Hello 92251 List Members,
Selwyn Duke puts it very well in this article. I particularly found his questioning why was this dirt bag (my label), a major in our military to be right on target.
And what PC nonsense caused our own people to not take action in advance of these cold blooded murders when this excuse for a military officer had apparently said a number of anti-American, pro Muslim jihadist things in public?
Oh, and you have got to love the BHO remark about how the rest of us should not jump to conclusions or apparently take things out of context. So, was this before or after he started yelling “allahu akbar” and killing the young pregnant woman, among the others he shot and murdered? And “allahu akbar” means Allah (the pagan deity) is great, not God is great!
And the press and a whole lot of the people still don’t get it!
Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit
Written by Selwyn Duke
Friday, 06 November 2009
An apparent Muslim jihadist strikes again — this time at Texas’ Fort Hood.
We’ve all heard about yesterday’s tragedy at Fort Hood military base in Texas. At 1:30 p.m., army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on a rampage, targeting fellow soldiers and others for destruction at the base’s Soldier Readiness Processing Center and adjacent Howze Theater. Using two semi-automatic handguns, Hasan claimed 13 lives and wounded 31 people before being shot multiple times by local police (it appears the other soldiers weren’t armed). The gunman was then taken into custody and brought to a local hospital. It’s said his life is not in danger.
While there’s no “official” word on Hasan’s motives, it’s not hard to connect the dots. A man of Jordanian descent and a pious Muslim, the major’s loyalties didn’t seem to lie with the nation he’d sworn to protect. Instead, he had often expressed support for Islamic jihadists, once saying that Muslims needed to “rise up” against the aggressors (presumably the U.S. and the West in general). Expanding on this, Philip Sherwell at the Telegraph reports on the testimonials of retired officer and former colleague of Hasan’s Col. Terry Lee, writing:
[Lee stated that Hasan] “said Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place.” He [Lee] said that Maj Hasan said he was “happy” when a US soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas in June. An American convert to Islam was accused of the shootings.
Col Lee alleged that other officers had told him that Maj Hasan had said “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square” in New York.
Chron.com provides more pieces of the dark puzzle, writing, “Federal law enforcement officials told the AP that Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats. . . . One of the Web postings that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates suicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.”
But the spark that seemed to ignite this powder keg of Islamist sentiment was Hasan’s impending deployment to Iraq, something his cousin Nader Hasan said was “probably his worst nightmare.” Given this, did Hasan decide that he’d prefer to fight Americans on our soil than jihadists on Iraq’s?
If this question smacks of just a bit too much conjecture, note that it’s at least a logical conclusion. This lies in stark contrast with the musings of some in mainstream media, who wasted no time painting Hasan as a victim. For instance, Kenyon Wallace writing at NationalPost.com theorized about “post traumatic stress disorder” (PTSD) and mentioned how Hasan had supposedly been harassed by other officers because of his “Middle Eastern ethnicity.” Yet if PTSD was a factor in this case, it must have been pre traumatic stress disorder because the major had never seen battle. As for harassment, a better definition of it is expressing anti-American, Islamist views in the military and having the attitude that invariably attends them. Thus, a more logical conclusion here is that any negativity experienced by Hasan was not harassment but a response. Because if you insult people, they tend to respond in kind.
Is this conjecture? It’s more like proper profiling. But whatever the case, there’s a larger issue here to discuss than Major Hasan.
Driven by political correctness and, in certain cases, a sincere although misguided effort to calm the waters, we’ll no doubt hear the obligatory pronouncements about how “Islam is a peaceful religion.” Now, I’ll make no attempt to prove here that Islam isn’t peaceful. But I will demonstrate that its secular defenders really don’t have the foggiest idea whether it’s peaceful or not.
Let’s start by understanding that religion is not by definition peaceful any more than political ideologies are. In fact, for most of man’s history, the norm was not “Love thy neighbor,” but something closer to the Aztec’s feathered serpent god Quetzalcoatl, in whose name worshippers would sacrifice thousands of victims a year, tearing their hearts out while they were still alive and hanging their body parts in the marketplace. Of course, the widespread practice of such barbarity is now just a memory. Yet, if yesterday’s mainstream religion was not by definition peaceful, does today’s have to be?
Moderns in the West certainly want to believe this is the case. In fact, having lost their faith and wanting people of different ones in their multi-religious societies to get along, they go even further and embrace that unwritten contract stating that all faiths are morally equal. Yet this is an incorrect and destructive idea.
Since different religions espouse different values, not all religions can be morally equal unless all values are so (this idea is moral relativism). Yet, if all values are equal, how could peacefulness be better than barbarity? This is why any agenda based on relativism will always collapse upon itself.
Also remember that relativism is a package deal, and one of its corollaries is that even the darkest ideologies — oh, let’s say, such as Nazism — are no worse than liberalism. After all, like different religions, different ideologies espouse different values. And if all values are morally equal....
Another thing we often hear is, “I’ve known many Muslims who are wonderful people; the radicals have simply hijacked their religion.” Yet, at best, this is a defense of those particular individuals, not what ostensibly is their faith.
I would ask you, who has hijacked what? What if the “radicals” are the true believers? In other words, before we can make the determination that they’re the hijackers, we must know what definitive Muslim teaching is so we can know what Islam actually is. Otherwise, we’re simply using circular logic, saying that since Islam truly must be peaceful, those who are peaceful must represent true Islam. In reality, the most the faith’s secular defenders can really say is “not enough data.”
This is an important point. Remember that most in the West practice religion in only a lukewarm, Christmas-and-Easter fashion. And whatever you think about any faith, it’s silly to draw conclusions — good or bad — based on those who are only nominally part of it. For example, the majority of American Catholics may believe in using artificial contraception, but this doesn’t mean the practice represents Church teaching.
In point of fact, it is silly to assume that “radicals” cannot define a faith. After all, a true believer in any religion will hold beliefs the secular world considers radical. And radicalism isn’t necessarily bad, as you can be radically right as well as radically wrong. The first abolitionist was thought a radical.
At the end of the day, religious-equivalency doctrine is fantasy. It’s much as when you have two little boys in the schoolyard who, in an effort to avoid conflict, each agree to not say that his daddy can beat up the other’s daddy. Except, there’s one difference: Their suspension of reality isn’t dangerous.
It’s time for us to grow up and seek facts, not fantasies. After all, the latter are why Nidal Malik Hasan was promoted to major in a military whose country he held in utter contempt.
Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.
Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment