Friday, February 26, 2010

A senseless act of violence?

 

clip_image002

We all remember last June when President Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia. But I’m wondering how many Americans remember, or know why and the reason that he went to Saudi Arabia. It was because as Obama said his self: "It was very important to come to the place where Islam began and seek his majesty's counsel". Wow! That says it all right there! Instead of seeking, as he put it, the counsel[i] of his majesty[ii] most Americans would have rather heard talk about visiting the places where our brave soldiers and civilians were killed and maimed right here in our own country rather than visiting "the place where Islam began," The president of the United States should have gone to the place where Islam had just ended the life of a U.S. soldier, like the Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas or Fort Hood Texas. That is my point. He should have turned the terrorist attacks in this country into an opportunity to declare in a major address to the nation and to the world that the era of jihad[iii] against America and her allies was over. Instead, he journeyed to lands where jihad is a sacred institution, and in Cairo made another speech entirely, boosting and even preaching on behalf of Islam. His only comment was to call these Muslim Terrorist attacks in America , after the fact, "a senseless[iv] act of violence."  Mr. President these acts of terrorism were not senseless! They were pre meditated acts of terrorism that had a purpose and a meaning behind them.

These were an act of jihad, and all the soldiers that have fell in this country because of Muslim terrorist, along with the fallen and wounded at Fort Hood, should receive the Purple Hearts they deserve even though their blood was lost in this country. Muhammad himself has made his jihadist objective against the U.S. military very clear, starting first with his statement to police, and later in phone calls to the Associated Press from Pulaski County jail. The Associated Press quoted Muhammad as calling the attack "a act, for the sake of God, for the sake of Allah, the Lord of all the world, and also a retaliation on U.S. military." He wasn't guilty of murder, he said, "because murder is when a person kills another person without justified reason." Such a explanation is in line with Islamic law, which permits the killing of "non-Muslims at war with Muslims." Muhammad told the Associated Press he wanted revenge against the U.S. military for its offenses against Muslims and the Koran.

But The “Politically Correct” lead prosecutor has told the New York Times last week that his team, as the paper put it, "considers, the attack, a simple murder case and that they intend to try it without looking into Mr. Muhammad's religious conversion, political beliefs or possible ties to terrorists. 'When you strip away what he says, self-serving or not, it's just an awful killing,' said Larry Jegley (The lead prosecutor) 'It's like “a lot” of other killings we have."

It is? Boy, what turnip truck did this guy fall off of? Here is my question: Did "A LOT" of middle-class people who were charged with murder in Pulaski County convert to Islam in 2004 and worship at an Ohio mosque used over and over again by convicted terrorists in 2005 and 2006? Did "A LOT" of them travel to Yemen in 2007 where, ABC News reported, " that Muhammad attended the Damaj Institute, That is an Islamic institute attended by a number of radicalized U.S. converts (including) John Walker Lindh? Do "A LOT" get themselves arrested for overstaying their visa in Yemen, and having in their possession a fake Somali passport? Do "A LOT" finally get deported back to the States in 2008? Do "A LOT" fire on U.S. soldiers at a military recruiting center in our own country? The answer for the ones who are politically correct and the others whole fell off the turnip truck somewhere down the road is NO?

We can only say that by the prosecutor's incomprehensible and troubling decision to pursue a strategy that does not show a terrorist intent in this murder trial is just another way of being "Politically Correct". Muhammad himself a short time ago wrote to the judge saying he was running into legal problems to changing his plea to guilty. He has acknowledged and admits an affiliation with al-Qaida as a member of "Abu Basir's Army," Muhammad further pointed out that the incident was a "Jihadi Attack. He said it was warranted and right according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. He was saying that it is his belief that it is okay to use Jihad To fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims."

This was an act of war against the United States and should be treated as such. Especially for the sake of the fallen soldiers and other heroes. This is no time for the prosecutor to be politically correct.


[i] somebody whose advice is sought or who acts as an official adviser, to advise somebody on a particular course of action

[ii] supreme authority and power,

[iii] a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against people, organizations, or countries regarded as hostile to Islam

[iv] apparently or really without purpose or meaning

Post a Comment