[tomder55]

When John Wilkes Booth opened fire on President Abraham Lincoln in Ford’s Theatre in April 1865, the media was puzzled. “True, the actor was outspoken in his Confederate sympathies and viewed himself as a Southerner,” said someone who knew him, “but that was no reason he might want Lincoln to be dead.” The day before he went on his shooting spree, Booth hoisted a big Confederate flag outside his hotel room. After he leaped onto the stage he shouted, "Thus ever to tyrants!" the motto of the rebel state of Virginia.

The New York Times reported that Booth was psychologically unstable and was frightened of the Civil War coming to an end and having to face a peacetime actors’ surplus. “His political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it said, quoting experts.

After Fritz Reichmark opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Dix in January 1942 the media was puzzled. “True, he used to go to German-American Bund meetings,” said one fellow soldier, “but he only wore the swastika armband in his off-hours.” Reichmark would regale other soldiers with diatribes against the Jews, Winston Churchill, and Communists. The day before he went on his shooting spree, Reichmark gave out copies of Mein Kampf to neighbors. Soldiers who survived reported he was shouting "Heil Hitler!" while firing at them.

The New York Times reported that Reichmark was psychologically unstable and was frightened of being shipped out to North Africa because he was a coward, though this doesn’t explain his making a suicide attack when his job wouldn’t have required him to go into combat. “His German ancestry and political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it said, quoting experts. The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of this event was to fight more firmly against Germanophobia.

When Padraic O’Brian bombed a restaurant in London with massive loss of life, the media was puzzled. “True, he used to go to IRA rallies,” said a cousin, “and he would rant for hours about how the British invaders should be wiped out” but the media reported that this had nothing to do with this attack which was caused by his psychological problems. As he fired at pursuing police, O'Brian yelled: "Up the republic!"

The Guardian reported: “His Irish identity and political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act.” The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of this event was the need to fight more firmly to ensure that Northern Ireland was handed over to the Irish Republic and that Israel be wiped off the map.

When a group of 19 terrorists flew two planes into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and the fourth crashed on the way to the White House, the media was puzzled. “True, they wrote letters to Usama bin Ladin and expressed radical views but their act of violence must have been connected to their extreme poverty back in Saudi Arabia,” one expert was quoted as saying. When informed the young men all came from well-off families, he responded, “Oh.”

The New York Times reported that they were all psychologically unstable and had difficult times in forming stable relationships with women. “The fact that they were Arabs and Muslims or their political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it explained. The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of the attack was the need to fight against Islamophobia and Arabophobia as well as for the United States to make more concessions in the Middle East and to impeach President George W. Bush.

The point of the above exercise is to make the following points:

--Individuals who commit terrorist acts often have psychological problems but the thing that justified, organized, and ensured that violence would be committed were political ideas.

--Whenever an individual who belongs to any group commits a crime, it is possible that some will stigmatize the entire group. Most Americans or Westerners today, however, will not do so. The most important issue is to identify why the terrorist act happened and what to look for (including which type of individuals) to prevent future attacks.

--When there is clear evidence that danger signs were ignored because people were afraid of being stigmatized for doing their job of protecting their fellows, that is a dangerous mistake that must be corrected.

--Someone who is "afraid" of being sent into a war zone is not likely to handle that cowardice by standing up with a gun in a suicide attack and shooting people until he falls to the ground with about four bullet wounds.
--The media can often be stupid but when it censors reporting for political or social engineering reasons, freedom is jeopardized. The correct phrase is: The public's right to know. It is not: The public has to be guided into drawing the proper conclusions by slanting and limiting information even if the conclusions being pressed on them are lies and nonsense.

RubinReports: Great Moments in "Psychologically Disturbed" Gunmen Committing Mass Murder


President Obama has cautioned us against jumping to conclusions . That would be the same President who was compelled to host a beer summit because of his own prejudging the actions of a police officer.

In this case;the evidence is clear that Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to get in touch with al-Qaeda;that he worshipped at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia... the same mosque that two of the 9-11 hijackers went to ;and that the prayer leader, Anwar al-Awlaki ,who is also the AQ person Hasan had contacted;was also the spiritual adviser of the two 9-11 hijackers.He is now in Yemen and has praised Hasan’s actions.

Hasan’s behavior at Walter Reed was the subject of conversation by his colleagues. What is yet to be determined is how much of that filtered up to decision makers;and whether it political correctness that prevented the decision makers from taking the actions necessary to prevent Hassan's jihadist terrorism ?

[ETWolverine]

The pre-9/11 mentality is back in full force... just 8 years after that fateful day. At least it is in force within our government and our military leadership. And the consequence is going to be awful.

I showed in a recent post just how often the USA was attacked by foreign terrorists before 9/11. It was roughly once per year, on average, over a 30-year period. That's 30 attacks or so to which we never responded out of a misguided fear or being non-PC or offensive to those who would attack us. And the result of each incident we ignored was another incident.

For 8 years we have lived attack-free because George W. Bush, the most hated man in America, took action against our enemies instead of hiding his head ion the sand. And in that short time, we forgot what it was like to be attacked.

The Fort Hood attack will be relatively ignored by our government. No action will be taken. What action is there to take, after all? And in doing so, we will forget to call this act of terrorism by its right name. This will send a signal that we are once again prepared to ignore attacks against our homeland as long as they are small enough to not rouse a public reaction or can be chalked up to a "lone crazy gunman" as opposed to an organized group.

We are opening ourselves up to new attacks because we are too stupid to remember recent history.

The difference in attitude between the Bush administration and the Obama administration (and their respecctive military leaders) is what sends the signal. The return to PC-ism over security is what sends the signal. And the enemy is very good at reading the signals.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

I heard that don't rush to judgment remark yesterday and thought the same thing, white cop arrests black professor and the cops "acted stupidly." Maybe I should do as you on the administration's Honduras policy and hope Obama is teachable. Nah, I agree with Ralph Peters who had to the guts to call it what it was, Islamic terrorism.

Obama can't be bothered by Islamic terrorism

In the wake of the terrorist strike on our soldiers at Fort Hood, one individual's still missing in action: Our commander in chief. The massacre's 51 casualties, including 13 dead, were insufficient to drag President Obama away from the White House Happy Hour.

We just saw the worst terror attack on America since 9/11. And Obama couldn't adjust his schedule to support our grieving troops.

Instead, we got his subtle defense of the perp: Unwilling to use the word “terror,” let alone the phrase “Islamist terror,” Obama warned us not to “rush to judgment.”

A Muslim fanatic, known to the FBI as a fan of suicide bombers and to colleagues as an opponent of our government, coolly buys weapons, heads to a military facilityhe knows will be packed with unsuspecting soldiers, waits for the crowd to thicken, then shouts, “Allah is great!” and guns down 51 patriots, calmly reloading among the dead and dying.

But don't rush to judgment.

Imagine if, instead of Fort Hood, the massacre had gone down at a mosque in Detroit — carried out by a maddened Christian or Jew. Obama would've been aboard Air Force One before the pilots had time to file a flight plan and he would've been on site before the gun smoke cleared, hugging and boo-hooing and dispensing stirring rhetoric for the evening news.

But go out of his way to rally our butchered troops? Not a chance. It's not like they're real human beings with Ivy League degrees. When Obama got word of the attack, he didn't even lose his fabled cool.

Obama may be shamed into visiting Ft. Hood at some point, but his priority since Thursday has remained socializing American medicine. What happens in Texas, stays in Texas.

Move on? Yes we can!

Of course, this act of Islamist terrorism has been an inconvenience to a president whose administration insists there's no such thing. Those dead and wounded soldiers are such an embarrassment. If only a Baptist or Lutheran had been the shooter, things would've been so much tidier.

What's next? The White House is going to bring heavy pressure on the FBI, through Attorney General Eric Holder, to play down investigative results confirming that Maj. Nidal Hasan was motivated by his Muslim beliefs.

Instead, we'll hear even more about the “harassment” Hasan suffered as the media toe the line laid down by the vile lead editorial in Saturday's New York Times and how this calculating terrorist contracted PTSD from his patients.

Let me kill the harassment myth right now: Political correctness rules in today's Army. We even protect our enemies these days. Had any soldier harassed Hasan because of his Islamist nuttiness, that soldier would've disappeared faster than a Franklin on a Times Square sidewalk.

Any snarky remarks directed toward Hasan — if there were any — would've come in reaction to his railing against our government, our military's mission and the monstrous injustice that, after grabbing an education in psychiatry worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from our military, he might have had to do his duty.

Far from being harassed himself, this creep was allowed to harass the soldiers he treated for stress disorders. According to colleagues, Hasan not only argued with his patients about our wars, but preached Islam to those under his care. (Just what troubled vets needed, no doubt.)

Prejudice? You bet. In this terrorist's favor. Nobody in Hasan's chain of command had the sense of duty to weed this pervert out. Why? Hasan would've accused them of discrimination. And the officer who brought charges against Hasan would've been the one whose career suffered.

Since writing on this travesty in the Post and speaking out on Fox News, I've been deluged with supportive messages — many from soldiers outraged at the politically correct treatment of this terrorist by the media, by senior military leaders — and by the president.

How many more Americans have to die, at home and in war, before our president admits that there is, indeed, such a thing as Islamist terror? Will he ever admit that it played a role in the tragedy at Fort Hood?

Not a chance. Islam's a religion of peace. America's the problem. And don't you forget it.

[excon]

This will send a signal that we are once again prepared to ignore attacks against our homeland as long as they are small enough to not rouse a public reaction or can be chalked up to a "lone crazy gunman" as opposed to an organized group.

Nah, I agree with Ralph Peters who had to the guts to call it what it was, Islamic terrorism.

Hello tom:

I agree that political correctness is, was, and is ALWAYS going to cause us problems... But, I have trouble understanding what the real difference is between a nut, and a terrorist.. Oh, I guess if he's a terrorist, we can ship him off to Gitmo for a little water boarding. But, if he's a nut, he's stuck inside federal custody.

Is THAT what you guys want? A little torture? A little retribution? Maybe some Christian wrath. Come on. You can tell me.

Yeah. That's going on. Otherwise, there actually wouldn't BE a difference unless you wanted to BLAME some group for it. Elliot clearly is looking for a bad guy, but he doesn't identify who we should retaliate against. Unless it would be Muslims in general, and that's what I think it is.

What do you think? Is the attack just more evidence of Islams war against us? Would that be like the Evangelical Christian war against America because some Christians kill abortion doctors?? What's your answer? Purge the military of Muslims, as some wingers have proposed? Or may just fire the dufus's in the Army and/or the FBI for dropping the ball. Maybe we should bomb Iran. That'll show 'em.

excon

[tomder55]

Ex

Cleary that is not what I wrote . I will ask you ;do you have any issues at all with calling Tim McVey a terrorist ? Would you equate his actions with a "nut" like.. oh let's say... the Columbine murderers ? No ;you would call both McVey's and Hasan's actions terrorism because they are POLITICALLY motivated .

Make no mistake . I consider neither Muslim jihad or "Christian abortion bombers" as people performing religious acts.

But ; let's say a soldier who is also a Christian openly spoke of taking out an abortion clinic .Do you think the appropriate action would be to keep him under tight survaillance or perhaps even escorting him out of the military ? I think you would call that appropriate.

[excon]

Cleary that is not what I wrote . I will ask you ;do you have any issues at all with calling Tim McVey a terrorist ?

Hello again, tom:

Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.

I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us. Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam. Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.

excon

[asking]

It doesn't have to be one or the other. He can be a nut job whose political views affected the way in which he cracked. I am surprised that I haven't seen anyone make anything of the fact that he was a psychiatrist, either. I think a lot of them are nuts. I know that's a tired cliché, but I can be politically incorrect here, too!

Personally, it would be a hard choice between waterboarding and entering a mental health facility. This guy sounded generally dysfunctional. Apparently, he could have got out of the military if he'd wanted to but didn't hire a lawyer to help him do it. He just sat there festering and brooding. What's his problem? Why so passive? A neighbor keyed his car and he did nothing and didn't even express any anger about it. That's weird. This is a person who doesn't know how to deal with adversity and emotion.

I'd love to hear what his patients had to say about him. He sounds like a disaster as a psychiatrist.

[asking]

I think we should purge the militaryof psychiatrists.

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.

I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us. Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam. Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.

Through the years I have made a consistent point on this subject . Radical jihadism is a political philosophy that yes,we are at war against.

Are all Muslims radical jihadists ? Nope . Should the Army purge their ranks of radical jihadists ? Yes they should because radical jihadists are at war with the US military and thus represent an enemy 5th column.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.

So what you are saying is that it's OK to for YOU to call such a person a terrorist, but if anyone else does, it's because we want "christian retribution".

More anti-religious bigotry.

Not to mention that you know quite well that I'm Jewish.

I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us.

Correction... FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM's war against us.

Are you saying that such acts by fundamentalist Muslims ISN'T evidence of such a war?

Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam.

Correction... our war against FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM.

Are you saying that such acts by fundamentalist Muslims don't justify a war against fundamentalist Islam?

Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.

Excon

Actually, it is factually correct to deny that we are at war with Islam. We are, in fact, at war with fundamentalist Islam. We're trying to kill Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist followers, not Ahmed and Ibrahim the two brothers selling shoes in Bahgdad.

Or do you say that we're targeting the Muslim on the street?

Of course you do... you still think we're in Vietnam, and that we targeted the Vietnamese women and children that John Kerry lied about us killing. You can never accept the fact that the American soldier might not be the bad guy.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

Just for a clarification, whether we call this guy a nut or a terrorist has a direct effect on what actions we take to prevent another such event in the future.

A nut is a once-in-a-lifetime thing that can't be prevented except by the people who know him best.

Someone with a terrorist ideology can be detected ahead of time if the military is prepared to seek him out.

What action the military takes will be a result of what the government is willing to call this guy.

If he's a nut, we can go back to burying our heads in the sand. If he's a terrorist, we need to take action to prevent similar acts in the future.

That's the difference.

But you probably can't see that.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.

I was going to simplify it for you and furnish a link to the definitions, but apparently Merriam-Webster is too PC to define terrorist. And just to show I didn't really search for "narco-terrorism" read the last word of the link:

Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorist

I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us. Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam. Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.

I'm not tom, but a guy who's sympathies were divided between his Muslim brethren we were fighting and the nation he was sworn to serve is a huge red flag. Did the army do justice to all those Muslims serving in our military that they themselves feared might feel the backlash if they had targeted this guy for some serious intervention? We need to start calling things like they are and stop this dithering and tiptoeing about.

[George_1950]

How about we get the White House to open a web page for soldiers to report suspicious behavior enountered amongst their peers?
Recall this: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected]."

[George_1950]

Or, suppose the perp at Fort Hood was a white guy from Alabama, who attended meetings of the KKK, the facts of which were generally known to his peers, and evidence was in the hands of high-up government officials of his racist tendencies. Can we just imagine the hue and cry, the headlines of the NY Times, the response of the White House.

[George_1950]

Fort Hood Memorial Service

[speechlesstx]

You know Obama can't call it terrorism because then he can't say he's kept us safe.

[tomder55]

I think you hit on it Steve .

[paraclete]

excon,

Just for a clarification, whether we call this guy a nut or a terrorist has a direct effect on what actions we take to prevent another such event in the future.

A nut is a once-in-a-lifetime thing that can't be prevented except by the people who know him best.

Someone with a terrorist ideology can be detected ahead of time if the military is prepared to seek him out.

What action the military takes will be a result of what the government is willing to call this guy.

If he's a nut, we can go back to burying our heads in the sand. If he's a terrorist, we need to take action to prevent similar acts in the future.

That's the difference.

But you probably can't see that.

Elliot

This has confirmed my contention Muslims are a fifth column, I read in one article it was suggested he was a Palestinian, so that would make him fairly mixed up. You can say he is a nut if you like but obviously a terrorist nut and infiltrator and how many more exist in the military, sleepers waiting for the moment. How many did this guy certify as OK? Why didn't you take action to prevent these acts before they happened, that is proper exercise of duty of care

[George_1950]

... Why didn't you take action to prevent these acts before they happened, that is proper exercise of duty of care

This has been the 'conservative' position on terrorism, as well as illegal immigration, for years; but the progressives stand with their foot in the door.

[inthebox]

Remember when this admins new head of homeland security warned of returning soldiers as potential terrorists? PC idiots are sticking there head in the sand, ignoring the real ongoing threat of Islamic jihadists.

If I was a muslim, and believed that my religion was being hijacked by these terrorist, I would be ashamed. That is what I am waiting on the MSM to report on, major muslim groups repudiating the acts Nidal and his fellow jihadists.


G&P