In Human Events this morning I discuss the Pentagon's ridiculous report on the Fort Hood jihad massacre:
The Defense Department released its report Friday on the jihad massacre at Fort Hood, and it is hard to imagine a document more full of denial and deception. Above all, the Pentagon seems intent on ignoring and obfuscating the reasons why Nidal Hasan murdered thirteen people at Fort Hood in November.Although there were numerous signs that Nidal Hasan was an Islamic jihadist who believed it part of his religious responsibility as a Muslim to wage war against Infidels, the words "jihad," "Muslim," "Islam" and even "Islamist" never appear in the 86-page mélange of droning bureaucratese.
Echoing hapless Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's reaction to the Christmas Day attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253, the report claims that, despite the thirteen murders, the system worked well at Fort Hood: "Leaders at Fort Hood had anticipated mass casualty events in their emergency response plans and exercises. Base personnel were prepared and trained to take appropriate and decisive action to secure the situation. The prompt and courageous acts of Soldiers, first responders, local law enforcement personnel, DoD civilians, and health care providers prevented greater losses." The only negative note in the report is the delicately stated idea that the military could be better prepared for the next jihad attack -- uh, that is, the next "tragedy": "The tragedy, however, raised questions about the degree to which the entire Department is prepared for similar incidents in the future -- especially multiple, simultaneous incidents."
And how does the report propose to make sure that the military is prepared for "similar incidents in the future"? By acting upon a series of empty, platitudinous recommendations: "identifying and monitoring potential threats;" "providing time-critical information to the right people;" "employing force protection measures;" and "planning for and responding to incidents." That's right: the Pentagon is recommending that the military could be more prepared for the next terror attack by "planning for" it.
And the irony is thick when the report recommends that the military improve its ability to identify and monitor "potential threats" -- this from a report that steadfastly refuses even to acknowledge the existence of the Islamic jihad doctrine that motivated Nidal Hasan to murder in the first place.
Could belief in that doctrine be a "potential threat"? Of course not. At least not in a military which permits the Chief of Staff of the Army -- Gen. George Casey -- to say that as bad as the Fort Hood shootings were, it would be an even greater tragedy if the Army's diversity were damaged.
A glimmer of reality threatens to break through when the report suggests that "DoD standards for denying requests for recognition as an ecclesiastical endorser of chaplains may be inadequate" -- in other words, the Pentagon has no efficient way to screen the groups that endorse chaplains for the military. And that is certainly true: for a considerable period only two Islamic groups, both Saudi-funded, had the authority to train and approve Muslim chaplains for the military: the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. Both of these were linked to the Islamic activist Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who is now serving a 23-year prison sentence for financing jihad terrorism. If the Pentagon increased scrutiny of such "moderate" organizations, well and good. But by what criteria will it do so, since it doesn't seem to have noticed that there is any problem of supremacism or violence in Islam in the first place?
Political correctness was responsible for the murders of thirteen people at Fort Hood. If it had not held the political and military establishments in a stranglehold, Nidal Hasan would never have remained in the U.S. military, much less risen to the rank of major. He would have been removed from the ranks long before he had had a chance to murder anyone at Fort Hood. Political correctness was responsible for the fear among his superior officers -- they knew that if they disciplined or removed Hasan, they would have faced charges of "discrimination" and "bigotry." And such charges can ruin careers these days.
But that same political correctness is still very much in place, as the Fort Hood report abundantly indicates. And so for all its bluster about preventing the next attack, it will stand -- after the next jihad attack, and the one after that -- as a monument to the cowardice and myopia that held sway at the highest levels in Washington during the first year of the Obama Administration.
I'm actually very surprised the report didnt just confirm the DoD's "rightwing extremist" theory...
'........the cowardice and myopia that held sway at the highest levels in Washington.........'
The captain of the ship of America, Mr obama, is the biggest PC in the country.
How much higher can the PC-infection go?
When the most powerful man in America doesn't have the guts to admit the role of islam in this massacre, what can we expect from the report-writers of the Pentagon?
There you have it. This is the answer to all those people who would blame the CIA or the FBI or the military for not protecting us from jihdists. You have the top echelons of the government not even seeing the radical Islam or jihdists as threats. This also may be the reason why so many Americans are getting fed up with the government. specially the current crop of PC minded nincampoops who sets the policies for everyone else.
Why should this report surprise anyone after knowing full well our respected dhimmileaders in governemnt are literally begging for help like good "kafir maskeens" while paying a handsome jizya to our Islamic Jihadists "allies" to help hunt down other Jihdists(and one should ponder at this point why they would even consider doing it) and being told to f*&k off, because they don't plan any more attacks on Taliban for the remaining of 2010, all this after cashing the "Jizya check" at the bank.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8471789.stm
Although slightly OT, but closely related to the issues surrounding Fort Hood, the following article in the UK's Daily Mail shows another example of the "Islam is not the problem" school of thinking and obfuscation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244889/Muslim-police-officers-warn-anti-terrorism-strategy-British-values.html
In this case it is the "The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP)". They told MPs that:
"It was wrong to blame Islam for recent terrorist attacks."
"Warned that far-Right organisations were a greater threat to national security than Islam".
This article contains all of the usual "Blame the Far-Right" and "Islamophobia" arguments.
I suppose that it would be impolite to mention the word "taqiya" in the context of an association for Muslim police officers suggesting that it is wrong to blame Islam for recent terrorist attacks and then suggesting that Government initiatives to prevent radicalisation amongst Muslim groups - could not 'continue unchecked'.
America is pretty disgusting these days, our "Leaders" knee-deep in political correctness, denial and obfuscation, and our president constantly praising the 7th century AD Fascist/Nazi political ideology with it's Jihad proviso that continues to mass-murder us.
Our "Leaders" are all cowards - wow, isn't that comforting?
I never thought I'd see America so pitiful - genuflecting to a barbaric ideology that has killed thousands of Americans.
Diversity has become the sacrosanct goal of the US military. Heaven forbid the rules of engagement include defeating the enemy.
This PC nonsense flows from the top. It starts from the so called commander in chief. Trade the camo helmets for the baby blue of the UN.
I am surprised that the report did not name Hasan as a member of the Christian Identity movement. I'm sure that would please Janet Napolitano.
I hope the article above is placed in the hands, not of staff members, but of Senators and representatives themselves, so that when they grill the Leaders Of Our Nation's Security Apparatus, they will have in front of them exactly what they need to know about that ludicrous, hollow, and essentially worthless report, with its ungrand and unacceptable silences.
Karl Kraus famously wrote that "Psychiatry is the disease for which it is supposed to be the cure."
The official report by the Pentagon on the Fort Hood massacre has, as its named lead author (god knows what work he really put in), one Togo D. West, Jr. A quick review of his life and works suggests one of those bland mediocre company-men, a presentable retired general of the sort who gets put on the well-paid boards of directors of all sorts of companies, and who has likely never had an independent thought in his life, much less dared to express it.
That report -- Karl Kraus always comes in handy -- suffers from, and even helps to spread further, at a slightly different level, the disease for which it was supposed to be the cure.
"The official report by the Pentagon on the Fort Hood massacre has, as its named lead author (god knows what work he really put in), one Togo D. West, Jr. A quick review of his life and works suggests one of those bland mediocre company-men, a presentable retired general of the sort who gets put on the well-paid boards of directors of all sorts of companies, and who has likely never had an independent thought in his life, much less dared to express it."
I really have to wonder at that first name, "Togo." Hugely out-of-the-ordinary.
In Togo, a country whose Christians are now living in great fear because Qaddafy has bought off the presdient (a dictator, who enjoys racing his Lamborghini, another present made possible by Qaddafy, over the 30 km. of paved roads in Togo), and the Muslims are building mosques everywhere, especially between churches (as a symbol of their power and might), and have cut down many trees around the mosques, under which Christians used to enjoy the shade. Now the Muslims have taken over the trees around the churches -- this comes to be in a report directly from a Togolese. Furthermore, Qaddafy has sent money to Togo to pay for sound-systems so that the muezzin's call can be magnified electronically throughout the city. Christians feel as though their country is being taken from them, thanks to Libyan and Saudi money, and a dictator who will take money from both.
Are the Americans watching this? Is, for example, General Togo D. West, Jr. (ret'd.) taking any note? I would guess not, any more than the Americans, with all their gigantic expenditures, have been monitoring the wahhabi takeover of mosques in Niger (a leading producer of uranium, as we all remember), or how Saudi money is now being sent to the Pomaks in northern Greece and Bulgaria. One wonders just what the Pentagon and the C.I.A. do with all of their information-gathering techniques.
If there is not a wing of the Pentagon, off-limits to Muslims, where one room is devoted to Black Africa, another to Western Europe, still a third to Southern and Central Europe, and others still devoted to other parts of the world, where all the information about Saudi and Libyan and other money, the takeover of academic departments, the bribes given to government officials, to journalists, to academics, the imams now paid with Saudi money, and all the reset of it - if this is not being done, more than eight years after the attacks of 9/11/2001, and nearly seven years since the two-trillion dollar folly, the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations distraction, in Iraq began -- then everyone who has allowed such negligence should stop, think, re-think, and begin to carefully, coolly, soberly study the ideology of Islam, and look around the world, and get a grip. A much better grip than the political and media elites in North America and Western Europe have heretofore exhibited. They are being outrun by their own citizens, the very people whom they in government (and in the press) presume to protect and instruct -- but fewer and fewer are impressed with their efforts, inhibted and hobbled and even crippled as they are by a refusal to think clearly about the ideology of the Total Belief-System of Islam, and its effects on the minds of its adherents.
In this case it is not so much deception praticed by the Major, who was quite open about his views and was even trying to warn the military about "something about Islam" in his now famous powerpoint presentation, but self deception and wilful blindness on the part of the US military.
Two years before he turned his gun on "fellow soldiers" Hasan gave a presentation on Islam and its teachings, on Jihad, on abrogation, on the duty of Muslims with no taqiyya in sight. Invoking the case of US soldier Hasan Akbar (slide 13) who killed two American officers in a
grenade attack at the beginning of the Gulf War and had written ' 'I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the Army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill' Major Hasan was warning everyone, Islam teaches certain things and sending an American Muslim soldier to a Muslim country to fight other Muslims is going to create a religious delimma in Muslims like Hasan Akbar (and it turns out, himself). Major Hasan: 'whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell' – slide 12; the requirement that Muslims wage war against non-believers in both defensive jihad (slides 37-41) and aggressive jihad (slides 42-48). This command can be expected to be followed by devout, God-fearing Muslims ('Allah expects full loyalty' – slide 49), especially if they are persuaded that in so-doing they would be 'fighting against the injustices of the "infidels,"' (slide 48). The message being that if US Muslim soldiers can be persuaded that fighting against fellow-Muslims is an injustice, this could trigger a deadly attack against fellow US soldiers instead, e.g. by means of 'suicide bombing, etc' ('We love death more than you love life!' – slide 48).
Major Hasan was presenting the situation straitforward. Muslim blood is sacrosanct, kaffir blood is not. The punishment of Allah for killing a believer intentionally, the first loyalty of a Muslim to fellow Muslims, and the obligation to wage jihad (especially in the case where the US is believed to be "at war with Islam") means the US military must not send Muslim soldiers to Muslim countries
to fight fellow Muslims (Major Hasan was being sent to Iraq, his response was Fort Hood) or the only other conclusion would be the US military should not have Muslims at all in its armed forces (what's to prevent turning against one's fellow soldiers simply because the US is perceived as at "war with Islam" without even being ordered to a Muslim country?) or does the US military want to
come up with a means of "vetting" Muslim soldiers as to how they view the world and decide who is "safe" and who is not?
In the wake of the horrific Fort Hood massacre, I finally heard many commentators who had never—or rarely, at any rate—use the term "Jihad" begin to apply it. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer and Dennis Miller all began to say "Jihad".
While I understood that their understanding of the Jihad threat was probably not as rigorous as I would like, I still saw this as a great leap in understanding, and had hoped it might signal a general increase in those taking the threat of Islam seriously, rather than giving in to the false pieties of uncritical "multiculturalism".
And now this report. I suppose the fear of considering anything smacking of "Islamophobia" is still stronger than *anything else*—stronger than common sense, and stronger than continued survival. That this comes from *the Pentagon* makes it all the more alarming and disheartening.
DJM,
From page 80 (D-2) of the report:
"Motivations for domestic terrorism are diverse, and include animal rights, environmentalism, nationalism, white supremacy, religious causes and right-wing politics."
The readers of this site could undoubtedly be nicely categorised by this list but I wonder where Bill Ayers or the Black Panthers fit into the spectrum?
Jackdiamond, part of your assement is incorrect. This rat bastard hassan wasn't being sent to iraq to battle with fellow muslims, rather he was being sent to iraq to work in army hospital to take care of psychological problems of soldiers. However he knew that soldiers were being sent to iraq to kill muslims and this little jihad of his was to defend these iraqi muslims from being killed by these soldiers. If he would be shot to death in the process he would certainly end up with the 72 wide eyed virgins and a number of youth.
I simply stated that the attack followed his being ordered to Iraq, not that he was going into combat. Hasan is the one who talked about Muslims having to fight or kill fellow Muslims and how they might react based on their religious beliefs. Hasan's own act demonstrates that even being part of an army engaged in fighting fellow Muslims is cause enough. By the way, the Hasan powerpoint synopsis was courtesy of Mark Durie.