MULTICULTURALISM WAS THE TRUE KILLER AT FORT HOOD


Pundits, commentators, newscasters and our political class are all looking for the clues:  Who and what caused Major Nidal Malik Hasan to launch a deadly attack on his fellow soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas last week  resulting in the massacre of 14, including the life of an unborn baby?

Take your pick of the reasons:

  • Hasan was bridling with indignation that the United States was carrying out military operations against fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq
  • Hasan cracked under the strain of dealing with trauma victims returning from overseas duty.
  • Hasan was inflamed by the prejudicial treatment he had received from his colleagues and superiors.
  • Hasan was infuriated that the army would not allow practicing Muslim servicemen to become conscientious objectors before shipping  them out to countries where they would be forced to shoot and  kill their co-religionists
  • Hasan was the latest example of America’s love affair with guns and its fatal ambivalence in policing them.
  • Hasan was simply a very disturbed individual who had exhibited paranoid, anti-social behavior at numerous times during his military career

Such reasons seem to echo the same motivations our chattering classes once ascribed to another famous killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, viz: the killer was driven by personal issues which had nothing to do with his adoption of  a hateful ideology or contempt for America and its values.

But the truth is now becoming stunningly clear.  Hasan was a confirmed jihadist, his values and ideals tied directly to the same ideology which resulted in 3,000 deaths in America on a sunny morning in September, 2001 and has been the catalyst for 14,327 individual terrorist incidents worldwide since that date.

Even at this early stage of the investigation, his emails, recorded conversations and own writings provide conclusive proof that he considered suicide bombings, the premeditated mass killings of innocents and fatal attacks against United States civilians and  military personnel as justified acts of homicide. He was deeply influenced in these views by the preachings of an imam, Anwar al-Alwaki, who, according to the 9/11 Commission, was the spiritual guide to two of the 9/11 hijackers in a San Diego mosque.  Hasan had also attended the Dar al-Hirjah mosque in Falls Church, Virgina where al-Awlaki once preached. In the month before the massacre Hasan had exchanged 10-20 emails with the imam who is now believed living in exile in Yemen. 
 
On the day following the Ft. Hood massacre, on his website,  al-Awlaki praised Hasan as a true Muslim warrior, as “a hero” and “a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.”

How long will it take for our cognoscenti  to connect these dots? 

Perhaps we should indeed be moving beyond an examination of Hasan’s motivations, which are clear and incontrovertible, to asking ourselves these far more relevant questions: 

Why was a man of Hasan’s temperament and ideology not properly vetted before being accepted into the U.S. Army?  

Why was no one willing to pay heed to the warning signs of an impending catastrophe?

 Why is the media working so assiduously to obscure the true motivations for his crime?

The answer to the first question is that since 9/11, the U.S. military  has been under increasing pressure to embrace diversity as a governing principle for recruitment.  Military advertisements, in a range of communities, suggest that cultural affinities and religious observance are respected in the U.S. army while accommodations are made for particular aspects of appearance.  It should be no surprise then that the November 9th edition of Army Times carries a front page story headlined – Regs Make Way for ReligionSikh, Muslim Allowed To Incorporate Customs Into Army Dress.

The story details how Captain  Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi, a practicing Sikh, was granted permission on October 22  to wear a beard and a turban with his uniform.   The decision stands in stark contrast to a 1986 Supreme Court decision (Goldman vs Weinberger), where the Court upheld a proscription on Jews wearing yarmulkes while in uniform. 

With the army displaying such giddy obeisance to diversity and multicultural sensitivities, is it any wonder that its own Chief of Staff, Gen. George Casey, in the wake of the massacres, proclaimed that, “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

Given such hand wringing over the necessities to produce a  true “multicultural” army, it seems fairly clear that Nidal Malik Hasan was accepted into the armed forces and then rose to the rank of major, despite his dubious associations and anti-American beliefs, because he was a Muslim.  The inescapable conclusion is that the army feels it must have Muslims within its ranks in order to prove it has no beef with Islam and that this over rides the suitability of  practicing Muslim recruits for actual army service.

The answer to the second question is even more troubling.

Hasan’s penchant for spouting anti-American rhetoric and for declaiming on the essential justice of a jihadist campaign was well known to his superiors and the FBI.   But as a Fox News report, investigators were loathe to launch an investigation of the  email trail which led from Hasan to Anwar al-Alwaki  for fear of being “ crucified” in the breach of the Major Hasan’s First Amendment rights.

But what of  Hasan’s superiors, who certainly knew of his beliefs and ideological commitments?  In 2007, as a recruit, he made a power point presentation at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington D.C. where he underlined Muslim grievances against the U.S. and supported the Jihadist justification for attacks on U.S. military personnel.  You would think that this would offer some cause for alarm. Yet no one  spoke up or complained about these outrageous views emanating from the mouth of a U.S. army officer, even though one colleague expressed reservations about “sharing a foxhole” with the man.

Why was no one willing to expose this ticking time bomb within their midst?   For the same reason the FBI resisted the urge to build a more comprehensive file on Hasan:  he is  a Muslim, and therefore, as a defamed and persecuted minority within the United States, a case to be handled with delicacy.  

The evidence unfortunately grows that multicultural sensitivities will often trump security interests, even when the lives of American citizens are directly threatened. 

Finally we come to the media.

The New York Times, in an editorial on November 6, declared that:  “It is unclear what might have motivated Major Hasan.  He seems to have been influenced by a mixture of political, religious and psychological factors.”
It followed a day later with a story suggesting  that Hasan was driven crazy by the stress of his job as a psychiatrist.

CNN’s Chris Matthews , in an interview on November 11 with Nihad Awad, a representative of  the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), focused not on the motivations for the crime but on whether Muslims in America should fear a wave of reprisals as revenge for the shootings. In the course of the interview the two men seemed to agree that we may never discover the true motivations for the killings.  
 
And here’s a doozy from The Guardian’s Michael Tomasky:

“ The fact that Hasan reportedly shouted the Allahu Akaba is meant, I suppose, to imply that he was an extremist fanatic. I’m not sure that it does. My understanding is that it’s something Arab people often shout before doing something or other.”

The fact that suicide jihadists are regularly recorded as intoning these words before committing murder and that two flight recorders from the four planes which crashed on 9/11 have the hijackers murmuring them repeatedly, seems to say nothing to Tomasky and others like him.

Why?  Why such a cognitive suspension of  one’s own powers of analysis and deduction? 

 Why such an apparent inability to parse wishful thinking from reality?

Because the members of our media are loathe to present us anything as starkly black and white as good and evil, prefering an infinitely more comfortable grey zone where no reader or listener need  be railroaded into judgement or moral distinctions.

Yet it is this murky grey zone which provides the intellectual fodder for multicultural sensitivites and cultural acceptance of deviant, asocial behavior.  It also happens to be the same swamp from which  Jihadists fish for their claims of moral equivalence  and the materials from which their protective social dome is constructed.

Expressions of Islamic extremism go unchecked in our society because no one seems  willing to trip  the wires of multicultural correctness.  Despite the events of 9/11, despite the thousands of  terrorist attacks and murders around the world which have drawn their inspiration from the Koran and Islam, our society  – from our government, to our houses  of learning to our armed forces, insists on subscribing to an utter falsehood that religion plays no role whatosever in these attacks.   Instead  they hew to multicultural tropes which deaden our acceptance of the truth.

A jihadist ideologue may well have pulled the trigger that ended 14 lives last week.  But it was multiculturalism and its inveterate partner ‘diversity’  which opened the gate and  allowed him entry  into our lives.   

We should all be questioning how much further we can allow that gate to swing open.  We should all be wondering, if the gate is to remain even a  little ajar, what barriers will exist to  prevent further expressions of hatred, acts of incitement and the perpetration of wanton, indiscriminate murder.

Advertisements

4 Responses to MULTICULTURALISM WAS THE TRUE KILLER AT FORT HOOD

  1. reeblite says:

    so avi, what’s your answer to all this? cluster each group independently? in this case, the guy didn’t want to go fight other muslims, but no one listened. his power fisted parents(the military) said no, you have to go. and he acted out. he felt bullied by the military, just like mass murders are usually scarred by some form of hate/bullying. i’m not justifying here, but the problem is about love/hate and capitalism in our society, those to me, being a left wing liberal from the sixties, are the true issues, not multiculturism, you sound threatened, and you’re cloaking your right winged parinoia in intellectualism.

    think about how many jobs have been farmed overseas in the name of capitalism, how many industries go outside of US jurisdiction to avoid monopoly/anti trust legislation, who are also responsible for keeping small business just that, small business. making the pursuit of true free enterprise almost obsolete by employing and owning the best professor’s research at our universities. where are those true sixties left wing discussions? i see why you were canceled at the california museum now that i’ve been listening to you and your group. you misrepresent a bit, to say the least. i am not an intellectual, but a true product of the idealism of the sixties, from organizing antiwar protests in my hometown outside of boston and the IRS, to going to woodstock, and for you to claim you represent those views, is wrong. how does stockpiling missles when you’re threatened by the number of muslims in this world going to help? very childish. and dangerous. the sixties was about the dawning of the age of aquarius, peace and love, harmony and understanding. read the song, john lennon’s songs. instant karma’s going to get you, so to speak. EPIC FAIL.

    • avidavis says:

      Dear Sir:

      First of all, thank you for joining me in a discussion on this blog. I do not have many self-confessed 60s radicals visit here and I am delighted to engage you on these subjects.

      Let me first state that I make no claim to being a 60s radical or of embracing its radical ideals. If the 60s are ever mentioned here in terms of my own political inclinations and evolution , it is only to mark the point at which liberalism transformed from its classic philosophy ( which emerged from 19th Century England as a belief in rational self-interest, property rights, natural rights, civil liberties, individual freedom, equality under the law, limited government, and free markets – and transformed in the mid 60s into the kind of liberalism you seem to have embraced. This includes such political positions as resistance to the ‘military-industrial ‘ complex, the legalization of drugs, the denial of any benefits that capitalism bestows on free societies , a rejection of religion and a belief that love is the cure all for an essentially diseased world.

      My argument is that multiculturalism stems from the very philosophy you now propagate and although, as a Jew, I am the beneficiary of the openness of society to a plurality of views and religious practices , I am also aware of where multiculturalism can become excessive to the point where it wears down our sense of identity and can have devastating consequences. I wrote about this in my piece England’s Multicultural Revolution, which you might want to read. The tidings are not good from England where that country, having opened the doors to ideologies which are not only inimical to Western values, but pledged to destroy the West, is attempting to counter a force which, by many accounts, cannot now be contained.

      My argument in the article above is that Malik, the Foot Hood murderer, was driven by ideology, not, as you contend, by resentment at having to fight other Muslims, and that ideology warrants the murder of infidels, which unfortunately includes you and me. He was given the opportunity to kill because of the urge of the army to create a broad multicultural fighting force. He was not prevented in time because of a maudlin sensitivity to his Islamic beliefs. So innocent American soldiers had to die to satisfy a mistaken belief that multicultural policies always lead to integration. That is clearly not the case.

      If I sound threatened, it because I am threatened – by people such as Malik who do not respect my values and by the supporters of excessive emphasis on multicultralism who do not recognize the dangers of where it could all lead. And whether you recognize it or not – you are as well.

      As for jobs being farmed out overseas in the name of capitalism, I don’t think you make much of a case for your side. Capitalism is about competitiveness; cheaper labor and production costs will naturally attract industry elsewhere. Small business in America will grow ( and does grow) when it finds economies of scale which allow it to become more efficient. There is a natural dynamic in the economy which government cannot control and when it has attempted to do so, the results have been catastrophic. ( eg: Smoot Hawley inthe 1930s). American industry must learn to be more efficient if it is to maintain jobs and prop up America as a producer nation.

      The AFA was not canceled at the California Science Center because it represented any of these points of view. We were canceled because the Center had a political disagreement with one of the films we were to screen that night and did not want to have to deal with the embarrassing fall out after allowing the screening of a pro- intelligent design film on its premises. This would have been fine if CSC was a private institution – they would have the right to determine what it wanted screened or not screened at its facility. But CSC is not private. It is a state facility and therefore cannot discriminate in this manner, let alone cancel contracts that result in damage to the other contracting party.

      As for stockpiling missiles, perhaps you should understand, that we favor not an aggressive weapons build up but a defensive missile shield which could protect the United States in the event of a nuclear attack. The fact that the United States is relatively defenseless in this regard, is a national disgrace. It is neither ” childish” nor “dangerous” to want to defend my children nor our broader population from such a potential attack.

      I have always been a fan of John Lennon’s music but not of his ideology nor his penchant for blaming the world’s problems on his own society. He was hopelessly naive in his ideas, which were not particularly new nor original and took no account of the true realities of the world in which he lived. He was a rich English pop star who lived in a bubble and spent little time allowing others to challenge his own views and opinions, or bringing him up to speed on what was really happening in the communist world.

      Today these are the realities: There are malevolent forces out there who want to destroy us. Malik was an example of those forces but there are hundreds of incidents that occur daily throughout the world which reinforce this notion. And, contrary to what you might think, they aren’t just targeting ‘western capitalist pigs’. They are after the hippies, the radicals, socialists and all other haters of the West as much as anyone. They mock your Age of Aquarius and have no interest in dialogue or discussion on issues of peace and harmony.

      Instant Karma, then, might be coming to get you too, regardless of your political positions. So my advice is that we all better get it together, and recognize that the Maliks of this world are not going to discriminate between peace lovers and conservatives.

      Avi Davis

  2. reeblite says:

    also, avi, much of this hate and disrespect did evolve from the mass drug/alcohol abuse that started in the sixties. that’s where most of the hate evolves from outside of religious zealotry. the family unit is important, but loving single parents do well in a society that helps and loves them, the clintons have more sixties idealism in their actions than you do with your words. we are a village and help each other. history tells us the US was helped out of the great depression when we legalized and taxed alcohol. we should do that with marijunania now. even more drugs, since most high profile overdoses are stemming from controled drugs. simply tax them, then continue concentrating on rehabilitation of the addicts. you’d reduce crime drasticly and get this country out of debt. oh, but you’re right wing, not a true left wing liberal. please rethink what you say to reporters.

  3. reeblite says:

    oh yes, and rehabilitation is an act of love.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: