OBAMA REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE MUSLIM VIOLENCE

It’s Not Workplace Violence, It’s Islam
Posted by Ben Shapiro Bio ↓ on Dec 12th, 2011
Frontpagemag.com

This week, the Obama Administration made an announcement regarding the
attack on Fort Hood in 2009. In that incident, you’ll recall, gentle
Muslim psychiatrist Maj.

Nidal Hasan – who had apparently been taking Islamic training from
gentle Muslim terrorist preacher Anwar al-Awlaki – picked up a handgun
and proceeded to murder 12 soldiers (one pregnant) and one Army
civilian employee; another 29 were injured. None of the soldiers were
armed. Finally, a civilian police sergeant put Hasan down with five
shots, paralyzing the gentle Muslim from the chest down.

Two years later, President Obama’s Defense Department called this
incident “workplace violence.” You know, like when you punch a guy at
the water cooler for sleeping with your wife. Except you’re a Muslim
and there are forty co-workers, none of whom have slept with your
wife, and you’re trying to shoot them to death while shouting “Allahu
Akhbar!”

There is a legitimate debate to be had regarding the terminology we
use to describe Muslim terrorists. Are they Muslims or are they
Islamists? Are they radical Muslims, or are they just normal
Muslims? Robert Spencer and Andrew McCarthy have had this debate for
several weeks, most prominently at the Freedom Center Restoration
Weekend. I come down on the side that says we have no business making
a distinction between Muslims and so-called Islamists, since Muslims
make no such distinction themselves. Osama Bin Laden knows more about
Islam than I do. I’ll take his word for it.

But regardless of where you come down on the question of Muslim
semantics, there is no doubt that Islam must come into play when we
discuss the threat of terrorism. Labeling Fort Hood “workplace
violence” is like labeling September 11 a “building collapse.” It’s
not just misleading, it’s sick.

What would drive the Obama Administration to place this absurd
Orwellian label on a Muslim terrorist attack? There are two
rationales: fear and hope.

First, fear. The Defense Department is deathly afraid of funding cuts
– and with good reason, since it is clear that Democrats are far less
interested in cutting Granny’s Medicare than in cutting missile
defense (a position that no doubt has

Vladimir Putin grinning in his sleep). So the military must please
the left. They’ve done that by turning the military into a social
experimentation center where male sexuality is injected into
barracks. Now they’re doing it by upholding the diversity meme. As
General George Casey, the army’s top officer, said in the aftermath of
the Fort Hood massacre, “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in
our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if
our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

Now, I’m fairly certain that the murder of pregnant women is worse
than people accurately labeling Nidal Hasan a Muslim terrorist. And
I’m fairly certain that

General Casey knows that. But General Casey also knows where his
bread is buttered, and so does the entire Defense Department.
Fear is the order of the day in the Defense Department, then.

And then there’s hope. The Obama Administration hopes that by calling
the Fort Hood massacre “workplace violence,” we will all accept Nidal
Hasan’s presence as a member of the workplace. He’s just the same as
Sgt. Bill or Lt. Jane — he just happens to hate America and all that
it stands for. Tomayto, tomahto.

What’s the point of this little fiction? By including Hasan in the
“workplace,” the Obama Administration hopes to convince Muslims around
the world that we want them as part of our global workplace. For the
love of Allah, if they can see that we’ll accept even their most
militant members into our military, won’t they be able to see that we
can all live together in peace?

And thus, the Obama Administration’s idiotic hope combines with the
military’s deathly fear to rewrite history. Those who were killed at
Fort Hood become random victims of violence rather than martyrs in the
clash of civilizations (whereas for Muslims, Hasan is already a martyr
in the clash of civilizations). Hasan’s “Allahu Akhbar” becomes a
delightfully exotic version of “going postal,” or another incident of
a disturbed soldier “going Rambo.”

While we play pattycake with the terminology of Islamic murder,
Muslims around the world have no such qualms. In fact, they label
everything we do Western imperialism. Protecting Muslims from the
Taliban? Western imperialism. Saving Kuwait from Saddam Hussein?
Western imperialism. Lady Gaga? Western imperialism.

So, who’s destined to win this fight – the side that insists that
Muslim murder is “workplace violence,” or the side that insists that
soldierly workplace violence in defense of Muslims is murder of
Muslims? It’s a pretty safe bet that the side that sees “Allahu
Akhbar” as a call to diversity training will end up on the wrong side
of history.

http://www.truthandgrace.com/ISLAM.htm
.

Relevant Pages