Elements of this story are going to continue to provide fodder for writers and commentators for years to come as long as our government is filled with PC fools without the courage or knowledge required to ID our enemy. If this war was conventional we would be talking about a 'foreign' enemy on another continent. But this war is not conventional, it is asymmetrical (one of the few catch words of any value). This enemy comes at you 'side-ways' and lurks in the halls of friendly institutions, schools, government offices and yes, the military. Curiously, the founding Fathers did not exclude them by name when they penned the First Amendment. On the other hand, they were intricately familiar with them and their doctrine, Koran and Jihad. It has been said Thomas Jefferson had a personal copy of the Koran and Keith Ellison swore his oath of office on it. I suppose he felt it carried more significance. Apparently he is another US Leader with very little knowledge of history. It is a widely held belief that Jefferson was a Deist although there are many references to Jesus Christ in his writings and he clearly held to Biblical teachings as a foundational inspiration throughout his political life.
Of course he also dispatched Marines to Algiers in 1805 and by 1815 had defeated the Muslim hordes (pirates) that plagued our shipping. The Mediterranean problem with Piracy and Muslim interdiction was not new to the Jefferson administration, Muslim hordes had succeeded in taking, by force, the entire north African continent, much of Spain and made incursions into Europe and France. By the time Columbus 'sailed the oceans blue', Spain was actively seeking a safer trade route to the Indies.
The fact is, since 621 AD, history is replete with stories of Muslim incursions and conquests, slavery and abuses and that imperialistic spirit is alive and well today. Of course it is all for Allah and the religion of peace is only seeking the best for its newly acquired vassals; or is it submission (def: Islam)? And if it is submission; to what or whom? Lest we forget that old adage; 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely', let's not forget that by any other name or allegiance, these people are human with human emotions, desires and vices. Our government seems to forget that part. While they are busy selling themselves and the rest of the United States on the lie that Islam is a religion of peace (a lie perpetrated by and gladly shared with our Armed Forces by invitation from our government), they do manage to completely overlook the weakness of humanity to power, money, sex, debauchery. Enter Major Hassan and his dutiful murder of the 'Infidel', on what use to be considered a secure location; an American Base on American soil. The investigation has yet to yield one single word tying Hassan to his religious root.
Enter Diana West with another superb piece:
Useless Fort Hood Leaves Americans Unprotected
by Diana West
21 Jan 2010
"Do you believe in 'radical Islam'?" the famous Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders once asked me.
The occasion was a banquet last summer at the Reagan Library outside of Los Angeles where later that evening Wilders would receive a Hero of Conscience award from the American Freedom Alliance. I would have the honor of introducing him. "What did you say?" I could barely hear him over the speaker at the podium elaborating on the perils of, yes, "radical Islam."
"'Radical Islam,'" he repeated. "Do you think there is 'radical Islam,' or only 'Islam'"?
Me, I'm an "only Islam" kind of gal, as I told him. Who am I to argue with Muslims ranging from terror-cleric Abu Qatada to Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan? Erdogan is particularly interesting as a democratically elected Islamic leader who eschews all word-modifiers of Islam including "moderate," the adjective the media often applies to his AKP political party. "These descriptions are very ugly," Erdogan said in 2007. "It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that's it." Erdogan has also bluntly rejected descriptions of Turkey itself as an example of "moderate Islam," saying last April: "It is unacceptable for us to agree with such a definition. Turkey has never been a country to represent such a concept. Moreover, Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not."
I mention this now because after the fireworks over Scott Brown's U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts have died down, we will have to return to the same, old, equal parts humdrum and deadly wrangle over how to think, talk about and grapple with Islam in what remains a post-9/11 world.
Two related events took place just as the Massachusetts miracle sucked the oxygen from non-election news excepting Haiti coverage. First, the Pentagon report on the Fort Hood massacre came out. It is 86 pages long and doesn't mention the words "Muslim," "Islam," "jihad," "Sharia" (Islamic law), "Koran" -- despite the fact that we know, among other things, that the killer, who initiated his massacre with a cry of "Allahu Akbar," was a Muslim inspired by Islam to perform an act of jihad as sanctioned by Sharia derived from the Koran.
These facts, however, rate official silence. So what else is new? From the Bush years to the present, see-no-Islam denial has turned U.S. government attempts to assess and discuss national security issues into Kabuki gibberish, a perpetual exercise in make-believe that the core doctrines and traditional institutions of Islam -- not "radical Islam," not "Islamism," not other aliases -- pose no threat to the core doctrines and traditional institutions of the non-Islamic Free World. Naturally, mum's the Pentagon word over jihad at Fort Hood. Or, rather, "self-radicalization" is the word. It is mentioned more than a dozen times in the report.
I can't imagine a greater dereliction of duty than this failure of U.S. government leaders to recognize, articulate and defend against what in military parlance is known as the "enemy threat doctrine." But this dereliction, this failure will trigger no investigations or court proceedings on how and why our leaders consistently mask, soft-soap and otherwise fail to assess and repel the existential threat posed by the imposition or accommodation of these same Islamic doctrines.
Talk about irony: Within days of the report's release, one of the few politicians in the world who understands, articulates and fights the imposition and accommodation of these same Islamic doctrines went on trial in the Netherlands for doing exactly that.
I refer again to Geert Wilders, now enmeshed in a Kafkaesque court trial in which the Dutch government is subverting its own democratic institutions -- namely, freedom of speech and the will of the people -- in an effort to shut down Wilders and his political opposition to the Islamization of the Netherlands. The government's case rests on Wilders' increasingly successful efforts to win support for his anti-Islamization program from the Dutch people through speeches, writings and the short film "Fitna" (easily viewable online) -- a body of work that only a tyrannical, Islamically correct government could designate as "evidence" of a crime.
How Dutch government officials must envy America's Sharia-compliant public servants who willingly generate see-no-Islam blather such as the Fort Hood report.
They can have it.
Go get 'em Diana!