Wednesday, November 11, 2009

It’s Islam, Stupid! Fort Hood Mass Murder by Malik Nadal Hasan Continues a Vibrant, Multicultural Tradition

By Nicholas Stix

Last Thursday’s attack by Malik Nadal Hasan, in which Hasan shot 43 unarmed U.S. Army soldiers, killing 13, fit into a pattern of both religious-motivated violence by Moslems, and politically-motivated negligence and deception by public officials and the media.

On March 25, 2003, Daniel Pipes put the murderous terrorist attack on U.S. Army soldiers and officers by black Moslem sergeant Asan Akbar aka Hasan Karim Akbar, aka Mark Fidel Kools, in the context of Sudden Jihad Syndrome, in “Murder in the 101st Airborne.”

First, the U.S. government’s initial response indicates that, once again, it is ascribing violence by an American Muslim to purely personal causes. Here’s its take on prior homicides:

* “A prescription drug for or consistent with depression” to explain why El Sayyid A. Nosair in 1990 shot Rabbi Meir Kahane.
* “Road rage” to explain why Rashid Baz in 1994 shot a Hassidic boy on the Brooklyn Bridge.
* “Many, many enemies in his mind” to explain why Ali Hasan Abu Kamal in 1997 shot a tourist on the Empire State Building’s observation deck.
* “A work dispute” as why Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet in 2002 shot two people at the El Al counter of Los Angeles International Airport.

Akbar in 2003? U.S. Army spokespersons talk variously about an “attitude problem,” a desire for “retribution” and “resentment.”
The chief chaplain at Akbar’s Fort Campbell, Ky., home base announces (completely without evidence) that the incident is “not an expression of faith.”

No one yet knows Akbar’s motives, but ignoring that it fits into a sustained pattern of political violence by American Muslims amounts to willful self-deception. When will officialdom acknowledge what is staring it in the face?

Its avoidance of reality has real consequences, increasing the dangers Americans face. “This country’s officials are in a state of denial and confusion that is almost as frightening as the terrorism they are supposed to be fighting,” observes Dennis Prager, only slightly exaggerating.

Second, the Akbar incident points to the suspect allegiance of some Muslims in government. The case of Gamal Abdel-Hafiz recently surfaced: an FBI agent whose colleagues say he twice refused to record conversations with suspected financiers of militant Islamic terrorism (“A Muslim does not record another Muslim”). [The Seattle Times reports three witnesses recalling that John Allen Muhammad, the man accused of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper murders last fall, had thrown a grenade into a tent during the 1991 war against Iraq.] Other cases are under investigation.

All of which reinforces what I wrote in January: “There is no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces. Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks. Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches and temples.”
As Sgt. Womack noted, the enemy has already managed to “get into our camp.” Do we have the will to stop him before he strikes again?

[The answer, obviously, is “No.”]

This Moslem’s Army
By Nicholas Stix

March 30, 2003
Toogood Reports/A Different Drummer

The U.S. military has a Moslem problem within the ranks, and its attempts to ignore the problem, have only worsened it.
Imagine a black Moslem Army engineer with the rank of sergeant trying to murder other U.S. soldiers by throwing a hand grenade into a tent, and nothing happening to him. Now, imagine a second black Moslem Army engineer with the rank of sergeant doing the same thing, 12 years later. Impossible, right? Must be a fluke. Only it’s possible, and it’s no fluke.

Last Sunday, Asan Akbar aka Hasan Karim Akbar aka Mark Fidel Kools, was arrested for grenade and shooting attacks at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait, that killed Army Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert, 27, of Easton, Pa., and wounded 14 other soldiers. On Tuesday, Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone, 40, of Boise, Idaho, also died of his wounds from the attack. Akbar/Kools, who has not yet been formally charged, may eventually be charged with a slew of crimes, including two counts of murder, 14 counts of attempted urder, and aiding and abetting the enemy in wartime. If convicted, Akbar/Kools will face life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Sunday night on CNN, retired Gen. Wesley Clark said to Aaron Brown, “You can’t imagine what the motivation could be. What could he be thinking?”

In case you’re wondering what Gen. Clark’s motivation could be for willfully ignoring the obvious, and what he could possibly be thinking, he seeks the 2004 Democrat presidential nomination.

But in his refusal to face reality, Gen. Clark simply mirrors the U.S. government. As Daniel Pipes observes, since 1994, federal officials have misrepresented one Moslem terrorist attack after another, as somehow having been motivated by anything but Moslem religious hatred.

The suspect is a black American Moslem. He has a degree in aeronautical AND mechanical engineering from the University of California/Davis, so he has to be highly intelligent. He is a sergeant and an engineer in the 101st Airborne Division. He had recently been reprimanded for insubordination, and was known to have an “attitude” problem. And once the deed was done, comrades reported hearing him say, “You guys are coming into our countries and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children.”

“Our” countries; “our” women; “our” children.

Akbar/Kools’ mother, Quran Bilal, named her son after a communist dictator, and sworn enemy of America’s. That’s awful, but not criminal. But consider that Mrs. Bilal reacted to her son’s arrest, by denying that it was possible that he was guilty. She “told The Tennessean of Nashville that she was concerned her son might have been accused because he is a Muslim, adding he was not allowed to participate in the first Gulf War because of his religion,” according to the Associated Press.
“He said, `Mama, when I get over there I have the feeling they are going to arrest me just because of the name that I have carried.’’’ [Would that name be “Asan Akbar” or “Fidel”?]

“She said in a telephone interview from her Baton Rouge, La., home that the military had not contacted her and expressed disbelief in the accusations against her son, who she said spells his first name Hasan.”
``He wouldn’t try to take nobody’s life. He’s not like that.”

So, he’s the victim. (I’m skeptical about the mother’s claim that her son was prohibited from participating in Gulf War I, based on his religion. But suppose she were telling the truth: Would she be angry about her son being shielded from fighting other Moslems ... or happy?)

In reading thousands of crime stories in which a suspect was caught in the act, or with blood on his hands, the suspect’s spouse and relatives have usually responded in one of two dramatically different ways: Either they expressed regret for the victims, and a sad resignation about the suspect, or portrayed the beloved suspect as the real victim, and denied the charges had any validity.
When I hear regret and resignation from the loved one of a guilty-as-hell suspect, my hunch is that this is a decent person who did her best, but that the suspect had chosen a certain path. But when I hear a loved one take the offensive, I think, The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.

For instance, when NYPD detectives James Nemorin and Rodney J. Andrews were murdered, execution-style, during a buy-and-bust gun deal earlier this month, a relative of one of the suspects lamented that he had chosen a certain path.

Conversely, when Egyptian terrorist Hesham Muhammad Ali Hadayet, celebrated last Fourth of July by murdering Jews Victoria Hen and Ya’acov Aminov at Los Angeles’ LAX Airport El Al counter, Hadayet’s wife said that her husband could not possibly have committed the crimes he carried out, before a security guard was able to kill him. Mrs. Hadayet suggested a conspiracy was seeking to frame her husband, because he was Arab and Moslem. “‘He is a victim of injustice,’ she said three times. In America, they hate Islam and Arabs after Sept. 11.’’’

As soon as I knew some facts about Akbar/Cools, the parallel that came to mind, was to accused Beltway Sniper John Muhammad, a former Army sergeant and engineer who allegedly attempted to murder comrades by throwing a hand grenade into the tent they were in, during Gulf War I. Muhammad was not so much as busted in rank, let alone prosecuted. His crime was “disappeared.”

As Michelle Malkin noted, Muhammad had no business in the Army, in the first place. “Curiously, Muhammad was admitted to the Army despite being earlier court-martialed for willfully disobeying orders, striking another noncommissioned officer, wrongfully taking property, and being absent without leave while serving in the Louisiana National Guard.”

Malkin lists a series of Muslims who have joined the U.S. armed forces, with the intention of waging war on America.

Prior to the alleged crime, Akbar/Cools’ demeanor had thrown up red flags. His superiors were sufficiently alarmed, that they had told him he would be left behind in Kuwait, when his unit moved out to Iraq. But how was he able to get away with insubordination and an obviously “bad attitude,” without being busted in rank? Was the officer he disrespected white or non-white? (Can you imagine a white non-com getting away with disrespecting a superior officer?) How was it that in the case of a Moslem soldier, Akbar/Cools’ superiors knew about his misconduct, and knew about the John Muhammad story, yet refused to at least keep Akbar/Cools under close watch?

Black racism is also a problem in the U.S. military. Although the official story is that “affirmative action” has been a great success, in an uncharacteristically frank New York Times series on race two years ago, a reporter covering an Army base subtly portrayed a clique of influential black sergeants as being racist, and deliberately blocking the career progress of white soldiers, while maintaining a system of race-based cronyism.

And even absent negligent military authorities, many American blacks have always responded to Islam like gasoline to a lit match. The faith has for some 90 years appealed to blacks who perceived it as violently anti-American.
The Army appears to be engaging in negative profiling: That is, in cases where certain soldiers exhibit what former assistant secretary of defense Frank Gaffney calls “fifth column syndrome,” and practically cry out to be kept under surveillance, it avoids doing so.

And when will the mainstream media start doing their job, instead of rationalizing or covering up racism and violence, when it is carried out by members of protected groups? An AP story Sunday on the Akbar/Cools case was perversely titled, “Sgt. Held in Attack Feared Persecution,” and pandered to the suspect and his mother’s spin, with the following lede:

A sergeant accused of killing a fellow serviceman by throwing grenades into tents at a military command center in Kuwait told his mother he feared persecution because he is a Muslim and reportedly had recently been reprimanded for insubordination.

In spite of the media’s timidity – or perhaps because of it – the Muslim Public Affairs Council immediately took the offensive, sending the following threatening press release to media outlets all over the country:

The troubling report of a U.S. soldier launching grenades into tents of his own brigade in Kuwait has disturbed all Americans.
“A suspect has been apprehended and according to preliminary reports acted alone. This soldier should be subjected to a military court of justice and must now bear the consequences of his seditious act if he is found guilty of committing this crime.
“We warn against exploiting this incident and making sweeping generalizations about others of the same race, ethnicity, or religion of the suspect.
“We find no excuses, or acceptable motives, that can justify such a reprehensible act.

Note that it is not the crime which MPAC maintains is “reprehensible”—it is merely “troubling”—but rather connecting it to Islam.

The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal remarked wryly, “We shall follow the Muslim Public Affairs Council’s warning and not mention Akbar’s religion. (If you must know, it’s in the Reuters story.) Suffice it to say that it seems unlikely the guys at the Muslim Public Affairs Council would be up at all hours fretting about the incident if the culprit were, say, a Mormon.”

If the American media refuse to acknowledge the obvious, Moslem media suffer from no such inhibitions. A story from the web site, Islam for Today, reported, “US forces are refusing to acknowledge any possible religious or political motive for the Muslim soldier’s attack. Max Blumenfeld, a spokesman for the American Army 5th Corps, would only say that the cause of the attack ‘most likely was resentment.’ He did not elaborate.”

The story’s subtitle posed the rhetorical question, “Religious sentiment more powerful than Band of Brothers ethos?”

Frank Gaffney has repeatedly warned of the Saudi-subsidized infiltration of the U.S. through Wahhabi mosques and madrassahs (simply called “schools” in the U.S.), college student associations, and by Wahhabi imams working as chaplains in the armed forces. Such imams seek out and encourage the John Muhammads and H/asan Akbars that are sprinkled through the ranks.

On Tuesday, Gaffney revealed that every institution Akbar/Cools has studied at, worshiped at, or served in since 1988, has had a Wahhabi presence.

If the media and civil authorities conspire variously to distort or suppress the facts of cases like Akbar/Cools and Muhammad, incidents of mutinous, murderous soldiers will become more frequent, and cohesion and discipline in the ranks will break down, as men no longer know if they can entrust their lives to the soldiers beside or behind them. The services cannot be reformed, until they confront the facts.

Meanwhile, in order not to offend the Moslem world, Gen. Tommy Franks and his generals have thrown overboard standard military tactics, which call for knocking out the enemy’s power, communications, and water. As the New York Daily News’ Laura Winter reported Tuesday from Jordan, “The Iraqis realize the U.S. is targeting only military sites and government buildings to try to avoid antagonizing the Muslim world - and they’re using that knowledge to their advantage, refugees said.” And so, Hussein has dressed his soldiers in civilian garb, and placed many of them in private homes in residential neighborhoods.

Such restraint will prolong the war, and cost American and coalition force lives. Columnist Richard Cohen waxes eloquently: “I hope - but I do not expect - that the world in general, but particularly the Muslim world, notices.” The world, and particularly the Moslem world, notices, and the world – particularly the Moslem world - sneers.

How many American and coalition soldiers must be sacrificed, in the foolish attempt to placate implacable enemies within and without, and to maintain a pc military?

No comments: