Originally published by Communities @ Washington Times
SAN DIEGO, March 11, 2011 —Central Texas Congressman John Carter (R-TX), is one of several pushing for a bill in Congress that would award the 43 victims of the Fort Hoot shooting by Maj. Nidal Hasan the Purple Heart, along with all benefits associated with such an honor.
?Said Carter last May when his pilgrimage first began, “All these things are already given to soldiers who are killed or injured in combat…And I think they should be extended to those soldiers who were killed or injured at Ft. Hood…This bill will treat them as if they had been killed or wounded in a combat zone, and will give them the benefits we give to combat casualties” (Free Republic, 5-19-10).
The Purple Heart is America’s oldest military award, a combat citation given not only to officers, but enlisted soldiers as well. To qualify, a person must be killed or wounded ‘in combat.’
Evidently granting a Purple Heart to Ft. Hood victims was easier said than done from the Army’s vantage point. Congressman Carter has been battling an ongoing obstacle because Nidal Hasan was being treated as a criminal rather than a terrorist, facing 13 counts of first-degree murder and 30 of first degree attempted murder. If the victims of Hasan’s shooting spree were reclassified as combat fatalities, authorities feared this would allow Hasan to insist he was an ‘enemy combatant’. That would have forbid the government from placing him on trial and entitle him to certain protections under the Geneva Convention for Prisoners of War.
In an article for Real Clear Politics, April 30, 2010, Carter wrote, “Yet the Obama Administration continues to deny the Fort Hood attack was terrorism, failed to grant the casualties the same status as that given casualties from the 2001 Pentagon attack, conspicuously omitted even mention of the words “radical Islamic terrorism” in the official DOD report on the shootings, and will not acknowledge the role of political-correctness in stifling whistleblower warnings of the impending attack.”
To be fair, Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano did call it a terrorist attack on February 2010 by admitting that “Violent Islamic terrorism…was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings.” This was a stark improvement over earlier descriptions like “man-made disasters” a term she claimed would “move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”
Despite Napolitano’s words, a more official recognition of the attack as an act of terror seems to be needed before Purple Hearts can be granted.
If passed, Carter’s bill would find teeth in a recent Senate report’s conclusion that the Nov. 5, 2009 shooting was the “deadliest terrorist attack within the United States” since the 9/11.
Undoubtedly the Purple Hearts will eventually be granted. But debate on how to classify a deadly shooting should not surprise anyone who has lived in naïve, Politically Correct America these past few decades.
When news of the Ft. Hood shooting first broke back in November, 2009, we were told that his religion undoubtedly had nothing to do with the massacre. Sure, Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim, but that was no reason to jump to conclusions. Most likely, his religion was only a coincidence.
Next, we learned that he shouted “Allah Akbar!” while doing the shootings. But at that time, we were gently reminded that this was a disturbed man, dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a common condition to people who have been on the battle field, even though, as of yet, Hasan had not been on the battle field. Didn’t matter. As an Army psychologist, he spoke to many who had, and this affected him.
Then we heard that Hasan had a history in his military career of openly calling for Muslims to refuse to fight for America because of unjust U.S. foreign policies. Many rushed in on schedule with parallel commentary that went something like this: “Yes, but Hasan had been ridiculed by fellow soldiers for being a Muslim and we must take this into consideration. Remember, as well, that most Muslims are very peaceful.”
Around that time, Geraldo Rivera of Fox News said, “I don’t know what motivates him. He could have had a toothache and gone off because of that” (Fox News, 11-7-09).
Next we found out that Hasan wrote blogs that glorified suicide bombers and gave a power point presentation in the Army where he said “We love death more than you love life.” He also said nonbelievers should be beheaded.
Asked how such an individual could have remained in the Army after these open proclamations, General George W. Casey promised it was being looked into. He also went on to say, “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,” (NBC, Meet The Press, 11-8-09).
Throughout the daily news reports constantly morphing into deeper revelation, we were admonished that even if Islam were found to be the motivating factor, we still cannot call this terrorism because Nidal Hasan was not connected to Al-Qaeda. That must have been a great comfort to the families of his victims. “Our son’s murderer wasn’t involved with Al-Qaeda? Whew! What a relief!”
Finally, we discovered that Hasan had indeed corresponded with Al-Qaeda. In the face of this news, Chris Matthews of MSNBC offered the topper of them all, a Pulitzer Prize caliber comment: “That’s not a crime, to call up Al-Qaeda, is it?” Admittedly, Matthew’s comment sounds so outrageous, we should do him the service of placing it back in its proper context:
“How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he’s an Islamist until he’s made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact Al-Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?’ That’s not a crime to call up Al-Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?” (Hardball, 11-9-09)
Did the context help? Why should our government take some kind of proactive step toward getting to the bottom of a guy who contacted a terrorist organization? Well said, Matthews.
There was a time when we considered it an act of humility to appraise one’s education and say, “The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.” But with so much of our mainstream journalism hijacked by Political Correctness, it seems that the more they learn, the more they decide how little they know. Many of them do not seem to want to know that there is any real danger from Muslim extremists, perhaps because such truth takes them away from their real crusade against “conservative extremists.” Remember when abortion doctor, George Tiller, was gunned down? Christians and Pro-Life organizations came out in hordes and condemned the killing immediately. But I do not recall too many people from our mainstream media asking us to “not jump to conclusions and remember that most Pro-Life people are very peaceful.”
Of course, Nidal Malik Hasan’s religious motivations are no longer being denied although many in the media, in the military, and in the the government, will still go out of their way to explain that it has nothing to do with authentic Islam. Meanwhile, we continue to argue about whether or not this was technically a terrorist attack. A crime? Certainly! A murder? Sure. But a terrorist attack? Well…Hmm. Maybe, but let’s be careful here.
Truth be told, the term terrorist is too general anyway because we are not at war with all terrorists. But the term Al-Qaeda is too specific because there are many Muslim terrorist organizations who have declared war on America besides Al-Qaeda. Before you clutch your chest, yes, I agree, the term Muslim is also too general because there are many peaceful Muslims and many loyal Muslim American citizens. But we must still avoid the Politically Correct drivel that these terrorists are only a handful of nut cases who have hijacked an otherwise peaceful religion. The Jihad commands were not made up by terrorists out of thin air. Neither are terrorists the only Muslims who take them seriously, as anyone living in a Muslim country under Sharia Law can testify. The Jihad command is found in the Koran:
“Believer, rise up and make war against the infidel around you”(Surah 9).
True, many Muslims refuse to take passages like this literally and that is something we can be grateful for, but nothing will be solved by pretending the command is not there. Much is made of the “correct context” when such verses are sited. Context is important and the intention of the author is the most important aspect of context. What this verse meant to Mohammed is what this verse means, period. (Although granted, Mohammed would claim that God, not he, was the author.) Mohammad not only expected the command to be taken literally, he himself conquered with the sword.
Properly defining our enemies is important, not only for those who deserve Purple Hearts but for a country that hopefully will not need to award too many future Purple Hearts. It is difficult to rally against an enemy who is not clearly pointed out. When we fought against the Germans in World War Two, any thinking person realized that not all Germans were Nazis. But we were still at war with Germany. Calling the country “Nazi Germany” may have helped to distinguish it from a friendlier Germany of the past. With that in mind, the most honest term for our present war, fair to all parties, would be “Militant Islam” or perhaps “Fundamentalist Islam.” But don’t be surprised if new attacks against Americans are credited to people who were merely “A Band of Brothers Sincerely Opposed To Western Values.” If that is too long, how about “Western Challenged” for short? Whatever the title, one thing is clear: Militant Islam isn’t the primary problem. Political Correctness is.
NOTES:
Because the Ft. Hood shootings took place quite some time ago, I am listing below, the news sources which revealed Hasan’s activities.
-Hasan shouted “Allah Akbar!” while doing the shootings (CBS News, 11-6-09)
-Hasan was openly calling for Muslims to refuse to fight for America because of their unjust foreign policy (Washington Post, 11-10-09).
-Hasan corresponded with Al-Queda (ABC News 11-9-09)
-Hasan wrote blogs that glorified suicide bombers (Examiner.com,11-6-09)
-Hasan gave a power point presentation in the Army where he said “We love death more than you love life” (Washington Post, 11-10-09).
-Hasan talked about how nonbelievers should be beheaded (UK Telegraph, 11- 8-09).
Share this on
