If You Don’t Think the Fort Hood Massacre Was a Terrorist Attack then You’re an Idiot

Posted: Nov 22, 2009 12:00 AM

Author’s note: The original title of this column was going to be, “If You Don’t Think the Fort Hood Massacre Was a Terrorist Attack then You’re a Damn Fool,” but because I’m trying not to cuss as much I changed it to “You’re an Idiot.” Progress, sweet progress.

I was sitting in the Greensboro airport Thursday morning after a speaking engagement at UNC-Greensboro when a TV blaring CNN caught my attention. The talking head was reading the results of a survey CNN had conducted (with the smattering of viewers that have yet to defect to FOX) regarding how many believed the November 5th Fort Hood massacre (y’all remember that, don’t ‘cha?) was a terrorist attack and how many did not.

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE

Before the results rolled in, I was sitting there thinking, “Uh … it kinda looks like jihad to moi. It sure as heck wasn’t a tickle fight.” In addition I mused, “Hasan’s a Muslim, and he yelled ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as he strafed our unarmed troops. Hmmm. Maybe, oh maybe, this is an Islamic act of war. Sure as shizzle smells like it to me.” Yep, it’s pretty much along the lines of how these jihadists roll—namely, killing unarmed people—but then again, these assumptions that I bring to the table could just be me being “judgmental” again.

Anyway, of the few folks who still watch CNN, 47% of the respondents said “no, what Hasan the Dipstick did was not an act of terrorism,” while 45% of the CNN yodels said, “yes it was an act of terrorism,” which caused me to mutter over a mouthful of Dunkin Donuts, “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Half of these dimwits don’t think it was jihad-related? What?!? Then I remembered I was watching CNN. They have “special” viewers, the kind who believe Bertha Lewis and the L. A. Times are a fount of truth.

No matter what the bubble-headed brunette on CNN reported, no matter how the thought police explain this Muslim mook’s motives for mowing down our troops, no matter what some tweed jacket wearing, pipe smoking shrink says was rattlin’ around in Nidal’s noggin that caused him to snap like a weathered bungee cord with Rosie O’Donnell carabinered to the end, Hasan, for what it’s worth, said what he did was jihad.

Yes, one Nidal Malik Hasan was very loud and proud about the fact that he was cool with lighting up us infidels (I hope when he dies the 72 virgins awaiting him are all males who look like him, are hairier than Chewbacca, and sport violent, chronic halitosis).

Now, do you need a “for instance” that what Nidal did was ji-ji-jihad you deaf, dumb and blind CNN kids? You do? Well, yippee-ki-yay! Check this out, Spanky.

Islam expert Robert Spencer points out in a recent blog post—which the mange stream media is desperately trying to bury like a fresh ACORN video—that Hasan gave PowerPoint presentations during medical briefings in 2007 about how he wanted to kill Americans who wouldn’t bow and kiss Islam’s backside. In addition he threatened moderate Muslims who would not rain hellfire down upon us infidels with hell. Like I said, if you don’t believe it was jihad then you’re an idiot.

And what did we do about it? Nothing. Did Hasan’s higher ups warn us? Nope. What did Hasan do about it? Exactly what he said he would do. Should mute military officials who knew about this be in deep crap for saying nada? I kinda think so. But I digress.

My point for this column is this: We are so frickin’ gone as a country that an American Muslim major in our military can, during wartime, give PowerPoint presentations about how we need to die and then carry out his death threats. All the while jackasses on the left blame pre-traumatic, pre-tribulation, pre-menstrual low blood sugar syndrome as the root cause of why Hasan took his gun off safety and murdered our soldiers in the second biggest terrorist attack on our sacred soil since 9/11.

Hasan told us what he thought of Americans and why he did what he did. Why won’t we believe him? Could it mean that we can’t because if we did we’d have to out other Muslims in America? That we would have to look on radical profs in our universities with a fresh jaundiced eye? That perhaps, God forbid, we’d have to start profiling and monitoring mosques and—say it ain’t so—purge our military of Islamic sympathizers? Is the left’s silence on Hasan’s motives because they don’t want to eat a big ol’ chunk of crow pie regarding the Religion of Peace schlock they’ve been jamming up our tailpipe? Is that why we want Hasan’s motive to be anything other than that which he said it was—i.e. jihad?