Skip to content

Leap to conclusions when it benefits Islam, leap from them when it doesn’t

After  Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan shouted “Allahu akbar” (Allah is greatest) and massacred soldiers and support staff preparing for deployment at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009, President Barack Obama said, “We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”

In a matter of days, Americans would learn that Hasan’s adherence to the jihadist ideology clearly motivated his attack. But even though Hasan’s business card read “soldier of Allah” and he left a trail of openly jihadist evidence throughout his Army career, to this day the Obama administration refuses to identify radical Islam as a possible motivation.

Hasan’s massacre is classified as “workplace violence.”

Fast-forward to September 11, 2012, when a group of heavily-armed Islamists stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing four: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, State Dept. Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and two U.S. Marines, whose names were withheld pending notification of family.

After the attack, media and Washington were quick to point out – perhaps before knowing “all the answers” and having “all the facts” – that the group was motivated by an upcoming film depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad as a womanizer and barbarian.

Americans were murdered on American soil and Washington’s initial reaction was to sympathize with the murderers. Just imagine what the world will look like after four more years of Obama.

How can we know for sure that it was the movie that motivated the attacks? It’s worth noting that when the Muslims are portrayed (at least in part) as the victims, the media just go with it, and this time there is no “hold your horses” message from the president.

The terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia has reportedly taken credit, but terrorist groups routinely credit themselves for things they did not do.

Other considerations

The terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia has reportedly taken credit, but terrorist groups routinely credit themselves for things they did not do.

A Libyan government source told the Telegraph (UK) that groups loyal to the late ruler Muammar Gaddhafi were behind the attack.

It could be retaliation from the recent announcement that al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Abu Yahya al-Libi (a Libyan citizen), had been killed by a U.S. drone strike.

And regardless of who did it, let’s not lose sight of the psychological factor that another deadly terrorist attack against the United States on the anniversary of 9/11. Perhaps the date was far more of a factor than an upcoming movie. But if that were the case, then we would be the victims – and that just wouldn’t fit the narrative.

It seems that instead of following the evidence, we are to jump to or from conclusions based on how it will portray the “religion of peace.” But if this religion is so peaceful, why would a yet-to-be-released, little-known independent movie inspire them to murder Americans (who are there to help)?

Thanks to our evaporating human intelligence capabilities, the State Department apparently did not know the attack was coming. And although this consulate was bombed in June, and the British were just run out of their Benghazi office, security levels were still insufficient.

Photos of a mob carrying the dead ambassador through the streets – reminiscent of the “Blackhawk Down” incident in Somalia, 1993 – are now circulating on the Internet. But we are also told that the crowd was carrying the dead ambassador to the hospital.

If you come across the photos of the dead ambassador (I choose not to post them), see for yourself whether that looks to be the case.

It seems as if this administration, perpetually apologizing for America and placing Muslim engagement at the forefront of foreign policy, along with politically-correct allies in the media, are a bit too eager to sign on to this narrative.

The theory of Islamic terrorist groups offended by a movie may prove true. But to take the word of Washington and the media without critical thought requires, to borrow from Hillary Clinton, “a willing suspension of disbelief.”