Mark Steyn on the Fort Hood shootings:
Major Hasan was entirely upfront about who he was. He put it on his business card: "SOA." As in "Soldier of Allah" -- which seems a tad ungrateful to the American taxpayers who ponied up half a million bucks or thereabouts in elite medical-school education to train him to be a Soldier of Uncle Sam. In a series of meetings during 2008, officials from both Walter Reed and the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences considered the question of whether then-captain Hasan was psychotic. But, according to at least one bigwig at Walter Reed, members of the policy committee wondered "How would it look if we kick out one of the few Muslim residents?" So he got promoted to major and shipped to Fort Hood.
And 13 men and women and an unborn baby are dead.
Well, like they say, it's easy to be wise after the event. I'm not so sure. These days, it's easier to be even more stupid after the event. "Apparently he tried to contact al-Qaeda," mused MSNBC's Chris Matthews. "That's not a crime to call up al-Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?" Interesting question: Where do you draw the line?
The truth is we're not prepared to draw a line even after he's gone ahead and committed mass murder. "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy," said Gen. George Casey, the U.S. Army's Chief of Staff, "but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here." A "greater tragedy" than 14 dead and dozens of wounded? Translating from the original brain-addled multicult-speak, the Army chief of staff is saying that the same fatuous prostration before marshmallow illusions that led to the "tragedy" must remain in place. If it leads to occasional mass murder, well, hopefully it can be held to what cynical British civil servants used to call, during the Northern Irish "Troubles," "an acceptable level of violence." Fourteen dead is evidently acceptable. A hundred and forty? Fourteen hundred? I guess we'll find out.
"Diversity" is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think. Likewise, a belief in "multiculturalism" doesn't require you to know anything at all about other cultures, just to feel generally warm and fluffy about them. Heading out from my hotel room the other day, I caught a glimpse of that 7-Eleven video showing Major Hasan wearing "Muslim" garb to buy a coffee on the morning of his murderous rampage. And it wasn't until I was in the taxi cab that something odd struck me: He was an American of Arab descent. But he was wearing Pakistani dress -- that's to say, a "Punjabi suit," as they call it in Britain, or the shalwar kameez, to give it its South Asian name. For all the hundreds of talking heads droning on about "diversity" across the TV networks, it was only Tarek Fatah, writing in the Ottawa Citizen, who pointed out that no Arab males wear this get-up -- with one exception: Those Arab men who got the jihad fever and went to Afghanistan to sign on with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In other words, Major Hasan's outfit symbolized the embrace of an explicit political identity entirely unconnected with his ethnic heritage.
Mr. Fatah would seem to be a genuine "multiculturalist": That's to say, he's attuned to often very subtle "diversities" between cultures. Whereas the professional multiculturalist sees the 7-Eleven video and coos, "Aw, look. He's wearing . . . well, something exotic and colorful, let's not get hung up on details. Celebrate diversity, right? Can we get him in the front row for the group shot? We may be eligible for a grant."
The brain-addled "diversity" of General Casey will get some of us killed, and keep all of us cowed. In the days since the killings, the news reports have seemed increasingly like a satirical novel the author's not quite deft enough to pull off, with bizarre new Catch 22s multiplying like the windmills of your mind: If you're openly in favor of pouring boiling oil down the throats of infidels, then the Pentagon will put down your e-mails to foreign jihadists as mere confirmation of your long established "research interests." If you're psychotic, the Army will make you a psychiatrist for fear of provoking you. If you gun down a bunch of people, within an hour the FBI will state clearly that we can all relax, there's no terrorism angle, because, in our over-credentialized society, it doesn't count unless you're found to be carrying Permit #57982BQ3a from the relevant State Board of Jihadist Licensing.
Steyn's reference to the brain-addled is no joke. Earlier this morning, I had an exchange with two liberals on Facebook. One denied that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism... "It was the act of one individual;read and listen to FBI prelim". Another was tired of hearing that this was the first act of terrorism on American soil since 9/11 because "every-time a man beats his wife that is an act of terrorism by Websters definition".
I'm not sure what it'll take to convince some of the threat posed by jihadism... but Steyn's points and my own personal experience suggest a whole hell of a lot more than anyone with sense cares to believe.
Sadly, a whole hell of a lot more translates to lots and lots of dead people.
Crossposted(*).
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Islam, Meme Watch, National Security, The War On Terror
Comments (17)
Liberals can't acknowledge ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by kathie | November 14, 2009 11:32 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Liberals can't acknowledge that the murder of our Marines at Fort Hood was an act of Islamic terrorism any more then Obama can because it happened on his watch, with his policy or lack of it, and he must be held accountable. Oh my gosh, how can he blame George Bush for this? He is going to have to take responsibility and he can't handle it.
1. Posted by kathie | November 14, 2009 11:32 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on November 14, 2009 23:32
2. Posted by Highlander | November 15, 2009 8:19 AM | Score: -11 (13 votes cast)
"Another was tired of hearing that this was the first act of terrorism on American soil since 9/11 ...". -- Rick
How soon they forget the Anthrax Attacks, right, Rick? You know, you open a letter, and if powder spills, you may very well die?
The nation was far more terrified by these attacks than the usual mass murders committed by nuts we've come to expect due to widespread availability of guns (Virginia Tech, Columbine, Fort Hood, etc.).
2. Posted by Highlander | November 15, 2009 8:19 AM |
Score: -11 (13 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 08:19
3. Posted by _Mike_ | November 15, 2009 9:01 AM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Actually, it was the asymmetric distribution of firearms that resulted in the aforementioned massacres. If the presence of guns had actually been 'widespread', the aggressors would have been stopped much sooner.
3. Posted by _Mike_ | November 15, 2009 9:01 AM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 09:01
4. Posted by Gmac | November 15, 2009 9:31 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The nation was far more terrified by these attacks than the usual mass murders committed by nuts we've come to expect due to widespread availability of gun free killing zones. (Virginia Tech, Columbine, Fort Hood, etc.).
TFTFY, no charge.
4. Posted by Gmac | November 15, 2009 9:31 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 09:31
5. Posted by Stan25 | November 15, 2009 9:43 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Um Kathie, those people that were murdered at Ft Hood were ARMY personal. There is a huge difference in the branches. Also as far as I know, there are no Marines posted to Ft Hood, unless they are there on a TDY assignment.
The Marines are stationed at Pairs Island, Camp Pendleton, and various Naval bases around the world. They are part of the navy, while the Army is a separate branch entirely, but your statement is true.
5. Posted by Stan25 | November 15, 2009 9:43 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 09:43
6. Posted by Madalyn | November 15, 2009 10:29 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Hasan pretended to be an American to the extent that he felt he had gotten all he could from our country before exposing himself as to he really is. Unfortunately, our Pretender-In-Chief is doing the same thing. How many Americans is he planning on killing?
Maybe this sounds callous and downright hateful, but that is the way I see it. He is biding his time.
Madalyn
6. Posted by Madalyn | November 15, 2009 10:29 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 10:29
7. Posted by kathie | November 15, 2009 10:58 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Sorry Stan, how about this?
Liberals can't acknowledge that the murder of our Army personal at Fort Hood was an act of Islamic terrorism any more then Obama can because it happened on his watch, with his policy or lack of it, and he must be held accountable. Oh my gosh, how can he blame George Bush for this? He is going to have to take responsibility and he can't handle
7. Posted by kathie | November 15, 2009 10:58 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 10:58
8. Posted by Highlander | November 15, 2009 11:25 AM | Score: -14 (14 votes cast)
"If the presence of guns had actually been 'widespread', the aggressors would have been stopped much sooner." -- Mike
Mike, who draws his gun first, the criminal with foreknowledge that murder is about to be committed, or the law-abiding citizen, with a gun stashed away somewhere? How many soldiers were shot dead, Mike, before Mr. Hasan was shot? All the many guns at the Fort didn't wind up saving these soldiers, right, Mike?
Moreover, how often does this kind of gun rampoage shit happen in Japan, Mike, where guns are outlawed??? WELL??? Cat got your tongue???
Please, oonservatives, try to think before you post your comments.
8. Posted by Highlander | November 15, 2009 11:25 AM |
Score: -14 (14 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 11:25
9. Posted by Trump | November 15, 2009 12:06 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
I'm not sure what it'll take to convince some of the threat posed by jihadism...
***
I'll be the bad guy here and say what has to be said and pretty bluntly. Rip on me all you wish:
A large segment of the population (*cough liberals* cough) won't be convincecd of the threat until they have family members die as a direct result of it. As a result, the terrorists can target blue states as much as they wish in my opinion.
9. Posted by Trump | November 15, 2009 12:06 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 12:06
10. Posted by Trump | November 15, 2009 12:09 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
How many soldiers were shot dead, Mike, before Mr. Hasan was shot? All the many guns at the Fort didn't wind up saving these soldiers, right, Mike
***
Except the soldiers at the fort were not allowed to carry guns.
10. Posted by Trump | November 15, 2009 12:09 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 12:09
11. Posted by Trump | November 15, 2009 12:11 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Moreover, how often does this kind of gun rampoage shit happen in Japan, Mike, where guns are outlawed
***
Heck, guns are outlawed in DC and Chicago, how often does gunplay happen there?
Oops, cat got your tongue?
11. Posted by Trump | November 15, 2009 12:11 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 12:11
12. Posted by GarandFan | November 15, 2009 12:35 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
"I'm not sure what it'll take to convince some of the threat posed by jihadism..."
For some of these idiots, it will take someone screwing a gun to their head while yelling "Allah is great!". Of course it will be a little late by then, on the up side, it will mean one less idiot.
12. Posted by GarandFan | November 15, 2009 12:35 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 12:35
13. Posted by howcome | November 15, 2009 12:59 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
highkander,
You obviously have no idea how restrictive gun laws are on a military base. If guns are the problem why is your god, Obama not outlawing them? Please dems start your gun control campaign now. Pretty please.
13. Posted by howcome | November 15, 2009 12:59 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 12:59
14. Posted by GarandFan | November 15, 2009 1:43 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"Moreover, how often does this kind of gun rampage shit happen in Japan, Mike, where guns are outlawed???"
Got news for you Highlander, the mob in Japan is ARMED TO THE TEETH. Only the everyday citizen is unarmed. Luckily for the Japanese, the crooks only use guns on each other.......with the tacit approval of the police. Now if the mob starts shooting up unarmed citizens, that will be a whole new ballgame.
14. Posted by GarandFan | November 15, 2009 1:43 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 13:43
15. Posted by 914 | November 15, 2009 1:48 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
"of hearing that this was the first act of terrorism on American soil since 9/11 because "every-time a man beats his wife that is an act of terrorism by Websters definition"."
Fort Hood was islamist terrorism libs.. The first since 911 on our soil. What was Obama doing? Reading up on Alinski Im sure.
15. Posted by 914 | November 15, 2009 1:48 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 13:48
16. Posted by Marc | November 15, 2009 4:42 PM | Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
highlander "Moreover, how often does this kind of gun rampoage [sic] shit happen in Japan, Mike, where guns are outlawed??? WELL??? Cat got your tongue???"
Not often, what your point?
To paraphrase you: Please, highlander, try to think before you post your comments.
The UK government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership.
In that light puzzle me this highlander, "The latest Government [UK] figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent."
Why, highlander, why?
16. Posted by Marc | November 15, 2009 4:42 PM |
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Posted on November 15, 2009 16:42
17. Posted by JustRuss IT1(SW) USN [reitred] | November 16, 2009 10:38 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Highlander:
I am ex-Navy and on any military base I have ever been on there are very few armed personnel. The idea is that because everyone has to check through the gate, and because everyone is on the same side, that it is more dangerous to have people carrying than not.
However we are at war, and infiltration is an obvious concern. It seems to me that during a time of war every service member should be required to carry a sidearm at least as part of the Uniform of the Day.
The campus shootings are awful, but did you know that at least two of them to my knowledge were stopped by people who went to their car and got their guns, all before the police could respond?
If every person on an airplane had a loaded gun, it would be a bit difficult for a terrorist to use a gun to take control wouldn't it? Hell, it should be mandatory!
"WE ARE GOING TO WASHINGTON DC!"
*click*click*click*click*click*
"Sit down Ackbar, we're going to Jersey!"
17. Posted by JustRuss IT1(SW) USN [reitred] | November 16, 2009 10:38 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 16, 2009 10:38