Theodore's World

« It is the Proud, Pro-Military, Pro-Freedom American that is Hated and Discriminated NOT the Muslims | Main | Lt. Col. Ralph Peters On FOX Speaks Out About Obama's Speech At Fort Hood »

November 11, 2009

What's behind America's politically correct 'love' of Islam?

.

What's behind America's politically correct 'love' of Islam?

wnd

The second they heard about the Fort Hood massacre, millions of thinking Americans wondered in their gut: "Oh God, is this another crazy Muslim terrorist carrying out a one-man jihad, as has happened so many times before?"

Then, when the alleged perpetrator's name and religion were made public (Nidal Malik Hasan, a lifelong Muslim) along with eyewitness reports he had shouted the obligatory pre-terror-attack proclamation, "Allahu akbar" ("Allah is greatest") before commencing his orgy of slaughter, their suspicions were confirmed: This was surely a major attack on the American homeland by a Muslim terrorist.

Further evidence quickly rolled in: Hasan had reportedly refused to fight fellow Muslims, called the war on terror a "war on Islam," told a co-worker Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans, and reportedly had posted online his astoundingly twisted belief that an Islamic suicide bomber was morally equivalent to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

In other words, although the Army had many warnings Hasan was a certifiable, America-hating, jihadist "ticking time bomb" waiting to go off, it did nothing to avert last week's terror attack. Why?

And why, after the truth about Hasan became undeniable following his mass slaughter, does the government, as well as its mouthpiece the establishment press, agonize in their usual pathetic manner over what could possibly have motivated the Army psychiatrist to coldly, methodically murder 13 and wound 38 others?

* Shortly after the attack, right on schedule, the FBI announced it wasn't terror-related.

* Time magazine moronically blamed posttraumatic stress disorder – even though Hasan has never been deployed in a war zone.

* The shooter's relatives insisted he had been the victim of religious harassment because of his faith, which must have made him snap.

* According to the Washington Post, the problem was that Hasan was lonely. That's right, the newspaper's report, titled "The lonely life of alleged Fort Hood shooter," was subtitled: "'He was mistreated. He didn't have nobody. He was all alone,' says neighbor."

* Meanwhile, President Obama warned Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about what might have motivated the shooter.

Why, after a Muslim commits a terrorist act, do authorities always announce almost instantaneously – before they could possibly know – that the attack was not terror-related?

Why do the news media always torture themselves and their readers with the most wildly improbable explanations in their attempts to avoid the obvious truth?

Before we answer these questions, lest you think I overstate the case, take a quick trip with me down jihad memory lane.

* Remember the beltway snipers? In October 2002, Muslim convert John Muhammad along with 17-year-old Lee Boyd "John" Malvo paralyzed the Washington metropolitan area for three bloody weeks, killing 10 and critically injuring three others. But after their capture, most in the media were loath to focus seriously on Islamic jihad as a motive, despite the fact that Muhammad had praised the Sept. 11 hijackers and had threatened to commit major terrorist acts within the U.S.

Like alcoholics uncomfortable with facing the painful truth, the media retreated into comfortable denial. Their standard analysis of what made Muhammad tick included anything and everything except jihad. Thus, the Los Angeles Times offered up no less than six possible motives for Muhammad's killing spree, according to Daniel Pipes, an expert on militant Islam. They included "his 'stormy relationship' with his family, his 'stark realization' of loss and regret, his perceived sense of abuse as an American Muslim post-9/11, his desire to 'exert control' over others, his relationship with Malvo, and his trying to make a quick buck," said Pipes – "but did not mention jihad."

"Likewise," he adds, "a Boston Globe article found 'there must have been something in his social interaction – in his marriage or his military career – that pulled the trigger.'"

This see-no-jihad, hear-no-jihad, speak-no-jihad mindset has become standard operating procedure for the establishment press.

* On July 4, 2002, a cab driver named Hesham Hadayet walked into the Los Angeles International Airport and shot two people to death before being shot and killed by a security guard. Despite the fact that Hadayet was Egyptian and that he had chosen the Israeli El Al ticket counter as the site for venting his rage, any suggestion that Hadayet was carrying out his own personal jihad was immediately dismissed.

"Investigators … believe that Hadayet was simply an overstressed man who snapped," reported the Los Angeles Times. "He was known as a quiet, observant Muslim," added the Times, which explained away the killer's virulent anti-Semitism by saying, "While Hadayet occasionally mentioned a hatred for Israel, [one former employee] saw it more as a cultural perspective on Mideast politics than an emotion that would fuel violence."

* One of the worst air disasters in modern history, Egypt Air Flight 990 crashed into the Atlantic shortly after takeoff from New York in October 1999, killing 217.

Two and a half years later, the National Transportation Safety Board finally reached the same conclusion that virtually everyone else had immediately after the crash – that the plane's Egyptian copilot, Gameel El-Batouty, had cut power to the engines and intentionally sent the plane plummeting into the ocean, killing all aboard.

But the government panel declined to suggest a motive, except to speculate that El-Batouty might have "committed suicide."

Suicide? Pardon my French, but I think "mass murder" or "terrorism" would much better describe the wanton annihilation of hundreds of innocent people. Yet, despite the fact the copilot had calmly repeated over and over the Arabic phrase "Tawkalt" ("I rely on Allah") for almost a minute and a half during his deed – and that such behavior, according to the report, "is not consistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition" – federal investigators steered clear of suggesting jihad as a motive.

* The U.S. government, not wanting to offend Muslim sensitivities, rarely mentions "Muslim" or "Islamic" when describing Islamic terrorism. For example, when a massive jihad plot to blow up 10 airliners over the Atlantic and kill thousands was foiled in 2006, then–Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff briefed his agency using only the word "extremists" to describe the plotters – no mention of Islam. All of the two dozen would-be terrorists were Muslims.

* This syndrome has just gotten worse since the ascension to the presidency of Barack Obama, who takes every opportunity to criticize America and fawn over Islam – even calling America "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world" and bowing obsequiously before the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia.

So, why do we have this stubborn inability to come to grips with Islam?

First, as is appallingly obvious, we're afraid to criticize Islam openly, for fear of having our head cut off or having a fatwa put out on us like the director of the new "2012" film, or we're afraid of being sued by some of the very litigious Islamic organizations like CAIR, or we're afraid of being called a racist, extremist, hater or "Islamophobe" thanks to the tyranny of political correctness, or we're afraid of offending those in power and thereby risking our position, stature or other advantage. This reaction, while perhaps selfish and cowardly, is more-or-less conscious and strategic.

However, for some it goes much deeper: Being intimidated by Islam (or by anything, for that matter) actually causes some of us to mysteriously grow sympathetic toward it, to defend it, to side with it, even to convert to it. This unconscious shift in attitude, in response to fear of being hurt, is called the Stockholm syndrome, named after the 1973 Swedish bank robbery during which the four terrorized hostages sided with their criminal captors while disparaging the police risking their lives trying to save them.

"Political correctness" – which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome playing out on a broad societal stage – is actually a subtle form of brainwashing. Even establishment mouthpiece Newsweek, in its famous Dec. 24, 1990, cover story on the then-new phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses (titled "Thought Police") conceded this truth when it reported: "PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy."

Bottom line: We're intimidated, bullied, threatened, terrorized – and so we capitulate, not just in word and deed, but in thought.

Here is video of Ann Coulter on with Bill O'Reilly tonight where she discussed the reaction to the murder of abortion-doctor George Tiller as compared to the reaction to the terror attack against American soldiers at Fort Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan.

Coulter pointed out that the media reaction to Tiller's killing was immediate and labeled the killer a religious fanatic. But when all evidence points to Hasan's Islamic Jihadist beliefs as the source of his action, President Obama and others are doing everything they can to simply make this a "crime" rather than a terrorist act based on his Islamic religious beliefs.

Ann Coulter said the Mainstream Media has embarrassed itself with their coverage of the Fort Hood story. She said their coverage has been "stunning," with most of the relevant facts coming out via the British press rather than from U.S. sources

.

Wild Thing's comment........

Also Democrats will be on their side simply because America is the enemy in the eyes of the Democrats. Look how many on the left LOVE Mao and other people like that. People that you and I would never say we respect.

The FBI is trying to cover their tails!

Cowardice.

Bingo.

Same with liberalism vs. Conservatism. Too many Conservatives fear getting into a knock-down drag-out with liberals over ideology, yet that's just how liberals like to operate. They know that by being forceful and unafraid of ridicule they can get their point across better than their meek counterparts do.

....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.

Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67

Posted by Wild Thing at November 11, 2009 06:45 AM

---

Comments

Posted by: darthcrUSAderworldtour07 at November 11, 2009 09:51 AM

---

Posted by: Lynn at November 11, 2009 11:34 AM

---

Posted by: Richard at November 11, 2009 12:38 PM

---

Posted by: TomR at November 11, 2009 01:18 PM

---

Posted by: Eddie (Enemy of the State) at November 11, 2009 05:09 PM

---

Posted by: Wild Thing at November 11, 2009 07:47 PM

---