a press conference that the Cambridge Police “acted stupidly” during the arrest. Mr. Obama was not there, had no special knowledge of the events, yet he was able to accuse the Cambridge Police Department of rank stupidity.

So here we have two examples of jumping to conclusions. Neither one was challenged (outside of the conservative blogosphere). Both were shown to be egregious examples of premature blame. One was committed by the same man who is urging us all to remain calm.

To jump to a conclusion is to make a statement based on little or no knowledge of the facts at hand. So what are the facts as reported so far?

All evidence at this point indicates Major Hasan was a basically unstable guy; he was an American-born man who had supposedly described himself as “Palestinian”in an online forum; he was a convert to Islam who reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before shooting 40 people in cold blood; his name appeared on at least one radical Islamic website; he has been quoted as morally equating diving on a hand grenade to save your fellow troops, and committing a suicide bombing; based on all that, I’d say his motivation was radical Islam. But that would be jumping to a conclusion, wouldn’t it? And the President would not approve.

Advertisements

The “Religion of Peace” strikes again

November 6, 2009

So Major Nidal Malik Hasan decided to go into a building in Fort Hood and open fire on unarmed soldiers. He killed 13 and wounded 30 or so.

What a real man.

I saw one comment on Ace of Spades HQ saying that he cried out, “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire. Another big surprise. It seems the good Major was having some misgivings about his upcoming redeployment to Iraq. Now this man was a psychiatrist or psychologist, so it seems he may have had some “exquisite sensitivity” to, you know, actually being in the military. His job was to be a doctor, so the likelihood of his actually having to take up arms was about as distant as, well, mine.

Another one from AOSHQ: ” This Aint Hell says Hasan has never deployed to a war zone.” PTSD might explain infamous wack-job Sgt. John M. Russell, who killed four at the Camp Liberty Combat Stress Clinic (there’s a sick irony and a blood-chilling concept rolled into one) back in May. Hasan hadn’t even deployed to Iraq? Good God.

So why is it this cretin, along with SGT Hasan Akbar (of Iraq War fame, killing fellow American soldiers with a hand grenade while they slept), so afraid of killing? Oh, wait, I forgot: they’re only afraid of killing when someone might actually fight back. Islamists seem to be the toughest warriors when it comes to shooting or killing unarmed civilians and soldiers. I’m sure they practice on orphans, duct-taped to chairs in small rooms. That’s some tough shootin’, Tex.

Hasan joined the military voluntarily. Neither of these two soldiers was drafted. Both men (and I hesitate to use that word with these disgusting cowards) had been in the service for a while. What part of “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all foes, foreign and domestic” did they not understand?

Way back when JFK was running for the White House, there were plenty of voices saying he’d make a rotten President because he’d have split loyalties: he’d be listening to Rome and to the American people. But no one seems to raise this point when discussing Muslims. Yes, there are the vast majority of good Americans who happen to be Muslim, they’re peaceful, yadda, yadda, yadda. But there are too many who seem to think it’s horrendous to raise a rifle against a jihadi, but perfectly cool to raise a weapon against an unarmed, non-Muslim American. This is disgusting.

I’ve had buddies who were Muslim, and it never entered my mind they would want me dead. But Hasan Akbar and Nidal Hasan seem to have more than just a wire loose. Michelle Malkin calls Islam “the religion of perpetual outrage”, and she’s right. I haven’t delved too deeply into this story about the Fort Hood shootings (only learning that the scumbag is still alive, thanks no doubt to the actions of non-Muslim paramedics and doctors), but I have not noticed any outcry from CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Why are these goofballs (heavily funded by the Saudis, and spineless worms of the first degree) silent? Where in the Koran did Mohammed say that it was OK to kill like a coward?

If the Islamists want to convert everyone by the sword, they’re going to have a tough time this go-round. People–real people, not Pelosi, nor Reid nor Obama– are going to fight back. MAJ Hasan is going to be killed for his actions, since murder is a capital offense under the UCMJ, not to mention treason in time of war. May God have mercy on his soul, because the US Army is not going to have mercy on his ass.