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.'"