10.31.2009 0

Nidal Hasan Is Not Timothy McVeigh

  • On: 11/19/2009 09:21:04
  • In: Homeland Security
  • by David Bozeman

    Reaction from the left and the mainstream media to the Fort Hood massacre reveals a weak and wobbly resolve that threatens US security. In fact, some commentators seem almost giddy at yet another opportunity to highlight ‘moral equivalencies’ between alleged gunman Nadal Hasan and terrorists on the right, namely Timothy McVeigh (Bob Schieffer on CBS News reminded viewers that the Christian religion has its full helping of nuts, too). Liberal Alan Colmes, appearing on The O’Reilly Factor, chided conservative hypocrisy for identifying radical Islamic terrorism while opposing hate-crimes legislation.

    Information released in the days following Fort Hood seem to belie the ’stress’ and ‘he just snapped’ explanations, but liberals insist that only after further investigations will we know enough to draw conclusions. Whether the left is motivated by equal or varying degrees of not wanting to appear intolerant of Islam or just plain contempt for Christianity matters little. The result is the same. Not just America, but the West lacks the resolve to identify its gravest threat. Even if Hasan is found legally insane, a clear pattern has already emerged — a thirty-plus year global campaign not to defeat us militarily but to kill as many of us as possible. The culprit — radical Islam.

    Just for the record, Timothy McVeigh was reportedly an agnostic. He was tried, convicted and executed, and no one in the Christian or conservative movements lamented his last day on earth. But even if he was the prototype right-wing terrorist of liberals’ fevered imaginations, even if America is teeming with gun-toting pro-lifers and evangelical suicide bombers, radical Islam is no less a threat to the security of Western civilization. Radical Islam, unlike the perverted ideology of Timothy McVeigh, commands countless armies of loyal soldiers worldwide. It governs nations and wields enormous influence on the world stage — examples include the bloodied corpse of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, the threatened, sequestered life of author Salman Rushdie and rioting in the streets of international cities fueled by rage over a cartoon depicting Mohammed.

    Every time an act of terror happens, analysts both left and right breathlessly remind the public that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and non-violent. While that is certainly true, chanting the mantra is unnecessary, as the American people already know that. Furthermore, by the logic of conventional wisdom, we do Islam a disservice by not naming, isolating and castigating its terrorist-fringe followers. Rhetorical outrage over terrorism is not only cathartic, it is morally justified. Most pundits on the left, however, offer dispassionate analysis and write off the carnage to the excesses of generic fanaticism, but a society that refuses to name one of its most serious threats surely lacks the resolve to fight it. Many on the left would prefer to wage this war not with military hardware and intelligence but in their preferred venue, the courts, hence Colmes flinging hate crimes legislation into the discussion.

    Even the right tends to lapse into euphemisms and platitudes, such as President Bush on 9/11 vowing to punish the “folks” responsible. Granted, the facts may not have been clear at the moment, but the very name ‘war on terror’ lacks punch and definition. Also, clichés such as that terrorists want to destroy our ‘way of life’ beg the question — what is our way of life? Are we as a culture willing to name what our enemies are hell bent on destroying? Some would say democracy, but that’s barely an answer. The same with capitalism, besides which that’s a dirty word in America 2009. How about ‘a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles?’ Such talk is not permitted in the public square. Church and state, remember? If we are not willing to define our way of life, how will our children explain it to their children? By then will it even matter? Our enemies, of course, are listening, and what is not being said here at home speaks volumes about our willingness to defend ourselves.

    David Bozeman is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.


    Copyright © 2008-2020 Americans for Limited Government