There are those of us who think maybe U.S. servicemembers should be permitted to carry weapons when not deployed, if for no other reason than to ensure they’re not more endangered in their own country than abroad.
And then there’s the Mayor of Chicago, who gives new meaning to the nickname “Windy City.” After all, if only we kept firearms out of the hands of U.S. servicemembers what a wonderful world this could be!
(Not so long ago, statements like this and other Leftist spin would have caused the speaker to be laughed out of the public square, and not ushered into political power as in our present age.)
Does it get any better, in terms of proving one’s credentials as a foreign policy “dove,” than passing up an opportunity to commemorate the fall of the Wall to read in the Rose Garden?
Mind if I quibble with other conservative commentators over a minute point?
On the basis of what we know (or have reason to suspect, anyway) regarding the recent fatal shootings at Fort Hood, there is no reason to suspect this was evidence of “terrorism” any more than other mass murders in the States (such as at Virginia Tech, for instance).
However–and this is a critical however–what separates the Fort Hood shootings from the Virginia Tech shootings is this: by all appearances, the attack was designed to thwart the nation’s military operations. Ergo, the key label here is “treason” rather than “terrorism.”
I happen to believe “terrorism” is a term best reserved for hostile acts carried out by–or in concert with–irregular foreign combatants. (Indeed, it may even turn out that the Fort Hood shooter was acting in concert with a foreign terrorist operation.)
“Domestic terrorism,” when carried out by U.S. citizens, is really more or less a matter of scale, even if motive might be a factor. “Treason,” on the other hand, truly captures the essence of what commentators mean by “terroism” in this instance–that the killer acted out against our government interest. I also think “jihadist” is an appropriate label, since it demonstrates that the killer’s loyalties are/were clearly to something other than the United States of America.
Of course, we conservatives can all agree upon one point: pundits in the mainstream media are whacked out of their skulls if they think the shooter at Fort Hood was a freakin’ victim.
UPDATE: I happen to recommend several accounts from conservative commentators as illustrative of how the term “terrorism” has been deployed, but of course for enlightenment, too–after all, these are some bright minds!
Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday’s rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Good ole’ Janet Napolitano. She never disappoints, does she? I feel safer knowing she’s keeping vigilant watch on all those right-wing extremists out there.
Instead of “Batman,” maybe we could dub our heroine “Bat-s*#t Crazy Lady”?
More commentary at American Thinker (here) and at Pajamas Media (here).
General George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said on Sunday that he was concerned that speculation about the religious beliefs of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian and wounding dozens of others in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, could “cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”
“I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,” General Casey said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union. “It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”
I’m sure this will be some consolation for the families of the Fort Hood victims–that they died to save diversity.
Does this mean NBC is out of the White House press pool?
Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That’s the least that should occur.
UPDATE:Frank Gaffney contrasts this reaction from President Obama to how President Bush handled himself during the aftermath of 9/11.
More and more information emerging from the Ft. Hood shootings seems to support the theory that the shooter was not merely disaffected with military life, but rather was a radical Muslim who happened to be an officer in the U.S. Army.
My hunch is, the mainstream media would defend their cover-up of these inconvenient facts by assuring us they wanted to avoid tarring other Muslims. Yet how do we explain the round-the-clock discussions of the shooter’s impending deployment and the juxtaposition of this incident with all others which happen to have involved military servicemembers?
That’s right, folks. The media would much rather slander those who serve in our armed forces than a fringe religious group.*
H/T to Hot Air, which has even more on this story here.
*UPDATE: To what extent this is a “fringe” movement is certainly subject to a hotly contested debate. (I guess I just punted on this point for the sake of not going into this question in more depth.) At least conservatives are willing to engage in this debate, unlike the politically correct Leftists who want to pacify violent Mohammedans with their happy talk.
My guess is that radical Islam is more “fringe” in the States than elsewhere, but should we not be aware, as a society, of the extent to which certain elements harbor these hostile inclinations?
Honestly, I regret publishing so many posts on this topic of late, but it is severely under-covered in the mainstream media. Herewith, then, is yet another tale of intentional discrimination against a white person by blacks. The most interesting snippet from the story (emphasis mine):
Black mayors have occupied City Hall since 1973, but this year, a white City Council member is leading in the polls, even though two black civic leaders urged black voters to unite against her.
This is no less a disgrace than if the races had been reversed, but I guarantee the coverage would have been different–complete with the involvement of the U.S. Department of Justice maybe?
Now might be an appropriate occasion in which to post Alfonzo Rachel’s recent “Victicrat” video:
I'm amazed at how pervasive the "pass the buck" mentality has become. Too many Americans believe someone else should take care of them--as with the health insurance debate, for instance. Admittedly, the problem here is somewhat distinct. In fact, there are riparian use laws affecting the relationship between upstream and downstream consumers o […]
I'm all for putting the brakes on a virus before it becomes an epidemic/pandemic. However, can we please dispense with the notion that the nearly $800-billion-disaster-of-a-bill is a "stimulus"? The only thing Congress and President Obama have stimulated is the federal deficit and the impending tax increases necessary to pay the tab.
Posted by cackcon 
Posted by cackcon 
Posted by cackcon 
Fort Hood Shootings “Treason,” not “Terrorism”
10 November 2009Mind if I quibble with other conservative commentators over a minute point?
On the basis of what we know (or have reason to suspect, anyway) regarding the recent fatal shootings at Fort Hood, there is no reason to suspect this was evidence of “terrorism” any more than other mass murders in the States (such as at Virginia Tech, for instance).
However–and this is a critical however–what separates the Fort Hood shootings from the Virginia Tech shootings is this: by all appearances, the attack was designed to thwart the nation’s military operations. Ergo, the key label here is “treason” rather than “terrorism.”
I happen to believe “terrorism” is a term best reserved for hostile acts carried out by–or in concert with–irregular foreign combatants. (Indeed, it may even turn out that the Fort Hood shooter was acting in concert with a foreign terrorist operation.)
“Domestic terrorism,” when carried out by U.S. citizens, is really more or less a matter of scale, even if motive might be a factor. “Treason,” on the other hand, truly captures the essence of what commentators mean by “terroism” in this instance–that the killer acted out against our government interest. I also think “jihadist” is an appropriate label, since it demonstrates that the killer’s loyalties are/were clearly to something other than the United States of America.
Of course, we conservatives can all agree upon one point: pundits in the mainstream media are whacked out of their skulls if they think the shooter at Fort Hood was a freakin’ victim.
UPDATE: I happen to recommend several accounts from conservative commentators as illustrative of how the term “terrorism” has been deployed, but of course for enlightenment, too–after all, these are some bright minds!