Not a Terrorist Attack?
November 9, 2009
Less than an hour after a Muslim extremist soldier screamed "Allahu Akbar!" (Allah is Great!) and killed or wounded more than 40 people at Fort Hood, Texas, the Army brass was rushing to assure America that the terrorist attack was "not a terrorist attack." Please tell me what about this carefully planned attack by a man who attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 terrorists, would indicate to these spineless Army bureaucrats that this was anything BUT a terrorist attack?
The only thing that I can think of is that their boss, Commander-in-Chief Barrack Hussein Obama (who was raised as a Muslim) told them to say it wasn't terrorism. The facts certainly don't support their hasty statements.
Senator Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, has promised a full congressional investigation into what he has called "the worst terrorist attack since 9/11." Lieberman wants to know why the Army missed (or ignored) reports that clearly showed Major Nidal Malik Hasan was a "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist."
Of course the Obama Administration and its public relations arm (the mainstream media) immediately leaped into full gear to explain that Major Hasan was really the victim, and that his victims were at fault. They made statements (later proved false) that Hasan suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome. It turned out he had never been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Then they claimed Hasan had been "harassed" by fellow soldiers for his religion. In their twisted thinking this seemed to justify the killings. In the end, except for one minor incident involving a soldier removing an "Allah is Love" bumper sticker from Hasan's car, this turned out to be manufactured as well.
The fascinating thing about all this is that the Army is so terrified that it might be seen to be anti-Muslim that it ignored numerous reports of very obvious indications that this man was a Muslim extremist ready to explode. These are just a few of the reports made by fellow soldiers to Hasan's superiors that were either ignored or deliberately suppressed:
1) Hasan praised suicide bombers and justified their actions many times over the last four years, comparing their "bravery" to that of soldiers who throw themselves on hand grenades to save fellow soldiers.
The three main falsehoods being floated by Liberals and the Liberal media are that (1) Hasan acted alone, so his acts cannot be classified as terrorism; (2) that he "snapped" and didn't know what he was doing; (3) that because Hasan was born in America, he cannot be considered a terrorist; and (4) that examination of his computer "did not prove that he had terrorist ties." Let's examine these one at a time:
(1) This was not the first planned terrorist act aimed at killing military personnel on a military base. Since 9/11 almost a dozen such plots by Jihadists have been thwarted by the government. Some of these were planned by Islamic terrorist cells in Georgia, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina. The best known was the large attack planned at Fort Dix in New Jersey. But significantly a large number of the attacks were planned not by groups, but by individuals like Major Hasan. At this writing it is not clear whether or not he had accomplices in this cowardly act. But is clear that it doesn't take a group to commit acts of terror. One man can do a tremendous amount of damage by himself, as Hasan proved last week.
Some of our politicians are starting to say that the Army should have listened to the witnesses who told their superiors about Major Hasan's extremist views and kicked him out of the army. I don't think he should have been allowed to enlist in the first place.
Hasan is right. We are at war with radical Islam. We shouldn't put Islamists in our nation's uniforms, put guns in their hands, and expect them to fight against their brothers. They are much more likely to turn those guns against us. I have no doubt that most (if not all) of the incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan in which enlisted men have murdered their officers were ones in which Muslims were the killers, and the military has kept these facts quiet.
If it were up to me, no Muslim would be allowed to serve in any branch of the military, whether or not they were a citizen. There is no Constitutional right to serve in the military. We didn't have any problem refusing to allow people of Japanese descent to serve in the military or intelligence services during WWII. Likewise people of Russian descent during the Cold War. Why should it be any different today with people who are part of a violent religion that advocates killing all Christians and Jews?
But we have a deluded president who insists that Islam is a "peaceful" religion, that the violence is the work of just a few. I wish this was true. But if it was, the mosques would not be breeding grounds for extremism. The "peaceful" Muslims would kick out the violent ones. The clergy would denounce violence and extremism.
At any rate, the politically correct control the nation, and they will never agree to exclude all Muslims from military service. So we should insist that, at a minimum, every Muslim be psychologically screened to detect the kind of radicalism Major Hasan exhibited. And every service member who converts to this bloody religion should be similarly screened. This is not religious discrimination. This is national self-preservation.
Did the Army Ignore Signs that Major Hasan was a Radical Muslim?
Lieberman Wants Probe into Terrorist Attack by Major on Fort Hood
VIDEO: Joe Lieberman on Major Hasan's Terror Attack
Fort Hood Shooter Said His Goodbyes before Rampage
Ft. Hood: The Largest 'Terror Act' Since 9/11?
He has written thousands of articles that have been republished in national newspapers and on hundreds of websites, and is a frequent guest on radio and television shows. His weekly Conservative Truth article (which is read by 250,000) offers a unique viewpoint on social, moral and political issues from a Biblical worldview. This has resulted in invitations to speak internationally at churches, conferences, Money Shows, universities, and on TV (including the 700 Club).
“Dr. Tom,” as his readers and followers affectionately refer to him, has a passion for teaching, as you can see from his ministry website (www.ChristianFinancialConcepts.com); his patriotic site (www.ConservativeTruth.org); and his business site (www.GoldenArtTreasures.com). Tom's friend Dr. Lance Wallnau wrote of him, "Tom Barrett is a Renaissance man with a passion for subject matter ranging from finance to theology and American history."
Visit Dr. Tom Barrett's website at www.DrTom.TV