Fort Hood: Islamic Terrorism

First photos, and a good capsule biography of some of those who were killed at Fort Hood, posted at the New York Times (click the image to visit the site).

Also at the NYT, what seems to be a developing apologist mentality for Muslim Islamic Jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan...

An American-born Muslim of Palestinian descent, he was deeply dismayed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but proud of his Army job. He wore Middle Eastern clothes to the convenience store and his battle fatigues to the mosque. He was trained to counsel troubled soldiers, but bottled up his own distress about deploying.   [emboldenings mine -ed.]

But this, from the Killeen Daily Herald (a bit closer to home)...

In the morning, neighbors said Hasan handed Qurans and donated his furniture to anyone who would take it.

Neighbors described Hasan as a quiet man who began wearing "Arabic clothing" in recent weeks. Edward Windsor, a neighbor, never suspected Hasan was in the Army. Hasan's rank surprised Windsor who would never have imagined an officer with a rank of major would have lived in an apartment that rents for $350 and houses soldiers ranked as private first class.

One can't get stories much farther apart. So, do we believe the neighbors, or the New York (Leftist!) Times?

Oh, and Dueling New York Newspapers... this, from the NYT...

General Casey sent a directive to commanders to keep soldiers informed about the case and urge them to avoid a rush to judgment, saying he wanted to avoid a backlash against Muslims. There are 1,977 soldiers in the active-duty Army who identify themselves as Muslims, of a total of 553,000 active-duty troops, according to the service.

Opinion, from the New York Post...

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

And the Army won’t. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."

And the media won’t. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears.

There you go.

If I lived in the New York City area, I'd subscribe to the New York Post. And treat the NYT as I would those soft, yellow cloths the Steelers fans wave about.

Related: Kim Munley, American Hero

---