Monday, November 9, 2009

Looking in the Nooks and Crannies for Jihad

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Major Nidal Malik, the accused shooter in the Fort Hood massacre, had ties to the same mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers. Attackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour were attending Virginia's Dar al Hijarh Islamic Center, when Malik held his mother's funeral there. It's not known if Malik associated with Hazmi and Hanjour, but Fox News reports that the Islamic Center is known for preaching radical messages, and worries about Malik's radical beliefs had been previously brought up at Fort Hood.

US Senator Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is now calling for an investigation into the Fort Hood shootings to determine if they were a terrorist act. Liberman said that if Hasan was showing signs of being an extremist, the U.S. Army should have had zero tolerance and should have discharged him. You think?

The AP is also now reporting that Hasan's classmates in a 2007-08 masters program at a Texas military college had complained about his radical views, saying he had told fellow students that Islamic law was to be followed before the U.S. Constitution, and he reportedly arugued that suicide bombing is a justifiable act.

Why was Major Malik allowed to remain in the Army? Is our military so hard up for recruits that they tolerate these type of threats with no repercussions to those who made them? Thirteen people died and thirty others were injured and it's unbelievable that we have to question whether or not this was a terrorist act. Of course it was! There's an old military adage that says to defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy, and it would certainly seem that the best way to know the enemy is to become one of them. For Major Malik, the United State government was the enemy and he left plenty of warning signs that this shooting was going to happen.

While it's imperative that all religions be respected in America, it's equally imperative that we put absurd concepts like political correctness aside and investigate when people begin to threaten our security. Radical Islam or Jihad, calls for the extermination of Israel and its people and any person or group who supports them or their country. As a result, America belongs in the class of the hated. That fact alone gives us the right to investigate anyone who will be responsible for the security of our country, especially those who so openly attack our government as an element of expressing themselves. We also need to investigate any mosque that is rumoured to be preaching a message of hate.

No, all Muslims are not terrorists, but those familiar with the Koran will tell you that Jihad is a principle that is taught in its pages. We must be cautious without being paranoid about people who consistently threaten what we stand for, as it's not a violation of anyone's rights for a government to protect itself by acting in the best interest of its citizens.

One can only hope that Senator Lieberman will follow through and demand an extensive investigation into the Fort Hood shootings and the role that radical Islam played there. He should also investigate the potential that exists for this type of thing to happen elsewhere. In addition, every U.S. lawmaker should join Lieberman in his call for investiagation, putting their fears about the rights of others to rest.

Fanaticism is not limited to radical Islam, and we've seen the damage that fanatics have done in the past, even those like Timothy McVeigh, who were American born. Anyone has the potential to become a terrorist, especially if they are so vocal in their hatred of the country they claim to serve. It's time for us to wake up and take a closer look at everyone who chooses to reside on a U.S. military base, even before they move in. If we don't, it won't be long before another shooting incident will once again catch us offguard.


  1. I had to comment on this line: "Is our military so hard up for recruits that they tolerate these type of threats with no repercussions to those who made them?"

    I often wonder why we don't restructure the recruitment process, though I am not familiar with it. I have a friend who is a felon. He deeply wants to serve in the military but cannot because his crime involved the sale of drugs.

    He would serve us all much better there, and I think a mental evaluation would prove he could handle it. Probably much better that Doctor Crazy did. Could the military find uses for felons of my friend's type, and maybe rehabilitate them? I wish it were so. He has such limited job opportunities. He has the desire to get away from this area, where his former drug friends still tempt him, and do something positive with his life. He wants to serve the country. I believe in second chances. So did the military give more than enough chances to the Fort Hood murderer, but won't allow first chances to criminals seeking a new life?

  2. Thanks Mandy for your comments. Yes, I too agree that a restructuring needs to be done, or at the very least a periodic review of those who are in the military. (although I realize it would likely be cost prohibitive to review the records of all soldiers) I too, believe in second chances for those who have made mistakes in the past. I can honestly say that I would sleep easier at night if someone like your friend were in the military (in spite of their past mistakes) as opposed to someone who consistently made anti-American statements to all who would listen. I also know a young man who is in prison, and who loves this country. He will not be able to serve when he gets out, but our government will protect the rights of people who put Jihadist law above the America they're trying to serve. The system is screwed up, but I'm thankful that we can still speak out about our outrage. If your friend doesn't get a second chance with the military, there is no way that this guy should have ever gotten a uniform. Thanks for reading! Teri