The Fort Hood massacre was a terrorist act

  Does anybody else find it curious that nobody seems to be willing to use the “T” word when reporting or talking about the Fort Hood massacre? I certainly do.

   Here we have Nidal Malik Hasan, who opposes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, who opposes the United States policies in the Middle East, who was spouting dangerous and threatening language toward the United States, who had a blog in which he extolled the virtues of suicide bombers and called for Muslims to rise up to fight off the aggressors, and who went into the part of the facility that treats soldiers who are either being deployed to or are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan to begin his terror spree.  I think that is is safe to say that he targeted soldiers who were involved or going to be involved in the war. And let us not forget that as he was killing American heroes he was shouting “Allahu Akbar.”

  If this was not an act of terrorism I don’t know what is anymore. Yet during the shooting spree the media reported that the FBI did not suspect terrorism. At that point it was unknown what the motives for the killings was, but certainly the FBI should have considered terrorism as at least a possibility. Hell, the latest reports claim that the FBI had been watching Hasan for six months. They had to have had some suspicions.

  So the question is– why is no one willing to use the word “terrorism” when discussing, investigating, or reporting on this issue? Is the FBI trying to cover up the fact that they knew Hasan was dangerous and did not act in time to save these heroes? Or has there been a gag order issued by the administration? Has the administration decided that the word “terrorism” can not be used? We know that there is a move afoot in Homeland Security to rename terrorist activities “man-caused disasters,” so is this an attempt bu the administration to be politically correct so as to not offend peaceful Muslims?

  The media keeps asking the question, “what motivated this man to commit such a heinous act?” And the answer that they keep coming up with is that he suffered from stress from dealing with the stress of soldiers who have returned from battle. They are painting this killer as the victim, they are trying to make mim a sympathetic figure. I can tell you what motivated him, he is a terrorist.

  He was acting alone, there was no al Qaeda plot, but does that make this any less of a terrorist act? I don’t think so.

  I understand that now that Barack Obama is president the threat of terrorism is supposed to be gone. We are supposed to live in a world of hearts and flowers, sitting by the campfire singing Kumbaya, but that is not the reality. The reality is that there are still people out there who want to do America and Americans harm and this is proof.

  It will be interesting to see how the investigation and prosecution of Hasan goes. Surely the president wants to downplay the fact that a terrorist attack happened on American soil on his watch, and perhaps the FBI was handcuffed in their investigation of Hasan before the deadly rampage by the administration for politically correct motives. One thing is certain, Hasan will be tried in civilian court for murder and not for committing a terrorist act, but that does not diminish the fact that Hasan is a terrorist and should be tried and hanged as one.

  If we have come to the point in America where we have to pussyfoot around the notion of terrorism, if we have come to the point in America where we can no longer call a terrorist act what it is, we have already lost.