Saturday, November 14, 2009

Obama Still Covering Up Fort Hood Muslim Terrorist Attack

President Barack Hussein Obama continues to demonstrate that he is more interested in not hurting the feelings of Muslims than protecting our soldiers. This means pretending that Maj. Nidal Hasan's execution of 12 Army soldiers and one civilian employee last week at Ft. Hood was something other than a Muslim terrorist attack. In his weekly radio address today, Obama referred to Hasan's deadly assault as a "terrible tragedy" and referred to him as "an alleged gunman." "I won't compromise that investigation by discussing the details of this case," he said. "Alleged gunman!" Is this guy joking? This is the same man who concluded that the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly" in their arrest of his friend, Prof. Gates before he knew any of the facts about his arrest. You would think this was another random shooting on Chicago's South Side to hear President Obama speak.

Obama assured us there would be a complete investigation and he "will insist that the full story be told." But he quickly added, "[A]l of us should resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater that sometimes dominates the discussion here in Washington." "The stakes are far too high," he added. Did you hear that? That's code for saying there will be no talk of a Muslim terrorist attack. Anyone who claims that in this case will just be playing politics, or so says President Obama. We know what the full story will be. The guy was just a lonely man who snapped under the pressure of secondary post-traumatic stress syndrome from providing counseling to soldiers shipping out to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. They can no longer claim he suffered the stress of listening to soldiers returning from battle because we now know he never counseled those soldiers. So put out of your mind the silly notion that he was devout Muslim carrying out jihad on the United States. Never mind those contacts with an al Qaeda supporter, his former iman for the mosque he attended, which coincidentally was the same mosque of some of the 9/11 hijackers. Don't read anything into his statement that "we (Muslims) love death more than you love life." Ignore the personal calling card he handed out advertising the fact that he was a "Soldier of Allah". Forget the fact that one of the only personal items he left behind in his modest apartment was a paper shredder. He just snapped. Get it?

11 comments:

missy said...

I AGREE COMPLETELY. ANYONE WITH A FUNCTIONAL BRAIN KNOWS THAT THIS ASSHOLE WAS A TERRORIST. AND NOTHING OBAMA SAYS WILL CHANGE THAT. A BELLIGERENT BLACK PROFESSOR, ACCORDING TO OUR PRESIDENT,IS WORTH DEFENDING. BUT WE SHOULDNT LABEL A TERRORIST A TERRORIST. THIS MURDERER SHOULD BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. OUR SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT SAFE IN THEIR OWN BACK YARD. NEITHER ARE WE. NOT ANYMORE.

allimaple said...

This type of rhetoric serves no purpose other than to rile up warmongering-chickenhawks who just cannot stop salivating over the prospects of a full on Holy War.

The individual is a deranged lunatic who demonstrated an utter disregard for the life and liberty of others and as such should and will be held to account for his actions in a Military court.

The fact that he is Muslim is wholly immaterial to his actions in the larger sense.

Unless of course it is your belief, we should apply this standard to all former and future lunatics who illustrate contempt for the inherent liberties of mankind.

Thus, extrapolating on the nonsense that this man was a "Muslim Terrorist":

All Catholics priests are "Catholic Pedophile terrorists" and should be castrated.

All Christians are "anti-abortion terrorists" who will kill doctors in the name of "protecting life"

The list that can associate a belief or “people group” label can continue ad infinitum, but would serve no purpose.

So let me please appeal to your sense of reason and request you cease stoking the fire with such poorly reasoned analysis.

Unless of course your desire is to push for an all out “Declaration of Holy War”, in which case you should continue throwing the label of “terrorist” around so carelessly, proclaim your prejudice against Muslims proudly, and then enlist in Christ’s Army posthaste.

Allison

Advance Indiana said...

Allison, Neville Chamberlain and Joe Kennedy talked similarly of Hitler and his Nazi movement to rule the world. Thankfully, a majority of the men and women of the greatest generation disagreed with them and recognized the threat they posed to freedom and liberty in this world. If you're going to pick analogies, do a little better than Catholic priests and anti-abortionists. There is only one party that has declared holy war on the rest of the world that doesn't accept its religion and I think we both should be able to agree on which party that is.

Jon E. Easter said...

As an attorney AI, I would hope that you would agree that people are innocent until proven guilty. Alleged gunman is the appropriate term to avoid any of the unsavory case jeopardizing mess that might come from a more frothing-at-the-mouth response.

And, Missy, comparing the Cambridge Police controversy with this is completely irresponsible. Professor Gates broke into his own home and was arrested on his own property by the Cambridge Police. Libertarians should have been outraged. The murder of 12 people at Fort Hood by Hasan is not the same thing, and Obama clearly doesn't want to jeopardize the case with unwarranted rhetoric.

Advance Indiana said...

This wasn't a criminal act committed by a civilian, Jon. This was an act of war committed by a treasonous soldier in the name of Islam. He won't be tried in a civilian court; he will be tried under the military justice code. And no, I'm not going to afford him the benefit of any doubt under these circumstances. He is not a mere "alleged gunman". He is in fact the many who took a loaded gun onto a military base and systemmatically executed his fellow soldiers. Nobody disputes that fact.

Speaking of the benefit of the doubt, did anyone notice that WISH-TV's Jim Shella during last week's airing of Indiana Week In Review falsely claimed that Augustus Mendenhall confessed to attempting to murder Ed DeLaney? Mendenhall never confessed to attempted murder. He denies that he was trying to kill DeLaney; he said he was only trying to scare DeLaney. Ed says he tried to shoot him in the head. Shella tried and convicted Mendenhall for a crime he says he didn't commit. Does the evidence against him look bad? Yes. Could Ed DeLaney be exaggerating? It's possible. That's what a trial will sort out. People like you, Jon, are very selective in your outrage over prejudging people accused of crimes.

Advance Indiana said...

Rudy Giuliani gets it. Politico quotes him:

Appearing Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani offered such a judgment, saying the Obama administration has been “very slow to react to the whole situation with Major Hasan, which was clearly a terrorist act in the name of Islamic terrorism.”

“I would want to see the facts develop,” Giuliani said. “I think the administration has been very slow to come to the conclusion that Major Hasan was an Islamic extremist terrorist. I mean, the reality is, he announced "Allah akbar" when he shot and killed those people. He was communicating with a cleric who was encouraging terrorism. And now it turns out he has -- he even has business cards saying 'solder of Allah.'"

Roger said...

"...The fact that he is Muslim is wholly immaterial to his actions in the larger sense..."

How many Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Jews, Christians, or 7-Day Advantists have you EVER heard cry, "Allah Akbar!" just before cutting off a prisoner's head, or shooting them in the back?

This "political correctness" CRAP has GOT to STOP!

Indy Student said...

I doubt Guliani "gets it". The one thing he has going for him is his national defense. Without that, he has no chance in hell in any POTUS Republican primary.

dcrutch said...

Based on a Webster's New Universal Unabridged: Terror(ist) "intense fear, dread, terribleness"

Based on a broader definition than I anticipated, I understand some may find "terror" in those who uncivilly lambast their Congressmen, as I find in some of our President's pronouncements. Given that the word is now pretty much overused and diluted, can we focus on those whom pose a more immediate threat?

With due respect to the grating nature of some taxpayers in townhalls, or my perception of disregard for economics or our Constitution by our President, I think we're all more concerned about those blatently taking human life. The modern bombings in New York, Lockerbie, Spain, London, and Indonesia are indeed part of a larger group of henious acts, including Oklahoma City and abortion doctor assasinations. But, when looking at the common global scope, quantity of carnage, and devotion to Islam, there is a troubling contemporary international pattern.

It's not that there aren't extremists in the Seventh Day Adventists, or Buddhists, or Sikhs. But, will somebody please tell me any which of these are involved in attempting to bomb civilians and believing they will attain a higher spiritual plane in doing so?

I agree there are millions, I'd guess well over a billion followers of Islam on this planet- the incredibly vast majority peaceable people. But, the nutcases on the edge are a very rotten apple, making more and more people understandably concerned about the whole barrel.

Jon E. Easter said...

AI,
Please show me where I referred to Mr. Mendenhall as anything but alleged. The fact is that he is still the alleged attacker. He's not yet been convicted.

Advance Indiana said...

Jon, I didn't accuse you of referring to Mendenhall as something other than alleged. I said your outrage over anyone describing Hasan as anything other than "an alleged" killer was selective outrage. I can't count the number of times I heard President George W. Bush and Gitmo interrogators described as war criminals by people on the Left during the past 8 years as if they had been tried and convicted.