The Fort Hood killer escaped scrutiny because of an obsession with ‘diversity’ shared by government officials and fostered by elite media like the New York Times.

Intelligence officials knew that Nidal Hasan, the soldier who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was trying to contact Al Qaeda. (He once attended the same mosque as 9/11 terrorists.)

Our government’s obsession with “diversity” created the climate in which officers were afraid to report his suspicious behavior. Although his anti-American, pro-terrorist views were common knowledge, “a fear of appearing discriminatory . . . kept officers from filing a formal written complaint,” reports the Associated Press. As a result, he escaped any disciplinary action or review of his fitness.

—————————

So the lesson you would have us draw is that we should stop being afraid of appearing to be discriminatory? Or is your point a much narrower one, that we should stop being afraid of appearing to be discriminatory where there is no real reason to be afraid of appearing to be discriminatory? I’m all in favor of the latter.

And I’d even go along with stopping being afraid of appearing to be discriminatory so long as you can explain to me how we can reliably tell the difference between those only appearing to be discriminatory and those who actually are discriminatory. If you’re asking us to trust the say-so of those who appear to be discriminatory that they really aren’t discriminatory, no dice.

ArthurKirkland:
I have wondered about the significance (if any) of yelling “Allahu Akbar” — some American girls, for example, utter “Oh My God” in odd ways at curious moments. For all I know, “Allahu Akbar” is a clear signal of serious religious purpose.Or, it could be the equivalent of screaming “Jesus H. _____ Christ” when hammer meets thumb.If a paratrooper yells “for Christ’s sake” as he leaps from an airplane, what does that mean — commence religious crusade, or holy sh . . .

Hasan was born, raised, and educated in America. He speaks English. The convenience store worker said Hasan’s Arabic was bad. That should answer your question.

Marine reservist accused of attacking Greek priest he thought was a terrorist 3:12 PM EST, November 10, 2009

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — A Marine reservist was charged with attacking a Greek Orthodox priest he mistook for a terrorist.

Jasen D. Bruce allegedly hit 29-year-old Alexios Marakis over the head with a tire iron and chased him for three blocks Monday evening before Tampa police officers intervened.

Marakis, a Greek Orthodox priest visiting from Crete, told police he had stopped to ask the 28-year-old reservist for help after getting lost in downtown Tampa. He had just performed a blessing of another priest and accidentally got off the highway. . . .

I do agree with this:

Somehow, I’d be satisfied if they just purged the ones in the Army that CID knew were in contact with radical Imams associated with Al Quaida concerning appropriate measures for waging “Jihad.” But that’s just me.

I’ll bet most people would agree.

Yes, I am. But the NT is not consistent, and the preponderance of opinion in it is that ‘many are called but few are chosen’ — as few as 144,000 all told, according to some prominent sects.

In any event, Christianity explicitly declares that not everyone will be converted, while Islam explicitly declares that everyone will be.

ArthurKirkland: have wondered about the significance (if any) of yelling “Allahu Akbar” — some American girls, for example, utter “Oh My God” in odd ways at curious moments. For all I know, “Allahu Akbar” is a clear signal of serious religious purpose. Or, it could be the equivalent of screaming “Jesus H. _____ Christ” when hammer meets thumb. If a paratrooper yells “for Christ’s sake” as he leaps from an airplane, what does that mean — commence religious crusade, or holy sh . . .

In your experence do American girls yell “rise up and attack Americans” or “strap bombs on yourselves and and go to Times Square” at inappropriate moments as well? If so, you know (whether or not in the Biblical sense) a peculiar and unsavory sample group of American girls.

Col. Terry Lee, a retired officer who worked with Maj. Hasan at the military base in Texas, alleges the suspected mass murderer had angry confrontations with other officers over his views that Muslims should “rise up and attack Americans” in retaliation for the U.S. war in Iraq.

Col. Lee was quoted in the London Telegraph saying, Maj. Hasan was “happy” when in June, a Muslim convert was arrested in the killing of a U.S. soldier in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas. Other army officers claimed Maj. Hasan had said “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves” and go to Times Square in New York.

– from the Ottawa Times story that Neurodoc linked to.

Joseph Slater: Neurodoc:Fair enough. She was not a technically a “soldier,” but she was part of the police force on the base. And she was/is definitely a dues-paying member of AFGE. And she was brave and heroic.

I agree that Kimberly Munley was “brave and heroic,” I just don’t know why you are calling attention to the fact that she is “a dues-paying member of AFGE.” Is that somehow noteworthy here? (Incidentally, I am a former chapter president of another federal union myself, and appreciate those who join federal unions and pay the dues rather than freeride as so many do.)

ArthurKirkland: I have wondered about the significance (if any) of yelling “Allahu Akbar” — some American girls, for example, utter “Oh My God” in odd ways at curious moments. For all I know, “Allahu Akbar” is a clear signal of serious religious purpose. Or, it could be the equivalent of screaming “Jesus H. _____ Christ” when hammer meets thumb. If a paratrooper yells “for Christ’s sake” as he leaps from an airplane, what does that mean — commence religious crusade, or holy sh . . .

Yes, “for all (you) know” is a very apt qualifier here.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/ignore+role+radical+Islam/2204684/story.html

I’m pretty sure none of the murderers you mentioned went into the murders yelling “Jesus saves” after complaining that the US was at war with Christianity

I have wondered about the significance (if any) of yelling “Allahu Akbar” — some American girls, for example, utter “Oh My God” in odd ways at curious moments. For all I know, “Allahu Akbar” is a clear signal of serious religious purpose. Or, it could be the equivalent of screaming “Jesus H. _____ Christ” when hammer meets thumb. If a paratrooper yells “for Christ’s sake” as he leaps from an airplane, what does that mean — commence religious crusade, or holy sh . . .

corneille1640: I’m not sure how many conservatives wouldn’t be, either.

Because everyone knows that every conservative is inherently racist, and anything that say that does not appear to be racist can quickly be shown to be racist by analyzing the code words and context. Hence the accusation on a radio show a few years ago that the NRA, which was founded after the Civil War by officers of the Union Army, and which helped a black pastor in a southern town in the 1950s to form a gun club to arm his community and resist armed attacks by the KKK, and which has one or more directors who are black, actually stands for “Negro Removal Association.” Or the rants on left wing web sites that the NRA was founded to provide for continuing the KKK’s activites the year the KKK was outlawed.

bartman: So, a uniformed soldier killing other uniformed soldiers is now “terrorism”?

How about treason? This in not a case of a solider in the uniform of his own army killing enemy soldiers who are wearing the uniform their army, is it?

corneille1640: I wonder what religious tradition Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and the Columbine Shooters were raised in. Probably not Islam.

Wihtout discounting Arthur Kirkland’s examples, I’m pretty sure none of the murderers you mentioned went into the murders yelling “Jesus saves” after complaining that the US was at war with Christianity. We do know that the Columbine killers were contemptuous of Christianity, and questioned one of their victims about her Christianity just before they killed her. Nice attempt at moral equivalence, though.

Just Dropping By: And obviously the failure to identify and remove people from the military with a predisposition toward violence is driven overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, by political correctness….

Here are a few things that are much more obvious. Not always is not the same as never. Not all is not the same as none. Not jumping to the false and stupid conclusion that every Muslim in uniform is a threat is not the same as refusing, for fear of being accused of prejudice, to consider evidence that a particular soldier might be.

These observations are self evident. But please be careful not to skin your knuckles against all the straw men that you are punching.

Fair enough. She was not a technically a “soldier,” but she was part of the police force on the base. And she was/is definitely a dues-paying member of AFGE. And she was brave and heroic.

cookiemonsta: It’s kind of strange how the NYT, a US-based newspaper owned and managed by Jewish people, would be so eager to cover up the crimes of Hitler and Stalin.
Why would Duranty, a Jewish reporter, want to cover up the anti-semitic crimes and mass murders committed by Stalin? Maybe he was impressed with the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, the Soviet Zion. Maybe the NYT just didn’t have anyone else “reporting” from Moscow?

Do not underestimate the desire of some American Jews to shed every last vestige of Jewishness, short of converting to Christianity. And do not underestimate the social pressure pre-1960′s to do so. Read the book or see the movie “Gentelman’s Agreement” for a picture of US attitudes toward Jews in the 1940s. The novel is based on the author’s actual experiences. Better yet, pick up a copy of the non-fiction GI Jews, a study of Jewish service in the US Armed Forces in WWII, which has an excellent background section on social attitudes toward Jews, who were seen as not quite American. People react to such pressures in different ways, and the Ochs and Sulzberger families reacted by trying to blend in among “real” Americans.

Joseph Slater: The brave soldier who stopped the killer was/is a dues-paying member of the public sector union AFGE. But will we read about that on the VC? No!Oh, and the idea that the Nazis were “left wing” is one of the dumbest memes to circulate in certain right wing circles in recent years, and that’s saying something.

The LEO who shot Hasan and was wounded herself by him may or may not be an AFGE member. What she isn’t is a soldier, because soldiers do not belong to unions.

Oh, and the idea that the Nazis were “left wing” is one of the dumbest memes to circulate in certain right wing circles in recent years, and that’s saying something.

bartman: It remains to be seen whether what happened at Ft. Hood may be counted as “terrorism”I’m guessing it was a spectacular (and bizarrely, failed) attempt at suicide-by-cop. Basically, “I’m gonna go out with a bang, I’ll take as many infidels with me as possible.” But he couldn’t even pull that off.

Suicide by cop is a suicide method in which a person deliberately acts in a threatening way, with the goal of provoking a lethal response from a law enforcement officer, such as being shot to death.

That’s what it appears to you to have been, Hasan “deliberately act(ing) in a threatening way, with the goal of provoking a lethal response from a law enforcement officer”? It was nothing of the sort, and I’d wager that no credible expert will maintain that it was Hasan is eventually tried. Murdering 13 and wounding 30 before you are wounded and disabled by a LEO is very different from attempting “suicide by cop,” though you may have been prepared to die and expected to die.

they all agree that Allah has promised that eventually dar al-Islam will encompass the whole world . . . it’s the ones who want to help him get it down NOW who are the problem.

It’s a problem built into the religious doctrine. Other religions don’t have it.

Not familiar with the similar poppycock known as the Book of Revelation?

Periodically, unfortunately, some small number of people run amok at their jobs, and kill everyone they can manage to kill, and then either kill themselves, or arrange for the cops to do it.

For a while, it was accepted wisdom among vox pop that working for the U.S. Postal Service could by itself do the trick, thus the expression, “going postal”.

If they’re soldiers, unfortunately, they’ve often got access to (a) more weapons and (b) a larger bunch of people in relatively confined space.

Having practiced family law for 30 years, I can attest that, periodically, some other small group of folks become so distraught by combined mental illness, economic and family problems that they kill one, or more, or all, of their family members, and then either kill themselves, or arrange for the cops to do it.

Both kinds of nut-job murderers often send out communications in advance of their final snapping, which telegraph, in retrospect, that there was a serious problem; these often get ignored, because they seem, frankly, to be from nut-jobs, and are often sent to people or agencies who have no interest in, or jurisdiction over, the problem. (When I worked for Superior Court, we considered indicated cc’s to the Governor, President, Atty General, heads of the FBI and CIA to be an indicator of the nuttiness of the letters or pleadings we’d get from folks who wanted, e.g. to restrain the NSA from reading their minds…)

Often, as they’re sending out this stuff, or making that “last stand”, these folks rave about their religion and deity of choice.

I’m waiting for someone to show me something which suggests that Hasan was in any way part of any organization, as opposed to just such a solo nut-job.

I’m guessing it was a spectacular (and bizarrely, failed) attempt at suicide-by-cop. Basically, “I’m gonna go out with a bang, I’ll take as many infidels with me as possible.” But he couldn’t even pull that off.

http://www.armyofgod.com/index.html
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3237
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2382402/posts?page=5#5
http://vikingkitties.blogspot.com/2009/05/george-tiller-assasinated.html

Not to mention how the United States Conference of Bishops said they ‘publicly denounced all forms of violence in our society, including abortion as well as the misguided resort to violence by anyone opposed to abortion.’

Classy way to equate killing TIller with abortion. I’m sure if CAIR equated the murder of innocent Afghan children by American Predator drones with the Fort Hood massacre that’d be totally cool though.

New Pseudonym: Please list the “many” commenters who have said that all Moslems should be “purged” from the armed forces. (is there an equivalent to Godwin’s law about requiring posters on blogs to cite sources? — for the liberals posting here, this is sarcasm, not a real request for a list)Somehow, I’d be satisfied if they just purged the ones in the Army that CID knew were in contact with radical Imams associated with Al Quaida concerning appropriate measures for waging “Jihad.” But that’s just me.

You don’t really think it would be sufficient “…if they just purged the ones in the Army that CID knew were in contact with radical Imams associated with Al Quaida concerning appropriate measures for waging ‘Jihad,’” do you? I assume you would want those responsible for protecting us and our military members to do far more than simply “purge” those that CID knew were in contact with the likes of Awlaki. I am not sure, though, what exactly the “more” would be, since I don’t know how to stop those who haven’t announced themselves as clearly as Hasan did before they can act. Do you?

bartman: So, a uniformed soldier killing other uniformed soldiers is now “terrorism”? If that’s so, then the word “terrorism” doesn’t reslly mean anything anymoe. It used to refer to attacks on the general public designed to elicit political change, so how, today, do we go about differentiating those things from attacks on soldiers if the word “terrorism” has been denuded of its core meaning?

Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d) defines the term “terrorism” as meaning “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” To that definition, the US State Department, which is required to report annually to Congress on international terrorism, adds, “…usually intended to influence an audience. For the purposes of this definition, the term ‘noncombatant’ is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty…We also include as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as the bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.”

You are quite right that the term “terrorism” is used stupidly by some to describe that which does not comport with the legal definition given by the US Code, nor any that non-tendentious political scientists would allow, and thus it is robbed of meaning. For example, I heard Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC ask Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR whether he didn’t agree that anyone who went on a murderous rampage in a workplace should be seen as a “terrorist,” and of course Hooper agreed, as did Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post. (Stupid on Capehart’s part to concur; disingenuous on Hooper’s part; and arguable as to Ratigan.) And “terrorism” is used obscenely by those who accept or reject it selectively, maintaining that it is a matter of one’s point of view, with “one man’s ‘terrorist’ being another’s ‘freedom fighter.’”

It remains to be seen whether what happened at Ft. Hood may be counted as “terrorism” according to the US Code definition or any other reasonably objective and rigorous one. Hasan clearly acted with “premeditation,” and arguably animated by “politics,” so his might be seen as “politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets.” But it may turn out that his conduct was mostly the expression of his personal “issues,” and it appears unlikely at this point that he acted on behalf of any “subnational group” (might those dedicated to the cause of radical Islam be seen as an “uber-national group?) or as a “clandestine agent, though almost certainly he was influenced by terrorist and/or terrorist supporters, like imam Anwar al Awlaki.

Whether what happened at Ft. Hood is to be counted “terrorism” or just something like terrorism (much more like terrorism that an individual going “postal” in no political context, only in a singularly personal one, e.g., anger over job loss, emotional rejection, etc.), it is of much greater meaning and significance than the murdering miscreant who will be tried for his crimes.

Before 1933, maybe. But certainly not after. Read up on the night of the long knives, if you care to learn something.

BTW, according to the original definition, the Founding Fathers were “leftists”.

Umm … you do realize that Nazis were on the left too? A different type of leftist than communism, true, but left. National Socialism, and all that.

I might quibble that just because a group calls itself socialist doesn’t mean it’s “of the left,” and it also doesn’t necessarily mean it’s socialist, just like the German Democratic Republic wasn’t necessarily democratic, key words in this already overly long sentence being “just because” and “wasn’t necessarily.”

But if you want to call Nazis leftist rather than rightist, I’m not gonna stop you.

Somehow, I’d be satisfied if they just purged the ones in the Army that CID knew were in contact with radical Imams associated with Al Quaida concerning appropriate measures for waging “Jihad.” But that’s just me.

I’d be satisfied, too. I’m not sure how many liberals wouldn’t be. I’m not sure how many conservatives wouldn’t be, either.

corneille1640: I didn’t see the connection with the Ft. Hood incident.I originally thought Mr. Posner put this “satire”up in honor of the anniversary of the Berlin Wall falling and in light of the recent posts about the crimes of Communist regimes.We all know that the NYT is liberal, and that liberal means sympathetic to Communism.Therefore, isn’t lovely to see how the NYT would act if it were pro-Nazi instead of pro-Stalin? …

Umm … you do realize that Nazis were on the left too? A different type of leftist than communism, true, but left. National Socialism, and all that.

Just Dropping By says:
And definitely, if only we purged radical (read “all” in the view of many VC commenters) Muslims from the armed forces, our military bases would be safe!

Please list the “many” commenters who have said that all Moslems should be “purged” from the armed forces. (is there an equivalent to Godwin’s law about requiring posters on blogs to cite sources? — for the liberals posting here, this is sarcasm, not a real request for a list)

Somehow, I’d be satisfied if they just purged the ones in the Army that CID knew were in contact with radical Imams associated with Al Quaida concerning appropriate measures for waging “Jihad.” But that’s just me.

Which it is.

You could call it the Sixth Pillar. Muslims may differ among themselves about divorce rituals and stuff, but they all agree that Allah has promised that eventually dar al-Islam will encompass the whole world. Some are willing to wait for Allah to do it on his own; it’s the ones who want to help him get it down NOW who are the problem.

It’s a problem built into the religious doctrine. Other religions don’t have it.

You’re right. We’re all waiting with baited breath for a mighty wave of rampaging Presbyterian psychiatrist-mass-murderers and wondering how to survive the slaughter.

If that was not intended, then I stand corrected. But I still contend that the implication was there and ought to have been called out. So I did.

As to Bailey’s point:

Could someone point me in the direction of the denominations that proclaimed Eric Rudolph heroic? How about McVeigh (even though not a Christian)?

I can’t point to a single one. *shrug*

I’m actually not trying to argue that there aren’t extremist elements in Islam. I am arguing against the notion–one which I detect here in in a lot of the comments–that Islam is inherently and exceptionally violent.

However, perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe one who is learned in Islamic history and theology can point to characteristics that, exceptional to Islam, tend toward violence in a way that, say, other religions are not capable of promoting. Still, if such a learned person were to make that case to me and make it convincingly, I’d still need to be convinced that such a tendency is inherent and not only unique.

You can tell us anything. What I asked is what you know, and where you could have learned it. Early reporting on a story like this is going to run off into a lot of blind alleys until the dust settles and people have actual solid information to report. In hindsight, whatever blind alleys anyone runs down will look “disproportionate.” Sensible consumers of news will keep this in mind and wait for the real information to get out before getting more invested in the early reporting than the early reporters and wailing because they give a few more column inches than you think appropriate to a theory you’re predisposed not to like.

And yet, it’s on record that when the abortionist Tiller was murdered, Olberman wasted no time in labeling it a “terrorist” action. See Newsbusters for the evidence. And he has yet to label this action as “terrorist.” Hemming and hawing from libs on this issue of Islam isn’t hiding it, it’s only exposing it. You’re not fooling anyone.

First, I don’t necessarily consider myself a liberal.

Second, I’ll take your word for it about Olerman, who I can’t stand watching anyway. I’ll also assume for the sake of argument that the MSM is biased toward selectively inveighing against crimes committed by Christians and downplaying the putatively religious nature of crimes committed by Muslims.

Third, and related to my second point, the bias you point to in the mainstream media is not relevant to the question of whether Islam is inherently and exceptionally violent. It’s this latter notion I have a problem with. If the bias you identify is accurate, I suppose I have a problem with that, too.