About Me

Name: Daemonocracy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Hasan attended the same Mosque as the 9/11 Hijackers

I just read on Hotair.com that according to The Telegraph of the UK, it looks like Hasan attended the same Mosque as the 9/11 hijackers and he had great respect for the radical Imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who preached there.
 
Lets go through this together now: while shooting soldiers at Fort Hood he cried out "Allahu Akbar", the shooting was pre-meditated, he wrote extremist comments on the web defending suicide bombers, considered U.S. forces the enemy in the War on Terror and now we learn he was a fan of Anwar al-Awlaki.  Yet the media is still questioning this man's motive and leaning towards PTSD even though he was never deployed.  Barak Obama still believes that we "cannot fully know" the motive of Hasan.  Apparently there is a crack smoking epidemic in this country I just became aware of.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PRE Traumatic Stress Disorder?

   How ridiculous is the media spin?  Well how ridiculous is the idea of Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder?  Second hand Traumatic Stress Disorder?  Contagious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) where a Psychiatrist suffers from the symptons vicariously through his patient?  All of these rationalizations are seriously being talked about in the media regarding the Massacre at Fort Hood on November 5th.  How they say it with a straight face is beyond me but let's just be clear for one moment, what Malik Nidal Hasan did was not simply the actions of a murderous sociopath but the work of an Islamic Fundamentalist.  This was a Domestic Terrorist attack fueled by his fanatical interpretation of Islam and not some nervous breakdown.
 
   I suppose the media and even our own Law Enforcement agencies (the FBI ruled out questions of terrorism only hours after the attack) find this too politically incorrect to even discuss but it certainly is on the minds of most clear thinking Americans.  We understand that had this man's name been something more innocuous such as Bubba Jones and he screamed anti government, anti minority phrases while firing away, he would instantly have been labeled a terrorist just as the white supremacist Timothy McVeigh rightfully was in 1996.  Perhaps the media is too cowardly to tackle the issue of this man's religion or perhaps they don't consider targeting our troops, even on our soil, as a terrorist attack as opposed to civilians but the spin and misinformation they are force feeding us is just criminal. 
 
   President Barak Obama, in his second speech on the matter after his first speech began with two minutes of "shout outs" and jokes, lectures Americans not to jump to conclusions (as he did with the Cambridge police not too long ago?).  I suppose it is ok for the media to jump to conclusions about stress caused by bigotry within the military or second hand PTSD theories but it is completely out of line for us to ask what seem like perfectly reasonable questions about whether this was a terrorist attack by an Islamist or not.  I mean, there is certainly evidence to suggest just this:
 
- Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he gunned down American soldiers
 
- This was premeditated, the weapons were acquired ahead of time, he moved out of his apartment and gave away his remaining on hand cash
 
- Made repeated statements against the the War on Terrorism
 
- As a psychiatrist at Walter Reed he argued with his patients who were actually suffering from PTSD against the war
 
- Made statements that the Islamists have a right to "kill the infidels" and "rise up against American aggressors"
 
- Made radical blog comments, which the FBI was aware of (!), where he compared a suicide bomber to an American soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers.  He called the suicide bomber a "brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause".
 
   Now maybe all of this evidence will end up being unsubstatiated (doubtful) but it certainly has more credibility than blaming the military for driving Hasan to murder 12 of his fellow soldiers or the absurd theory that PTSD is somehow contagious and drove him mad.  This man is not the victim here and this attack is more than just some nut cracking.  If you do not believe this was a terrorist attack by a fanatical Muslim, that is fine, but the questions should still be asked by both Law Enforcement and the media.  Why aren't we asking these questions?  Has Political Correctness blinded us so badly that we don't dare take on Enemies of the State anymore?  Perhaps Obama is too busy attacking Fox News to be bothered with this and the media is too busy attacking the "teabaggers" but it looks like we just had our second terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11 and very few are asking the right questions.  How much of  a fanatic was Hasan?  What was the connection of his religion to the attack?  Why was he promoted on a regular basis with such a spotty track record?  Why didn't the military or the FBI do something when his radical opinions as expressed on the web were known to them?  Are there others like him in our armed forces?  Is political correctness the reason he was allowed to slide to by?
 
   Word of note:  Just because the man is Muslim does not mean Muslim American soldiers can not be trusted.  However, we are at war with Muslim fanaticism and ignoring this man's religion and painting him as the victim is a disservice to the dead as well as to patriotic Muslim Americans who have nothing to do with fanatics like Hasan.  Simply sweeping this under the rug will frustrate many Americans and could do more harm to the Muslim community than good, especially with the director of CAIR (the most visible Muslim rights group) clinging to the stress excuse and predictably denying any link to Hasan's religion and his terrorism (what Muslim terrorists?).  The Political Correctness of the military and the media as well as the dishonesty of the slime at CAIR are weakening our Homeland Security while doing nothing positive for the Muslim community in America.
 
   Just because you are afraid of the answers does not mean you should not ask the obvious questions.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin ABC Interview Day 1

Overall I thought the interview was decent.  Sarah Palin did look nervous, at least compared to her composure at other events.  She also looked nervous in the beginning of her convention speech but grew more comfortable as time went on.  I sensed this same increase in comfort level as the interview went on.  This is a big interview for her and she is a newcomer but it seems like she was easing up as she realized Charlie Gibson is just some dolt in a sweater vest.  I liked how She pushed back when Gibson was sweeping aside her emphasis on the importance of a leaders will to reform government.

I thought her answer as to whether she was ready to be Vice President was well worded, but her body language suggested nervousness and may lead some to believe there are conflicting messages there.  Her line about "not blinking" was well delivered however and impressed me personally.  His accusation of Hubris was a bit of a cheap shot but she handled it well.

Her emphasis on energy, an area of obvious expertise for her, strengthened her image when it comes to foreign policy.  Whatever lack of knowledge she may have in other areas, energy and American dependence on foreign oil is absolutely one of the most important aspects of foreign policy and national security.  Charlie Gibson seemed like he tried to brush this aside but she pressed back and good for her, energy is directly related to alot of the vulnerabilities America has to hostile regimes.  Sorry Gibson, it's not climate change. 

Her response to Israel was a disciplined response.  When talking about a potential nuclear war, you need to stick to a rigid stance and not say anything during a campaign which could ignite further tensions.  Gibson pressed her on this, she stood strong.

Gibson pressed her hard on Pakistan and again, she was disciplined in her answer.  She can't say too much on such a fragile issue.  She didn't take any options off the table but did not give anything away either.  Good answer, though Gibson seemed unsatisfied he couldn't bait her into contradicting McCains stance on not invading our ally.

Her remarks about defending Georgia against Russia are already being taken out of context by blogs.  Ukraine and Georgia should be in NATO, that is her stance and under Article V of the NATO treaty if any member is attacked the others must come to its defense.  Putting countries like Georgia and Ukraine in NATO would be meant to deter Russia from reasserting their influence over them.  If Russia did attack one of the countries and a war started as a reult, that would be Russias fault.  In no way was Sarah Palin war mongering or suggesting we should invade Russia.  Perhaps some people just don't know exactly how NATO works or how dangerous Putin is.

The Bush Doctrine question will most likely be the one the blogs pick up on but I saw it as a gotcha question.  I follow politics and world affairs pretty closely and I didn't even know what the Bush doctrine was exactly.  I thought it had to do with zero tolerance for nations who harbored terrorists but Gibson is under the belief it is a promotion of pre-emptive strikes and war.  He could have just told her that when she first asked, but he went for the gotcha moment.  He wasn't looking for a true answer at that point and came across rather condescending.  I personally don't think it was a big deal, i doubt the regular voter will give a damn, she gave her answer and the real issue here is how she would approach foreign policy.

The question about her statements in church about Gods Will was misleading.  They cut out what she said and made her sound like some kind of holy warrior, a term Gibson even referred to which was unfair I thought.  She explained herself well, especially with the reference to Lincoln but Gibson seemed relentless in trying to get her to admit that God said to her in a dream that we must go around invading countries.  He was looking for another Gotcha moment.  I believe he failed, especially since he took her original words completely out of context.  Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan and so many other leaders have referenced God's will in a similar way, that God is not on our side but that we be on Gods side.

her exact words were:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

I got the impression that Charlie Gibson was a professor giving an oral exam to a student he expected to fail.  He came across as condescending and smug.  Palin did look initially nervous but seemed to ease up as the interview went on, I look forward to the next two parts.  Overall Gibson gave a decent interview, I want Palin to face tough interviews, but his attitude and dishonest and inaccurate mis-quote of her speech in church gave hints of a hatchet job.  Tough but fair is what I want.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Media treatment of Sarah Palin is a disgrace

originally posted 09/03/08 on Politco
 

The media treatment of Sarah Palin is disgusting and Jonathan Martin and the rest of the Politico team is just as clueless as the rest.

There are no "tough questions" being asked, as Jonathan Martin put it, just smears from the Daily Kos.  These smears have been framed as questions by the mainstream media which shows who they now get their marching orders from.

Asking if her Down Syndrome baby is actually hers is not a "tough question".  It's a smear.

Asking how she could "subject her daughter to such scrutiny" by accepting the VP nomination, as Campbell Brown did, is not a tough question but a smear. 

Asking how she can expect to "juggle" her work with her family is not a tough question but a smear.

asking if she's a "hypocrite" because her abstinence only stance "failed' is not a question, it's yet another smear.  (and this stance still isn't clear considering there is evidence she has supported mandatory contraception education)

These smears are phrased as loaded questions and you hear and see this crap all over the media.  The media ignored John Edwards until the National Enquirer broke the story, and they ignored Rev. Wright until Fox News broke the story, but they are all over a Down Syndrome baby and a pregnant 17 year old girl.  Even Obama himself has denounced these questions considering his own mother was 18 when she had him.  Though perhaps there is some nut on his staff encouraging these smears but the media would never look into that.

Joe Bidens son is a shady Lobbyist but not a peep from the media.  And who the hell is CNN anchor Campbell Brown to question the parenting of Sarah Palin because she accepted the VP job?  It is vultures like Brown and the rest of the media who are making Bristol a national issue, not Sarah.

Why is no media reporter asking Obama how he or his full time employed wife expect to juggle their two young children with the Presidency?  What about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her 5 children?

How is Sarah Palin a hypocrite?  She's not the one who got pregnant, she stuck to her pro life values and she is giving her daughter her full support, as are social conservatives everywhere.  It is the media who are the hypocrites here, or maybe their goal is to shame young unmarried pregnant girls into having abortions?

The media coverage, Politicos own coverage and the comments from all these leftist keyboard warriors is truly sickening.  There are plenty of questions to be asked about Sarah Palin, but lay off the kid.  You're just using her as an excuse to attack a value system and a candidate you don't agree with.

Objectivity is dead.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »