On the road Part II

November 10, 2009

Got a breather in my travels, and I found this GEM on Fox News, from the inestimable Charles Krauthammer, commenting on the egregious Major Hasan:

“I was a psychiatrist. I can’t remember a single instance of a psychiatrist who went around shooting people. Maybe I missed the epidemic. But all of a sudden if the shooter is called Nidal Hasan, all of a sudden everybody invents this secondary post-traumatic stress syndrome which had never existed until yesterday.”

I couldn’t agree more. Dr. Krauthammer specifically mentions earlier in his commentary the innumerable other psychiatrists, physical therapists, counselors, ad nauseam, who hear tales that would curdle your morning latte and they never snapped. But if a Muslim does this, we are suddenly supposed to excuse his outburst?

NO ONE in the military that I ever knew or know now has a word to say in favor of Lieutenant William Calley, the infamous and disgusting perpetrator of the slaughter at My Lai in Vietnam. He’d seen terrible things, had had terrible things done to his troops. He snapped. So what is the difference between these two pieces of shit? One is Muslim. A follower of the religion of peace. And therefore above the opprobrium which is (rightfully) heaped on Calley? Nice double standard.

OK, a free linguistics lesson, kids. Why do people say “Islam is the religion of peace”? Linguistics. Most Arabic words can be reduced to a two- or three-syllable root. In the case of “Islam”, this root is the same root that goes into the word “Salaam”, or “peace.” (Hebrew renders it as “Shalom.”) So the untutored render the two words, “Islam” and “Salaam”, as intertwined. Gotcha. Just as “jihad” (holy war”) and “ijtihad” (struggling against the baser parts of oneself) are mentioned in the same breath, making “jihad” as harmless as giving up bad personal or spiritual habits one happens to have.

This misconception causes people to urge everyone to understand Islam is the Religion of Peace, when linguistics and common sense would tend to argue against it. I have seen stories of Hindu mobs raging against Muslim (and Christian) congregants in India, yet these are horrible and thankfully isolated circumstances. Hindus in Australia do not, to my knowledge, urge their coreligionists to slaughter non-Hindus. Christians do not, as a rule of religion, urge each other to slaughter Muslims, Hindus, or Jews. Did they use to? Sure. Was it horrible and inexcusable? Absolutely. Yet in the US, criticism, opprobrium, ridicule and even anger are heaped on Christians (and to some extent, Jews) by the mainstream culture without fear of reprisal. Why?

Because Christians and Jews don’t overreact, shoot everyone in sight, detonate suicide vests, nor do they drive an old Chrysler LeBaron into the local green grocer’s and detonate 300 pounds’ worth of explosives. Who does? Muslims. And if not specifically, who are we afraid would do that? Here’s a hint: they aren’t Rosicrucians.

This is in no way to denigrate Muslims. But every single significant attack over the past twenty years (from the Marine Barracks murder of 241 good men to the USS Cole to the first and second World Trade Center attacks to the London Underground bombings to the Bali bombing to the Khobar Towers bombing to the innumerable rocket and missile attacks on civilians in Israel) has one common basis: the Religion of Peace.

Salman Rushdie could have saved himself a lot of pain and expense if he’d denigrated Catholicism instead of Islam in “The Satanic Verses.”But he would have gotten a lot less publicity. Bill Maher “bravely” stands up against Christianity every time he can because he knows one thing: Christians aren’t going to come after him. We pray for him. We ask God to open his eyes and his heart. But we won’t go after him physically. Why?

Two reasons:
1. God asks us to forgive those who would treat us like that;
2. Bill Maher ain’t worth the effort. Come on, if he weren’t loaded, would ANY Playboy Bunny (and they aren’t exactly known for their mental acuity) be seen in public with him?

So we have Major Hasan, who is alleged to have reached out to Al Qaeda, and the MSM is supposedly worried about an anti-Islamic backlash? That’s like breaking open a beehive and worrying about a backlash from peanut-butter manufacturers. We need a re-focusing of our attention in America, and stop pussy-footing around the irrefutable connection between Islam and terror. This isn’t a condemnation of Muslims, but to say there is no connection because all Muslims are not radical is specious at best, and lethal at worst.


Tuesday, still on the road

November 10, 2009

Ugh.

I’ve spent thirty years traveling in the service and as a civilian, and I always hate it. The rushing around, jet lag, crowded airports,…. it all raises my blood pressure and makes me feel anything but happy to be there. But, I DO have a job, so all that is just whining on my part. Just ignore it.

It appears the good people at CAIR are, like the White House, Janet Napolitano at DHS, and some in the Army, ready for another of those often-discussed (but oddly enough, rarely seen) “backlashes” against Muslims in the wake of Major Hasan’s shooting spree. From BigGovernment.com:

Or as Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR instructed MSNBC’s Chris Matthews:
“I’m really not happy to see that his religion is becoming the subject…even if this guy uttered the words Allahu Akhbar or God is great, so what? It tells me that this is an isolated incident…We need to find out how he thinks and what he did, but I will NEVER come to the conclusion that religion is the motive…”

Wow.

I read somewhere the other day a cool observation: When all of the chattering classes are busy worrying about an anti-Muslim backlash, did it occur to them to realize that the vast majority of innocent Muslim lives are taken by other Muslims? And they are deliberately targeted? There was a clip I saw on LiveLeak (since removed, I think) about an Apache helicopter observing a couple of guys burying an IED in a road bed. The pilot had been observing the two cretins burying the bomb, gathering evidence to justify shooting them, and was just standing off, waiting. Then the pilot saw a little kid run out of a nearby tent, and immediately shouted, “Oh, shit!” He was more concerned about the potentially lost life of a kid than the perpetrators of the resulting explosion (no more than thirty yards or so from the tent).


Odd coincidence

November 7, 2009

I’d forgotten about this until I read it on the blogilicious Michelle Malkin:

FYI: Convicted Beltway sniper John Muhammad is scheduled to be executed next week.

The reason I titled this entry “odd coincidence” (other than my mention of him today in my earlier post about jumping to conclusions) is that I remember seeing Mr. John Muhammad would be executed on November 10, the birthday of the United States Marine Corps.

And one day before Veterans’ Day.

God have mercy on his soul.


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.


Update on CAIR and Fort Hood

November 6, 2009

Well, when I’m wrong, I’m wrong.

An alert reader brought to my attention this statement from CAIR:

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/5/09) – A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy group tonight condemned an attack on Fort Hood military base in Texas that left at least 12 people dead.
In a statement, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:

“We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”
Along with innumerable condemnations of terror, CAIR has in the past launched an online anti-terror petition drive called “Not in the Name of Islam,” initiated a television public service announcement (PSA) campaign against religious extremism and coordinated a “fatwa,” or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism.”

So CAIR finally steps up and makes a public statement. Good on ’em.


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.