A Muslim traitor decides to wage jihad and murders 12 soldiers and civilians while wounding 30 others at Ft. Hood. What is the priority of the Secretary of Homeland Security? Could she be exploring the possibility of other Muslim-American soldiers turning on their comrades? Is she directing an investigation into jihadist penetration of the Armed Forces? No, she has something far more important to do in the wake of the worst terrorist incident on US soil since 9-11: making sure there is no backlash against Muslims.

The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday’s rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Refresh my memory, but have there been any documented anti-Muslim incidents in the US in the last eight years? And I mean serious incidents, not the “Someone looked at me funny” encounters that CAIR likes to claim are “hate crimes.” Truth be told, Americans have been remarkably restrained. And yet Janet Napolitano sees it as her primary duty to worry about a “backlash” that has never materialized.


And isn’t that last quoted paragraph a peach? Hasan “…reportedly expressed growing dismay….” No, Mr. Associated Press Reporter, it was a bit more than that. Hasan attended a radical mosque, the imam of which was a spiritual adviser to three of the 9-11 hijackers. Major Hasan spread anti-American propaganda and defended suicide bombings. His fellow mosque-members described him as a typical fundamentalist who firmly believed that “jihad” meant fighting and killing. This wasn’t someone “dismayed” at a war, as if he were an average protester. This was a devout Muslim who felt it his duty to wage jihad fi sabil Allah – “war for the sake of Allah.” A duty that came before his oath of loyalty to his comrades and to the United States.

But rather than investigate the ideology that lead Major Hasan to commit treason, rather than take a long, hard look at the role Islam and the doctrine of jihad played in this, Secretary Napolitano worries about a backlash, transferring the onus of responsibility onto the true targets -us- and once again pandering to Muslim victim-hood: the threat as Napolitano sees it is from angry, irrational redneck Americans, not radicalized Muslims bent on jihad. It’s just this kind of political correctness, the kind that lead Hasan’s fellow officers to ignore the obvious signs of coming trouble for fear of being accused of “Islamophobia,” that got those people at Ft. Hood killed.

And until Janet Napolitano and the whole US government take off the politically correct blinders and deal honestly with the nature of the threat we face, we are running every day the risk of another Ft. Hood. Or London. Or Madrid. Or Bali.

Priorities, Madame Secretary. Priorities.

RELATED: Former US Army officer Ralph Peters is angry. Justifiably so. Dr. Rusty Shackleford points out that there is nothing sudden about Sudden Jihad Syndrome. In the peace-of-mind department, the threat from home-grown jihadis is growing.

(hat tip: Power Line)

5 Responses to Priorities

  1. Porkchop says:

    There have been a few. In the early days after 9/11, attackers apparently had trouble telling Muslims apart from Coptic Christians and Sihks:

    If there were more attacks, you’d expect this site to list them, but it doesn’t:

    Overall, there have been some people killed, targeted by morons who attacked them because they thought they were Muslims, whether they were or not.

    Seventy-five soldiers have killed themselves at Ft Hood since 2003, including nine this year. If an internet source is believable, they were all being prepped for deployment to Iraq. The shooter in this incident was promoted from captain to major. If the shooter was one of the people responsible for the mental well being of the soldiers at Ft Hood, what does that say about the culture there? I’m not an expert, but it seems really fucked up. Whether or not the shooter was really a jihadist, the US Army has a serious problem that it hasn’t managed to address for six years. I’d like to see some focus on that, personally.

  2. Phineas Fahrquar says:

    I recall one incident involving a Sikh who was targeted, I think in Arizona, right after 9-11. But I think my point still holds: even with the data from your first link, Americans have been remarkably restrained. “Islamophobia” and cries of “persecution” are efforts by Islamist front-groups to distract us from the real problem. It’s using a guilt-trip as a weapon, and the PC and multiculturalist crowd in the US are all too happy to join in.

    Ikhwanweb, by the way, is the web site of Muslim Brotherhood. I’m surprised they don’t have Terrifying Tales of Islamophobia on their site, but, no matter. They probably leave that to CAIR and their front groups. Their goal is the conversion of the US to their benighted version of Islam and the imposition of sharia here. By their own words, they are engaged in a “grand jihad” here. Here’s a link to an article detailing their relation to one of their front groups, the ISNA: . Particularly informative is the Muslim Brotherhood memo behind the link “Explanatory Memorandum.”

    In short, I wouldn’t trust these guys as far as I could throw an elephant.

    Regarding suicides, I’d like to see data comparing the rate of suicide among soldiers returning from the current war to returning veterans of other conflicts and the US population in general, in order to see if the problem is more pronounced. I’m not belittling the tragedy of their deaths, but with data solely from Ft. Hood, it’s impossible to know if the problem is more pronounced here.

    Certainly they should be given all the care they need (Care for the wounded on return to the US has in some cases been scandalous), but I think we also need to make sure those giving them that care are not sympathetic to the enemy.

  3. […] the liberal media act as apologists for Nidal Hasan’s act of terror, and as Janet Napolitano warns about the rise of prejudice in America, Barack Obama feels no compunction to moderate the language […]

  4. Porkchop says:

    “In short, I wouldn’t trust these guys as far as I could throw an elephant.”

    Like I said, if there had been more attacks, they would have listed them. Both of the links prove your point.

    As far as the suicide rate, it is much higher per capita than it was before 2003, and it is much higher than it is amongst the general population. I’ve seen numbers ranging from 2x to 5x both pre-2003 and vs. the general population.

    “I think we also need to make sure those giving them that care are not sympathetic to the enemy.”

    Exactly. Why was this guy allowed to provide mental health services to soldiers? One source said he was transferred from Walter Reed to Ft Hood because he got bad reviews… how the fuck does that make sense? And he got good enough reviews to get promoted once, too, which isn’t easy.

    • Phineas Fahrquar says:

      Thanks for the suicide information. That’s interesting.

      “Why was this guy allowed to provide mental health services to soldiers? ”

      I ask a similar question in a later post. In fact, for more “What the frak were they thinking” fun, check this: .

      The only way he could have made it plainer would have been to send engraved invitations.

%d bloggers like this: