Picture this:
A man dressed in a priest's robes, armed with two guns, opens fire in a cathedral, and kills ooooh say 13 people. He screams "Hail Mary" as he shoots randomly into the assembled congregation. Maybe he is speaking Italian, or Greek or...
Not simple enough for you? Try picturing this:
In a small Iraqi border town, a woman wearing a burkha enters a market square and reaches under her clothing and detonates a suicide bomb, screaming 'Allahu Akbar.' She manages to kill herself and multiple families, whilst maiming dozens of others.
Remember Timothy McVeigh.
Think about John Allen Muhammad. Scheduled to be executed tomorrow, he was found guilty of murder. In October 2002, he killed 10 people. The subsequent convictions do not include people he murdered in September 2002. According to testimony from Malvo, Muhammad's only goal was to "terrorise" people.
All of these scenarios, both real and imagined, have common - SIMPLE - denominators. Where I come from we call these attacks terrorism, murder.
So why is it that BO cannot call what happened in Ft Hood what it is: TERRORISM, plain and simple.
To read some of the reports is to know that what that 'shitbag' (as JR Salzman so rightly calls the murderer here) did IS commit terrorist acts of murder. Forget all the lies, the spin (as Gordon Duff of Veterans Today calls it here), and all the "let's not rush to judgement here, before all the facts are in."
These are the SIMPLE facts:
A Major in the US Army (I am refusing to name him here) went into a Ft Hood processing centre, armed, and killed unarmed soldiers, all the while yelling "Allahu Akbar." Thirteen people (including one civilian) were murdered, and many more would have died but for the quick response of all the heroes who were on the scene.
Terrorism:
ter⋅ror⋅ism/ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
Murder:
–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
Extremism:
noun fanaticism, enthusiasm, madness, devotion, dedication, zeal, bigotry,
–noun a tendency or disposition to go to extremes or an instance of going to extremes, esp. in political matters: leftist extremism; the extremism of the Nazis.
I know these definitions, as they appear here, seem cold-blooded, matter of fact. However, the SIMPLE, unvarnished fact is that what happened in Ft Hood WAS cold-blooded and matter of fact.
The signs that this coward planned to commit murder in the name of Islam are all there, in plain view. Yes, he IS a coward, let's call him what he is. Only a coward arms his/herself and randomly shoots those unable to defend themselves.
BO - you know, the great communicator - may be unable to call this treacherous act what it is, but the rest of us recognise acts such as these, and are not afraid to call it as it is. Across the internet, many military veterans and active duty troops know what this is. WHY can't BO say it? I have my own answers to that question, but the DHS already knows where I am. The DHS issued a report a while back labelling all sorts of people "extremists"; by the DHS definition, folks like me are extremists, but they dare not call what happened at Ft Hood what it is: a Muslim extremist terrorist attack.
It really is that simple. And yet, the msm try desperately to spin what happened, to perpetuate the BO 'cautionary' approach. The talking head non-experts try to give ludicrous labels to this poor 'victim' of a murderer. To hear them tell it, this scum was "bullied and harassed" for being Muslim. Boo-frickin-hoo! Many of us were bullied for years, and yet we do not go on murderous rampages.
PTSD also has been bandied about as a rationale for this irrational act. (Irrational unless you are a muslim extremist.) JR Salzman - cited above; plus a Vietnam Vet whose words I posted the other day, put the lie to that one in short order. This coward has never BEEN in combat, and no, PTSD is not a contagious disease, as many of our veterans have said. I shared my life for many years, up close and very personally, with someone who had real PTSD. I know what PTSD is, and that bs outrages me, although maybe not as much as it does the veterans who have honourably served. I am royalled pissed off at the glib way the msm is throwing around the PTSD label. Will I pick up a gun and shoot people? No, of course not, and neither will the thousands of veterans who daily live with the reality of PTSD. To even suggest that this POS killed people under the guise of PTSD is an insult.
Put as simply as I can manage (in single syllable words, if possible):
Anyone who seeks to explain this horrific event at Ft Hood as the actions of anything other than the actions of a Muslim extremist murderer is not merely an insulting fool, they are dangerous fools, too.
This mass murder took place on a military installation, a military member killed military personnel. It is not an "alleged" incident, by an "alleged killer," who was a "victim." It is only appropriate that he be tried and convicted BY THE military. Period.
If the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue cannot support that, he has no business being the Commander in Chief of America's fine armed forces.
That is my not-rush-to-judgement opinion. I believe in calling a spade a spade: Let's keep it simple, stooopid!
