Michael Webster
November 13, 2009
Ft. Hood mass murder or was it a terrorist act, period!
By Michael Webster

Was the Ft. Hood massacre perpetrated by Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan just criminal as the U.S. Army and the U.S. law enforcement contend or was it terroristic. This radical Islamic 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 the Islamic faith.

This is the crux of the problem the U.S. does not want to admit the terrorist including many of the so called home grown terrorist are radical Muslims and they as well as the two wars in the middle east is part of the overall holy war of which the west does not want to acknowledge that the war itself is a "Holy War" in fear that it will tarnish the non- radical Muslims.

Political correctness may have contributed to the deaths of those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as investigators with political pressure are encouraged to dismiss the radical Islamic elements in this case and others. The military won't, because the generals and the other army leaders are so full of political correctness and so worried about their own promotions that pandering to our enemies and other America-haters is easier and safer than calling this act "terrorism."

Apparently Maj. Hasan corresponded with a known wanted terrorist and he was connected to other radicals that the FBI and other departments were watching. He even attended the same mosque of Anwar al Awlaki, a jihadist imam who had preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers, but now lives in Yemen and called Hasan a 'hero.'

Investigators say he posted anti-American hate-speech on the Web and praised suicide bombers and all in Allah's name and used his own name openly. He compared Islamic suicide bombers with American solders jumping on a grenade to save their comrades. And was often seen loudly criticizing the US Army and the U.S. policies with classmates.

A senior psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, said Maj. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program.

Instead, in late June 2007, he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by The Washington Post.

"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," he said in the presentation.

Why did not his follow doctors who are highly trained for this sort of stuff pickup on him?

"It was really strange," said one staff member who attended the presentation and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the on going investigation. "The senior doctors looked really upset" at the end. These medical presentations occurred each Wednesday afternoon, and other students had lectured on new medications and treatment of specific mental illnesses.

An Army spokesman recently said he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined to comment. It is unclear whether anyone in attendance reported the briefing to counterintelligence or law enforcement authorities whose job it is to identify threats from within the military ranks.

There's nothing wrong with the Islamic religion. It's the radical sect that misinterprets the Quran and whose sole objective is to eliminate any non-Muslim on this planet.

There's another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? As a known Islamic radical he argued with our veterans who've been assigned to his care? He argued (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his combat military patients over the worth of their sacrifices. Many of whom were lift without legs or arms and many suffering from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). And he's not reprimanded much less removed from duty? What was the Army thinking?

He also refused in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female solders and colleagues. According to other investigators he listed his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program and on other documents. He also told others that Islam come first and America 2nd. As many Americans saw on TV Maj. Hasan was wearing traditional fundamentalist garb in much of his daily activities. How the officials and the media told the story of the shooting at Fort Hood just dosn't compute.

How much more evidence do people need to point out that Maj. Hasan is a terrorist and a jihadist?

As more information dribbles to unfold, it's clear our government and the mainstream media are afraid of accusing anyone of anything who is of Islamic faith. We have been lied to so many times by our government we routinely dismiss any so called "facts" they put out with their propaganda machines even the mainstream media (MSM), to date there are some glaring inconsistencies in what has been reported about this tragedy.

You may recall how it was first reported all over the news that the perpetrator was dead than only to learn hours later, surprise a new revelation, suddenly the shooter was reported alive. Several hours are a long time to determine if a person is dead or alive? What was going on during that time period? Did the Army not know whom the shooter or shooters were.

The cousin on live TV said that "Hasan had always been Muslim," disputing earlier news reports that said Maj. Hasan was a Muslim convert. A follow officer spoke on live TV shortly after the story broke and said that he heard Maj. Hasan say that "maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor" in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also heard Maj. Hasan comment that he was "almost sort of happy" about a shooting at a Little Rock recruitment center.

Later reports said that the Army had last track of the shooter and did not know where he was. What in the world does that mean? Was a story being concocted for public consumption during those hours? What happened to the two other "suspects" that were detained? What did they do to qualify as suspects in the first place and more importantly, what information surfaced that led to their release? One of the suspects reportedly stated he "was with the shooter." What does that mean?

Than there is a question about the number of victims from a single shooter. Remember this shooting did not happen in an unprotected public place. No, this shooting took place at what should have been a secure military installation where many of the victims had been trained in military tactics and some were combat veterans. We were told that the reason so many were shot was because there were according to early reports 150 to 300 military personal all in a confined area and was like shooting fish in a fish boul. Well if that's true 150 to 300 solders took no action. We are to believe they did nothing to stop a single shooter and he was allowed to reload two weapons several times and continue shooting and the only thing that stopped him was the arrival of two civilian police officers and they and they alone shot and killed the gunman after he had gunned down over 40 people?

The Army insists that none of the killed or wounded was from friendly fire? But that would mean this guy had to be a professional, someone clam, cool, collective and proficient in the use of hand guns and have marksmen like abilities.

Than there was the shutting down of communications in and around Ft. Hood for several hours shortly after the shooting. Was that just to keep the killer or killers inside the fort? Could it also have been that the Army and even the media was stalling because they did not know what happened or did the long delay provide the Army with a chance to create whatever story it was they wanted to gave out to the public on the terrible tragedy.

People on the ground reported that cell phone towers were deliberately jammed to prevent unauthorized dissemination of information after the shooting. Again, the Army would not want any information contrary to the company line emerging from this disaster.

Than suddenly after they I D' the shooter they seemed to have instant information about him. All too convenient for the Army was the rapid release of negative information related to the alleged shooter. It was said he received a negative evaluation report and that he had caused "red flags" to be raised some months ago concerning emails. Do we know anything this detailed about the "suspects" who were released? The caveat was added that it was unclear as to whether the suspect was the author of those emails. So, months ago, alarms were raised about emails the suspect might have sent, yet, in all those months the Army has been unable to determine who wrote them. If red flags were in fact raised months ago, why did the Army do nothing? Even his business card was a glaring warning sign, via Michelle Malkin who points to Pamela Geller.

"SOA" stands for Soldiers of Allah. "SWT" is a related Muslim acronym: Pamela Geller explains another red flag ignored. How many signs, warnings and red flags did the military need to be able to see this man was a danger?

Going back to the 9/11 paradigm, we see the same evidence exhibited: the state had prior warnings but did not act on them. This proves unequivocally the government is either incompetent or complicit in both events. Yet, the state would have us all unarmed and depending on them for protection.

"At some point, it becomes necessary for us, as a nation, to address the uncomfortable threat of homegrown terrorism and radicalism, and Congress has an obligation to review how federal agencies are handling and disseminating information related to the threat," Hoekstra, R-Holland, said in statement.

Back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom another Muslim fanatic killed and wounded American Army officers. Recently an American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station killing and wounded recruits. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she's becoming too westernized. Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we're assured that "Islam's a religion of peace."

At the very least the evidence shows that Maj. Hasan pre-planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second is he's not called a terrorist. It does seem logical to refer to this turkey Hasan as an "Islamist terrorist," perhaps homegrown with outside contacts, but a terrorist all the same.

Sources:

U.S. Army

Washington Post

Area newspapers

Area TV stations

Friends and assoc

Cable News outlets

Network News

Radio news

Wake Up America

New York Times

L.A.Times

© Michael Webster

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Michael Webster

Michael Webster's Syndicated Investigative Reports are read worldwide, in 100 or more U.S. outlets and in at least 136 countries and territories. He publishes articles in association with global news agencies and media information services with more than 350 news affiliates in 136 countries... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Michael Webster: Click here

Latest articles