Mark Watson

Would the carnage visited upon Ft. Hood soldiers on Thursday have been called a terrorist act if Nidal Malik Hasan’s efforts had been thwarted?

If the crooked creek media’s history in dealing with thwarted terrorist actions is any indication, it is likely Hasan would be identified as a terrorist only if his plan to attack soldiers at Ft. Hood was stopped before any of the carnage took place.

This is real.

Sadly he succeeded in killing one civilian and 12 soldiers, one of whom was pregnant.

Rigid loyalty to political correctness compels the crooked creek media to omit references to the word “terrorist”.

ABC and CBS did not deem it relevant to initially identify the cowardly monster, who screamed, “Allah Akbar” (God is Great) as he opened fire on American military personnel at Fort Hood, as a devout Muslim. Much of the media didn’t think it was relevant that Hasan distributed copies of the Koran before beginning his murderous activities.

On Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer quoted another reporter about a concern being expressed in the media. “We heard Martha Raddatz say last night that the wife of a soldier said ‘I wish his name had been Smith,’ so no one would have a reflexive question…” The reflexive question to be avoided was about Hasan’s religion.

Hasan praised suicide bombers on the Internet earlier this year, and the FBI is investigating other statements in the terrorist’s past.

Why the rush to avoid characterizing Hasan as a terrorist? Any objective review of his actions indicates that what he did at Fort Hood clearly falls within the classic definition of terrorism. If one accepts the U.S. Code as an authoritative source for such things, Hasan is most definitely a terrorist.

The U. S. Code defines “terrorism” as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets.

Unfortunately the media is not alone in its rush to assumptions that Hasan’s zealot-driven attack was not necessarily a zealot-driven attack.

President Obama warned against jumping to conclusions regarding Hasan’s motives for opening fire on American military personnel.

Before the number of victims was even known, the FBI almost immediately claimed that Hasan’s actions were not acts of terrorism.

Just last month, 19-year-old Hosam Smadi was arrested and universally described as a terrorist for plotting to blow up a Dallas skyscraper. In May, New York police hailed the foiling of a jihad plot by four men to bomb two sites and to shoot down military aircraft in New York. The New York press referred to the four as homegrown Muslim terrorists.

In May 2007, six men plotting to attack New Jersey’s Fort Dix Army base with assault rifles and grenades were prevented before the attacks could be carried out. These efforts were universally described as terrorism.

In August 2006, terrorists were stopped before they could accomplish their plot to explode 10 airliners over the United States.

Other examples of failed terrorist acts routinely described in the press as terrorism include the 2006 plot to blow up the Sears Tower, the 2005 plan to blow up a natural gas refinery in Wyoming, the Transcontinental Pipeline and a refinery in New Jersey.

Perhaps the reticence to refer to this terrorist act as a terrorist act is fear of other types of attacks, like lawsuits inspired by political correctness.

It could be that it is fear of retaliation similar to that which was employed by Muslim political cartoon police following a Danish newspaper’s decision to print cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Riots, fires and property destruction in the wake of publishing such cartoons led to self-censorship throughout the media world.

Since much of the crooked creek media employs self-censorship when dealing with anything considered politically incorrect, it is likely that said media again is willing to sacrifice its constitutional obligation of monitoring events in the country for the warm countenance of approval.

Let’s see if we have this right: If a devout, but crazed, Muslim attacks and kills unarmed military personnel, there shall be no mention that he is Muslim. If a pro-life, but crazed, Christian attacks anything or anyone, there shall be unrelenting condemnations of his religious zealotry.

Political correctness is quite selective, after all.

Fortunately for countless others at Ft. Hood, a politically incorrect civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, responded to Hasan’s rampage by engaging in a gunfire battle with him. Munley shot Hasan four times, even though she was wounded by Hasan.

According to Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, Fort Hood base commander, Munley’s quick thinking and willingness to go head-to-head with the gun-wielding officer ended Hasan’s deadly spree and probably saved many lives.

Without warning Hasan opened fire on unarmed military personnel undergoing final medical checkups before being deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. Such action is no less a terrorist act than Timothy McVeigh’s exploding rental truck, nor is it any less frightening.

12 Responses to “Call Hasan a terrorist? Only if he had failed”