Was the Ft. Hood Attack an Act of Terrorism?

FortHoodShootingIn light of the tragic massacre at Fort Hood, President Obama  has asked that we remain calm and avoid jumping to conclusions. Obviously, the conclusion President Obama does not want us to jump to is that this shooting was an act of Islamic terrorism.  From the Financial Times,

Barack Obama cautioned a stunned public on Friday against drawing quick conclusions on a shooting rampage by an officer at a Texas military base that killed 13 people.

The president made the comments as the commander of Fort Hood, the US’s largest base for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, quoted witnesses as saying the suspected gunman, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, shouted the Muslim declaration “Allahu Akbar” – God is great – as he opened fire. Speaking at the White House, Mr Obama said: “We don’t know all the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”

In my opinion, Major Hasan intended to terrorize his victims and was motivated and influenced by his Islamic beliefs.  He didn’t impulsively start shooting people.   He planned his attack.  Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, author of The War After Armageddon, wrote a column in the NY Post explaining why he believes Hasan was acting as a terrorist.  In Colonel Peter’s opinion, Islam and political correctness are to blame for the massacre.

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting, “Allahu akbar!” (“God is great!”) committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as “Palestinian” in a Muslim spouse-matching program and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an “Islamist terrorist.”  Read more.

The evidence seems to point to the fact that this massacre was a terrorist act.  It may not have been coordinated by Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group, but it was still an Islamist terrorist act.  Why is President Obama cautioning us about jumping to conclusions when we don’t have to jump to determining why this attack happened?  He wants us to be cautious and to weigh all the facts before making a decision, but I find this puzzling because of his past actions.  It seems to be a “do as I say, not as I  do” moment.  When Obama’s friend Professor Gates was arrested, he immediately passed judgment (before knowing all the facts) on the Cambridge police and accused them of “acting stupidly”.  When the stimulus bill was introduced into Congress, he said that it had to be acted on immediately.  The same goes for the omnibus spending bill, cap and trade, and health care.  On these issues, we were supposed to come to a conclusion quickly before we had time to look at all the facts.  On the other hand, when General McChrystal begs the President to send more troops to Afghanistan, Obama takes months to decide.  When an army officer with radical Islamist views plans an attack and kills innocent people, Obama wants us to take our time before we decide anything or form an opinion.  On some issues we are supposed to come to conclusion immediately… but on others we are not.  It makes one wonder why their is such an inconsistency and double standard?

Related posts:

  1. Why Does Obama Want War Criminals Tried in a Civilian Court?
  2. Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Another Similarity to Jimmy Carter!
  3. New TSA Airport Screening Technique
  4. Obama’s Afghanistan Speech, Where was the V word?

Click here to subscribe to Forgotten Liberty

Comments (9)

Matt

November 7th, 2009 at 3:56 pm    


My comment on this situation is to describe how I think that the left will portray it.

“This poor man was a victim. A victim of our intolerance. He was pushed by harassment and discrimination into committing this terrible act. And…Bush did it.”

theLibertyPen

November 7th, 2009 at 5:24 pm    


Obama will sweep this under the rug, or through misdirection claim it was something else. I agree with Matt, and maybe the left can claim Bush made him shoot all of those innocent people.

Patriotic Dissenter

November 8th, 2009 at 1:28 pm    


Great point Forgotten Liberty. Obama won’t protect our soldiers but he’ll protect an Islamic terrorist…deeply disturbing. Oh, and Bush must have done it.

burro

November 8th, 2009 at 1:55 pm    


This, my friend, was a textbook example of a man-made disaster. Acts of terrorism don’t happen anymore. You need to stop using and outdated lexicon.

Liberty

November 8th, 2009 at 5:49 pm    


I agree with all the comments. This was a man caused disaster and Maj. Hasan was pushed into doing it because of George Bush’s policies!

jwruss

November 8th, 2009 at 10:44 pm    


Amazing the way “rationality” comes at the cost of giving the victims’ families any sort of justice.

swiftfoxmark2

November 9th, 2009 at 9:43 am    


There are still tons of questions about why the Army handled this tragedy the way they did. The reporting was horrendous surrounding the incident and this just causes people to question the validity of the claims of the shooter’s (or was there more than one?) motivations and why the soldiers there didn’t fight back. I would guess that many of them did, but why did it take a police officer to stop this guy when all that was required was an unlocked armory and a bunch of vengeful soldiers?

A tragedy all around, I say.

Hans

November 22nd, 2009 at 10:29 am    


No, not a terrorist act. How are we going to describe all the highschool and another random shootings in the USA? Also terrorists?
Kindest

Liberty

November 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm    


Hans,
If a highschooler is in contact with terrorist overseas, considers a radical Imam a mentor, has radical Muslim beliefs, tells another terrorist overseas that he can’t wait to see him in the after life, and yells “Allahu Akbar” before violently gunning down innocent people, then I would call them a terrorist too.

Leave a reply

Name *

Mail *

Website