PoliticalWarfare.org

Islamist militants in London make repeated threats against Pope Benedict

Mobs of radical Muslims protested Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to London this week, chanting threatening slogans and holding signs vilifying the Catholic church and Christian faith.

It is important to understand the importance of what is being said. Even though the protests were not physically violent, they are laden with language that, under sharia law, is to be construed as incitement to murder.

The protests took place as about six Muslim radicals from Algeria were arrested for apparently threatening the pope. The subjects were later released.

In this YouTube video, shot September 18, 2010, the protesters can be seen threatening the leader of the world's Catholics with their "Pope Benedict, you will pay" chant, and holding signs calling for the seat of the Catholic church to be controlled by shariah law. (See the Center for Security Policy's new report, Shariah - Threat to America, also released this week.)

The words are not overheated rhetoric - they are calls for the pope to be murdered, and a declaration of war on Christians and others.

At 2 minutes and 26 seconds into the video, a militant named Anjem Choudary changes the chant to "Pope Benedict, you will pay/Justice is on its way."

"Justice," under shariah law, requires Christians either to convert to Islam, be killed, or submit to Islamic rule as dhimmis.

Amid cries of "Allahu akhbar," another militant, Abu Rayah, implies that Pope Benedict is a military enemy of Muslims, as a leader of the "crusades." He exhorts listeners to recall that "this war against Islam and Muslims is military and ideological as well."

Abu Rayah denounces Pope Benedict for criticizing Islam, and expresses hope that, "inshallah," the pope will meet "the lions of Islam."

Islam, he says, will "dominate over all other ways," including democracy, secularism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and all other religions. Buddhists and Hindus, according to sharia law, must either convert to Islam or be killed.

The militant adds that anyone who insults the prophet Muhammad "deserves capital punishment." (4:44-4:50)

"Benedict, watch your back!" chants another militant, "Sallahudin [the Muslim warrior who fought the Christian crusaders] is coming back." (5:18-5:24)

Other cries, as well as signs, denounce Catholicism and Christianity as a "satanic" and "evil ideology."

The protesters then chant, "Muslims, rise up!" followed by a call for "martyrdom or victory" and chants of "Benedict, terrorist."

As the pope passed by in his armored vehicle, the Muslim protesters screamed insults in Arabic at him and chanted, "Burn, burn, burn in Hell" (8:36)

The protesters were exclusively male, of various ethnic backgrounds, and obviously trained and organized. Even though they were not criminally violent, the code language they were using as understood by adherents to shariah law show that they should be considered a terrorist threat.

For more, see RevolutionMuslim.com.

Under Iran's Mullahs (WARNING - GRAPHIC, DISTURBING CONTENT)

Life in Iran is difficult for most people, but it can hardly get worse for unlucky boys studying sharia law at the Hozeh Elmieh seminary in the holy city of Qom.

A courageous person with a conscience at the seminary shot a 60-second video clandestinely from behind a wooden screen to document what appears to be a repeat crime.

More than two weeks ago, PoliticalWarfare.org received a copy of this video from the Iranian internal opposition, and in making a still for this page, we covered a strategic section of the image as shown. I hesitated since that time to post news of the video, but decided that it would be an injustice to remain silent about it.

Several Iranian dissident sites posted the video, but the hosting companies ordered the video removed because of its upsetting content. The unobscured video appeared June 7 on HolyCrime.com, an Iranian human rights website that documents the crimes of the mullahs in the Islamic Republic of Iran. As of today, that video was still online.

We know that the video was shot at the Hozeh Elmieh Seminary in Qom, Iran. We do not know the name of the mullah, but he is identifiable as a Shi'ite clergyman by his white turban, known as an amameh. The mullah is not wearing the amameh on his head. He is using it as kneepads while raping the boy. Judging by the boy's demeanor, this incident does not appear to be the first time he was sexually assaulted.

The mullah is also wearing a long robe called a ghaba, which Shi'ite clergy wear to symbolize the righteousness of the prophet Mohammed.

The person who shot the video, apparently via cell phone, held the lens at a 90 degree angle through the slats in the screen.

We are not implying that the crime is in any way typical of mullahs, but we do believe it is evidence of the impunity with which corrupt mullahs can operate in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Under the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, sodomy, homosexual sex, rape, and child molestation are capital crimes. The punishment for such crimes is death by hanging.

The Islamic Republic of Iran today has special Islamic courts, called Dadgahe Vizheh Rohaniyat, to try mullahs who are accused of crimes. We know of no instance where a mullah has been accused of a crime of sodomy, homosexual sex, rape or child molestation, or where a mullah was executed under a verdict from the court.

PoliticalWarfare.org is posting a link to the HolyCrime.com video as proof of crimes committed under the Islamic Republic of Iran's unchecked powers, to demonstrate the impunity of corrupt mullahs, and to help seek justice for the boy and other victims of the regime. We're also posting it because we have urged the US military to publicize similar crimes evidenced among the videos captured from insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. We noted previously how a mullah in Pakistan publicized videos of the Haqqani Network faction of the Taliban raping women and girls, and how the mullah issued a fatwa against the Haqqani faction for the crimes. We also noted the article in the current issue of The Atlantic which urged similar revelations against our holier-than-thou adversaries.

The video appears rotated clockwise at a 90 degree angle, due to the way in which the camera was held.

WARNING: THE VIDEO IS A WITNESS TO A HORRIBLE CRIME AGAINST A CHILD. THE UNCENSORED IMAGE IS EXTREMELY DISTURBING.

We could post a direct link to the video or embed it in this page, but don't want to sensationalize the issue or make the video too easy to see. For those who feel they should view it, here's how to find it: Go to HolyCrime.com, and click on the gray "I Agree" box under the warning on the homepage. Then, in the left-hand navigation column, click on the gray box called "Crime Documents." Scroll down to the bottom of the "Crime Documents" menu and click on the item titled "Crime of Ayatollah!" A black video box will appear in the center of the page. Click on that box and the 60-second video will play. The yellow graphic figure at the beginning of the video is the logo of the hosting company on whose server the video resides; it has no political or religious significance.
 

The Case for Calling Them Nitwits (The Atlantic)

Hats off to Daniel Byman and Christine Fair, who write in The Atlantic about what nincompoops many of our terrorist enemies are. In a piece titled, "The Case for Calling them Nitwits," Byman and Fair note, "They blow each other up by mistake. They bungle even simple schemes. They get intimate with cows and donkeys. Our terrorist enemies trade on the perception that they’re well trained and religiously devout, but in fact, many are fools and perverts who are far less organized and sophisticated than we imagine. Can being more realistic about who our foes actually are help us stop the truly dangerous ones?"

Some highlights from the article:

• "Even in the aftermath of the botched Times Square bombing earlier this spring, the perception persists that our enemies are savvy and sophisticated killers."
• "But this view of the jihadist community is wildly off the mark. To be sure, some terrorists are steely and skilled—people like Mohamed Atta . . . but the quiet truth is that many of the deluded foot soldiers are foolish and untrained, perhaps even untrainable. Acknowledging this fact could help us tailor our counterterrorism priorities—and publicizing it could help us erode the powerful images of strength and piety that terrorists rely on for recruiting and funding."
• "Nowhere is the gap between sinister stereotype and ridiculous reality more apparent than in Afghanistan, where it’s fair to say that the Taliban employ the world’s worst suicide bombers: one in two manages to kill only himself. And this success rate hasn’t improved at all in the five years they’ve been using suicide bombers, despite the experience of hundreds of attacks—or attempted attacks."
• "If our terrorist enemies have been successful at cultivating a false notion of expertise, they’ve done an equally convincing job of casting themselves as pious warriors of God. The Taliban and al-Qaeda rely on sympathizers who consider them devoted Muslims fighting immoral Western occupiers. But intelligence picked up by Predator drones and other battlefield cameras challenges that idea—sometimes rather graphically."
• "One video, captured recently by the thermal-imagery technology housed in a sniper rifle, shows two Talibs in southern Afghanistan engaged in intimate relations with a donkey. Similar videos abound, including ground-surveillance footage that records a Talib fighter gratifying himself with a cow."
• "Tawdry though this predilection for porn may be, it is not necessarily trivial. There is, after all, potential propaganda value in this kind of jihadist behavior. Current US public diplomacy centers on selling America to the Muslim world, but we should also work to undermine some of the myths built up around our enemies by highlighting their incompetence, their moral failings, and their embarrassing antics. Beyond changing how the Muslim world perceives terrorists, we can help ourselves make smarter counterterrorism choices by being more realistic about the profile and aptitude of would-be attackers."

It's great to see this view hitting the mainstream. Arguing that we should be tearing apart the terrorist enemy by mocking him, ridiculing him and pointing out his hypocrisies, has been a bit lonely. Or as Kim Jong-il says in  Team America, "so ronery and sadry arone."

(OK, someone has dared me to refer to the infamous infrared US military gun camera of an Iraqi local - civilian or insurgent is unclear - having inappropriate relations with a farm animal. Our military people have captured a lot of video of insurgents and terrorists engaging in such behavior. I won't embed the actual video on this site, though I did post a still on the top left. For the morbidly curious - and you know who you are - click here for a tasteless, crass, narrated version of the video. A less tasteless, more humorous version, set to music, is available here, to Bloodhound Gang's "The Bad Touch," popularly known by the song's catchy refrain, "Let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.")

Images, top to bottom: (1) innocent donkey being victimized by Iraqi targets, as seen through US military infrared gun camera; (2) Christmas underwear bomber Abdulmutallab, with his malfunctioning explosive underwear; (3) Taliban with mismatched shoes, being ridiculed on Pakistani military website; (4) Islamic radical who mistakenly sets himself afire after torching the American flag; (5) Kim Jong-il, as seen in Team America; (6) the Saudi butt bomber who failed to kill Saudi Arabia's counterterrorism chief but blew himself up with a pound of plastic explosives and a cell phone detonator jammed up his bottom.

Preview of farcical look at home-grown jihadists

Here's a first look at the upcoming British film that makes fun of home-grown jihadist terrorists. The Four Lions, which I wrote about last month, premiered a few weeks ago at the Sundance Film Festival. Writer-director Chris Morris brilliantly researched Islamist extremism and discovered a lot to laugh at. He's bringing it to us in his comedy. Take a look at the dark, quiet humor in this short clip.

Early reviewers call The Four Lions:

• "an outrageous farce about a quartet of numbskull Islamic terrorists in the north of England,"
• "both laugh-out-loud funny and as serious as a bullet through your artery," and
• "daring and potentially offensive . . . it seems certain to be labeled anti-Islamic and irresponsible."

Only terrorist fronts like CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood fronts like ISNA would call it anti-Islamic, as the movie parodies extremism, and not Islam. But then, to CAIR and ISNA, both are one and the same.

I can't wait to see it!

The Taliban's Abu Ghraib

WARNING - GRAPHIC, DISTURBING VIDEO

There's no better way to take down an ultra-pious enemy than to prove that its leaders and members are depraved sociopaths. Here is one of the greatest vulnerabilities of the Islamist extremists who preach rigid morality but often act quite differently. Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan are exploiting that vulnerability to help the Taliban tear itself apart.

The target: The notorious Haqqani Network, based in northern Waziristan, Pakistan, and active in eastern Afghanistan.

The US has yet to exploit its full capabilities in this area, with terrabytes of damning captured videos under lock and key.

Fortunately, conservative clergy in Afghanistan and Pakistan have not been so reticent. Key Taliban leaders - Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son, Siraj Haqqani - had their own personal pornography ring. The Haqqani Network offered free "medical care" to rural Afghan women and girls, and then Haqqani's people raped them on video. Other Taliban figures, including a physician, were involved.

Once discovered, the Haqqanis tried to cover up their crimes. They had all the women and girls murdered, as well as their physician. However, they couldn't destroy all the video evidence, which enemies recovered. A Pakistani mullah produced a DVD, currently being distributed in Afghan and Pakistani bazaars, to discredit the Haqqanis. Click here for a downloadable link to the video. Even though the worst scenes have been blacked out for modesty reasons, the videos are graphic and disturbing. All the women and girls pictured in the video are now dead. An English translation of the transcript is available here.

The video is of low production quality by Western standards, but is entirely appropriate for local standards. Making media products to discredit the enemy in rural South Asia is not an expensive undertaking.

Here's the payoff from a political warfare point of view: Under local interpretations of Islamic law, the Haqqanis and all others involved must be killed as punishment, with worse torments to follow in the afterlife.

The mullah called for a jihad against the "House of Haqqani" - the leadership of the Haqqani clan.

This is exactly the type of product the US and its allies should be producing as part of their information operations and psychological operations in the AfPak theater and around the world. The Taliban is mainly Pashtun, and many rural Pashtuns have peculiar depravities that, if more widely known, could turn many devout Muslims against the movement and compel conservative mullahs to issue edicts ordering the imposition of traditional Islamic punishments.

A properly run psychological warfare campaign along these lines would also stigmatize Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda due to their decade-old "adoption" by the Taliban - with the terrorists' new fascination with butt bombs as a case in point. The campaign should be designed to morally compel some of those sheltering the terrorists to betray them or hand them over to the mullahs for old-fashioned sharia justice.

The Infidel: Coming soon to a (British) theater near you

Here's the trailer to David Baddiel's upcoming comedy The Infidel, discussed on this page a few weeks ago. The movie is about a British Muslim with Islamist fundamentalist relatives who discovers he was adopted after being born to Jewish parents.

Why the Swiss vote against minarets is so important

Six out of ten Swiss voters acted on facts that many in the western democracies still fail to recognize: The political warfare battle that Islamist extremists are waging against free societies.

Last weekend's referendum to ban the further construction of minarets in Switzerland was not against the religious aspects of Islam - it was specifically a defensive mechanism against the legal and political revolutions that Islamists are waging against secular democracies.

The surprise Swiss vote was a significant fightback against creeping sharia law that is corroding the free fabric of much of Europe and North America. We should be applauding the Swiss for their stand. They remain tolerant of the religious freedoms of hundreds of thousands of Muslims who live in their country, but draw the line on sharia practices that would undermine their democratic way of life.

Western liberals, Islamic leaders, the government Iran and, surprisingly, the Vatican, condemned the vote. But the critics miss the point: The vote was not against religion, but was a line against foreign political encroachment.

Proponents of the minaret ban "said from the outset that they were not seeking to prevent Muslims from practicing their religion," the Washington Post reports.

• "We just want to stop further Islamisation in Switzerland, I mean political Islam. People may practice their religion, that is no problem," Swiss MP Walter Wobmann tells Reuters. "The minaret is the power symbol of political Islam and Sharia law."
• The minaret is "a political symbol against integration; a symbol more of segregation, and first of all, a symbol to try to introduce sharia law parallel to Swiss rights," Swiss MP Ulrich Schlüer tells the Los Angeles Times.
• "On one hand Islam is a religion. But on the other hand Islam grants its followers a certain social behaviour. Islam requires its followers to apply certain rules, a certain religious law that we call Sharia. And Sharia law is not at all compatible with our law as it stands today in this country, Switzerland. Our law and Sharia law are at odds with each other," Schlüer says in Euronews.
• "The outcome of the vote is a reflection of the fears and uncertainties that exist among the population, and concerns that Islamic fundamentalist ideas could lead to the establishment of parallel societies," Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf says in Time magazine. The minister adds, "marginalization and exclusion on the basis of religious and cultural differences would be devastating for an open country such as Switzerland."

That's precisely the point. Islamist radicals for a decade have tried to silence their critics by branding them as racists and bigots, all the while imposing their political symbolism and demanding acceptance of their un-democratic ideology. They're doing it again right now. Indeed, the Swiss are facing a global backlash.

"Initiative sponsors said they wanted to prevent Islamic extremism from seeping across the borders from other European countries with large Muslim populations," according to the LA Times. "'When you look at the European Union, where are there extremists?' asks Schlüer, the member of parliament. 'In the suburbs and ghetto banlieues of Paris and London. . . . We don't want that in Switzerland.'

"He said Muslims were welcome in Switzerland but must assimilate into Swiss society."

And that's the point that practically all the critics - from the Muslim, Christian, "progressive" and business sectors - seem willfully to miss.

Reuters wrote a heavily editorialized article ominously warning of a "new right-wing surge" in Switzerland, burying any balance into the last paragraph of the story by quoting a supporter of the minaret ban. The vote isn't about religious bigotry, the supporter tells Reuters: "It's to show that we don't want political Islam in Switzerland. We don't have a problem with people who pray in mosques."

Most of the press coverage seems more interested in applying negative labels on the proponents of the ban - "ultraconservative," "right-wing," "anti-immigrant," etc. - than in discussing the huge problem of sharia-inspired political warfare against secular democracy and Christian societies.

Very little press coverage has reported an inconvenient truth about the Swiss referendum: The minaret ban had plenty of support from the political Left as well. The Guardian, Britain's self-described defender of liberalism, is one of the few to bring us that fact in the English language:

"The prohibition also found substantial support on the left and among secularists worried about the status of women in Islamic cultures. Prominent feminists attacked minarets as male power symbols, deplored the oppression of Muslim women, and urged a vote for the ban."

Curiously, local authorities across Switzerland banned the political billboards pictured above, censoring political debate on the grounds that the signs were "racist," "disrespectful" and "dangerous." So it's OK in some parts of Switzerland to ban political expression against Islamist fundamentalism, but those same censors say it is not permissible to ban the construction of Islamist fundamentalist symbols.

Indeed, many in the European political and legal establishments, who oppose the banning of Islamist symbols, actively promote the banning of Christian symbols. As Schlüer tells Euronews:

"The European Court of Human Rights has just decided that the Christian cross cannot be shown in public buildings and public rooms. We have to take them down. At the same time we are quoting the European Court of Human Rights as saying that we can’t have a say when it comes to the construction of minarets. So according to these people we have to make the Christian cross disappear from public view but we should accept minarets! I think that exposes a problem that goes very far, very deep. The problem is the islamization of our society."

Many European countries do not permit the citizens to hold legally binding referenda, but some Swiss experts think that if they did, the continent would largely reflect the concerns in Switzerland. "The vote is sending a strong signal about the concerns of average people regarding Islam; it will encourage people in other countries to develop strategies," religion researcher Jean-François Mayer, head of a religious research institute in Fribourg, Switzerland, tells the Christian Science Monitor. The Monitor reports, "If other European countries held similar votes, he adds, he has 'no doubt that the results would be similar.'"

A Muslim challenges Muslim leaders to quit whining and to denounce jihad

None of the evidence that the Fort Hood terrorist acted on his extreme Islamist beliefs seems to be relevant to what the media calls mainstream North American Muslim groups.

This bothers Muslims like Canadian commentator Tarek Fatah, who takes on those groups in the Ottawa Citizen:

"In statements after the mass murder, they tried to manipulate the media narrative by suggesting it was they who were the victims of this tragedy. Instead of denouncing the rise of Islamism and jihadi doctrines among Muslim youth, Islamist organizations once more came out with banal denunciations of 'violence.'

"Muslim groups condemned this 'cowardly attack' without mentioning Maj. Hasan by name. And there were the usual provisos that 'Islam in no way accepts such violence and terror,' and that 'Islam is a peaceful religion with great reverence for human life.'"

Their condemnations are hollow because few condemn the violent jihad ideology that motivated Hasan. Until North American Muslim groups take on the issue of jihad, they will be hard to take seriously. According to Fatah:

"such statements must include a denunciation of the doctrine of "armed jihad," which is without doubt the force that gives religious validation to such acts of terror and encourages so many young Muslims toward suicide attacks on non-Muslims.

"Unless and until Islamic organizations, imams of mosques and their allies who have penetrated every institution that matters in our public life, say explicitly that there is no room for jihad at a time of the modern nation state, and that the doctrine of holy war is defunct, outdated and needs to be shelved, the rest of North America will not take us Muslims seriously."

Enough of this pathetic victimhood mentality that breeds paranoia about an anti-Muslim backlash that has never materialized. Says Fatah:

"If the mosques do not stop spreading the virus of victimhood there will be more Muslim men willing to waste their lives for a jihad that God never asked them to fight.

"We have a window of opportunity. Let us acknowledge what Muslim youth living among us are being fed. If a Muslim man, educated and trained at the expense of the American taxpayer to be a doctor and rise to the rank of major, could still feel a victim, and could launch an attempted suicide attack against America, then those who cry Islamophobia every day also share some blame in this atrocity."

Let's place a lot of the blame squarely on the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Hamas affiliate that masquerades as a civil rights group. CAIR is heavily responsible for fanning paranoia not only among Muslims, but among the public at large - including the military - that has caused so many of our leaders to turn the blind eye that allowed terrorists like Nidal Hasan to plot and kill.

Weed them out: Supporters of sharia law in America cannot uphold their military oaths

One way the US military can weed out radical Islamists from ordinary Muslim troops is to define an adherence to sharia law as being incompatible with the Constitution of the United States.

Adherents to sharia law, understood as Islamic law, by definition cannot support and defend the US Constitution. Therefore, the US military would be correct to determine legally that a proponent of sharia law is incapable of taking the oath of enlistment or as a commissioned officer, and, once sworn in, cannot uphold his or her oath and sympathize with or believe in sharia.

Not all Muslims in America believe in sharia law, or in Islamic law to be imposed on America's secular society, so an anti-sharia policy of the US military would not be picking on Muslims. (Indeed, many Muslims immigrated to the US to escape sharia law in their homelands.)

The standard would apply only to those who advocate a religious legal system that would subvert or supersede the US Constitution. The standard would not affect foreign military forces allied or in coalition with the United States, such as Iraq or Afghanistan, whose governments are Islamic republics.

The American service member or officer embracing sharia law would have to resign or be expelled from the military, or, if found to have joined under false pretenses, tried in the military justice system for having taken a fraudulent oath. They would also be required to reimburse the US military for the costs of training, paying, and supporting them while they were fraudulently in the service.

Had such a sharia standard been applied to MAJ Nidal Hasan when he first began openly espousing Islamic fundamentalism, the officer-turned-terrorist would not have been free to have committed murder and maiming at Fort Hood last week.

US Army enlistment and commissioned officer oaths are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

The wording is there; the intention of the oath was, in part, to defend the military against infiltration from foreign powers and ideologies hostile to the Constitution. Let's use it while we can.

Relevant news & comment about Islamist terrorist at Fort Hood

It was obvious to many of us from the earliest news reports that the Army major who shot more than 50 people at Fort Hood was an Islamist extremist and therefore a terrorist: A soldier who had turned traitor and joined the enemy. Yet Army leaders, civilian leaders, many journalists and others tried to gloss over the fact that MAJ Nidal Hasan yelled the jihadist war cry of Islamist extremists when he opened fire. (Here is, shown in his Muslim fundamentalist pajamas at a Fort Hood-area 7-Eleven the morning before his attack.)

Rather than highlight the bad journalism and commentary, I'm putting down some of the best for the record. But it's puzzling why the Army leadership would make that weird comment about "diversity."

Nailing Hasan "wouldn't have been an act of bigotry, it would have been an act of prudence."  Washington Post, November 10: Civil rights columnist Eugene Robinson argues that the Army was "foolish" to have ignored the warning signs about MAJ Hasan, and that it did a disservice to all Muslims who serve in the American uniform. "How is the Pentagon supposed to tell the difference between reasonable caution and blatant discrimination? There are thousands of Muslims in uniform, serving their country at home and abroad. Ask them."

"How did Army miss so many clues on Hasan?" Dallas Morning News, November 9: In an editorial, the Dallas Morning News notes, "As we learn more about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused Fort Hood killer, what we discover is deeply disturbing – but not as disturbing as evidence piling up that military authorities knew for months, if not years, that he had displayed radical Islamic tendencies and did nothing about it." 

"To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Hasan's motive was instantly clear." Wall Street Journal, November 9: Dorothy Rabinowitz, whom I first met in the ideological warfare fight more than 25 years ago, comments on many commentators' desperate need not to know about an Islamist connection to the killings: "What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic."

'Hard questions' for Army about detecting 'warning signs.' Wall Street Journal, November 9: Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman says he will hold hearings about "warning signs" that the Army might have seen but missed that MAJ Hasan was a "home-grown terrorist." GEN George Casey, Army Chief of Staff, says the Army will have to ask some "hard questions" of itself.

Feds investigate possible al Qaeda connection to Major Hasan. Washington Post, November 9: "Federal investigators are examining possible links between Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj. Nidal M. Hasan and an American-born imam who U.S. authorities say has become a supporter and leading promoter of al-Qaeda since leaving a Northern Virginia mosque, officials said."

CIA learned of Hasan's attempts to contact al Qaeda. ABC News, November 9: The CIA picked up intelligence 12 months ago that MAJ Hasan attempted to make contact with Al Qaeda.

Like the 9/11 hijackers, Hasan liked bars, strippers. CBS News, November 9: Hasan acted like a devout Muslim, but like some of the 9/11 hijackers, he enjoyed a good striptease and frequented a bar where female strippers lap-danced on him.

Are the motives really that difficult to figure out? FrontPageMag.com, November 9: Daniel Pipes, a prescient observer of Islamist extremism who fundamentally understands the importance of ideology, comments on the phenomenon of why so many are willing to disbelieve the obvious about fanatical Islamist killers.

"Why he shouted 'Allahu Akbar'" FrontPageMag.com, November 9: Two more experts on political warfare and the importance of ideology discuss why MAJ Hasan called out the Muslim jihad cry when he shot up his brother and sister soldiers at Fort Hood.

Political correctness in Army kept officers from reporting warning signs. Associated Press, November 8: Fort Hood-area Muslim leader had told Hasan something was "wrong" with him; Army medical school colleagues "complained" about "Hasan's 'anti-American propaganda,' but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint."

General Casey says loss of 'diversity' would be worse than Fort Hood killings. Reuters, November 8: General George Casey, Army Chief of Staff tells CNN, "as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse." (Casey made a similar comment on ABC: "what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy. But I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here." Click here for the video clip.)

Senator calls for hearings to see if Army could have prevented "terrorist" attack. Wall Street Journal, November 8: Senator Joseph Lieberman, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, says that Maj. Nidal Hasan was a "self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist" and calls for an investigation into how the Army could have prevented a terrorist officer from killing fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

Hasan started his Islamist radicalization process 9 years ago. Washington Post, November 7: Nidal Hasan was a secular Palestinian-American until his mother died 9 years ago, when he began undergoing a process of Islamic radicalization, relatives say.

Hasan shouted jihadist war cry as he started killing. Associated Press, November 7: Reports of Hasan yelling the jihadist cry, "Allahu akbar," or "God is the greatest," are buried in the press coverage. Journalists seem to either misunderstand or purposely ignore the significance of the ideological motivations that such a war cry signifies. (By contrast, British news organizations, including the liberal Guardian newspaper, recognized the meaning and reported it in a headline. See the Guardian, November 6: "Fort Hood Army officer shouted 'Allahu Akbar' before shooting rampage.")

Fort Hood killer linked to mosque of 9/11 terrorists. The Times (London), November 7: Hasan attended a radical Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers.

'We need an ask and tell policy regarding jihadists in our military." TownHall.com, November 7: A commentator argues spiritedly that it defies belief for the US military not to notice when one of its own officers spews anti-American propaganda, pro-jihadist sentiments, and shows all the signs of being part of the enemy camp, yet that same military waits until people are murdered before taking action.

Muslim soldier accused Hasan of extremism; Hasan prosyletized when he should have been treating soldiers. National Public Radio, November 6. As an Army psychologist, Hasan traumatized combat veterans with warnings of Hell if they didn't convert to Islam; a Muslim soldier accused Hasan before the attacks of Islamist extremism, but the Army didn't seem to pay attention.

Hasan gave away belongings, Qurans, just before his killing spree. New York Times, November 6: Hasan seemed at "peace" as he gave away his belongings and copies of the Quran in the day and hours before he launched his terrorist attack, neighbors say. (Curiously, the New York Times illustrates the article with a photo showing a Catholic crucifix in the background.)