Well, we knew it was coming. Some of us, anyway. And those trifling PC twits who didn’t anticipate Ft Hood should have, and would have if they had any connection to reality whatsoever. After all, a “devout” (read: “radical”) Muslim attacking, or planning to attack, US soldiers on US soil is hardly unprecedented:

Sgt. Akbar is not the only MSWA — Muslim soldier with attitude — suspected of infiltrating our military, endangering our troops and undermining national security:

– Ali A. Mohamed. Mohamed, a major in the Egyptian army, immigrated to the U.S. in 1986 and joined the U.S. Army while a resident alien. This despite being on a State Department terrorist watch list before securing his visa. An avowed Islamist, he taught classes on Muslim culture to U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg, N.C., and obtained classified military documents. He was granted U.S. citizenship over the objections of the CIA.

– Semi Osman. An ethnic Lebanese born in Sierra Leone and a Seattle-based Muslim cleric, Osman served in a naval reserve fueling unit based in Tacoma, Wash. He had access to fuel trucks similar to the type used by al Qaeda in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, which killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded nearly 400 other Americans.

Osman was arrested last May as part of a federal investigation into the establishment of a terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon. Osman recently pleaded guilty to a weapons violation, and the feds dropped immigration charges against him in exchange for his testimony.

– John Muhammad. The accused Beltway sniper and Muslim convert was a member of the Army’s 84th Engineering Company. In an eerie parallel to the Akbar case, Muhammad is suspected of throwing a thermite grenade into a tent housing 16 of his fellow soldiers as they slept before the ground-attack phase of Gulf War I in 1991. Muhammad’s superior, Sgt. Kip Berentson, told both Newsweek and The Seattle Times that he immediately suspected Muhammad, who was “trouble from day one.”

– Jeffrey Leon Battle. A former Army reservist, Battle was indicted in October 2002 for conspiring to levy war against the United States and “enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America.” According to the Justice Department, he planned to wage war against American soldiers in Afghanistan.

Muslim US soldier Hasan Abujihaad was convicted last year on espionage and material terrorism support charges
after serving aboard the USS Benfold and sharing classified info with al Qaeda financiers, including movements of US ships just six months after al Qaeda operatives had killed 17 Americans aboard the USS Cole in the port of Yemen.

“It’s bad enough we have to worry about enemy forces, but now we have to worry about our own guys,” Spc. Autumn Simmer told the Los Angeles Times this week after the assault on the 101st Airborne.

If they’re “devout” Muslims you damned sure do, yeah.

As I said, we knew it was coming, just like we knew something along the lines of 9/11 was coming, after years of unanswered attacks and empty pledges from Clinton to make sure those responsible were “punished.” The only truly shocking thing about the 9/11 attack was the monumental scale of its success. And that could only be shocking to people who don’t understand how completely helpless a culture enfeebled by liberal self-contempt and political correctness is. A perfect — and perfectly sordid — example, among way too damned many, is the excrescence Little Chrissy Matthews’ complete bafflement at what could possibly have motivated the Muslim fanatic Hasan to betray his enlistment oath, his country, his fellow soldiers, and his very humanity:

…here’s what we’ve got so far, according to eyewitnesses, colleagues, and friends. He considered the war on terror a “war on Islam” and himself a Muslim first and an American second; he thought Muslims had the right to stand up to the “aggressor” in the Middle East and is suspected of posting things online about the selfless heroism of jihadist suicide bombers; he was placed on probation for proselytizing about Islam to patients and colleagues and was sufficiently devout that he refused to have his picture taken with women; he once used a lecture at a medical conference as an opportunity to discuss how the Koran orders decapitation for infidels; and, oh yes, he yelled “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire.

Now, per the media’s favored Narrative, could a guy with that background have somehow compartmentalized that in his mind and been driven to kill entirely by pre-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD by proxy or whatever? I guess. Anything’s possible. But would the same benefit of the doubt be given to a nut trending towards fanaticism of a different ideological hue? Like I said yesterday on Twitter: You’ll know it’s okay to start speculating about Hasan’s motives when cops find a Glenn Beck book on his bookshelf. In fact, if the same “PTSD by proxy” elements had been present in Hasan’s bio but it turned out he’d attended a tea party or two, we’d already be well into hour 30 of a full-on media speculation orgy. The nutroots needed less time than that to pronounce conservatism collectively guilty of murder in the case of that hanged census worker, even though, as it turns out, he probably wasn’t murdered. But then, we’ve been over this ground before. For now, let’s simply look forward to this Sunday’s New York Times op-ed page, as Krugman and Rich and the rest of the gang who see murderers in every angry conservative face warn us how vicious it is to assume the worst about people because of one bad apple.

Bottom line: most liberals of the Matthews/Krugman stripe are stupid, and they’re cowards. They’re simply too dumb to see what’s right in front of their noses — or being screamed at them from the fabled Arab Street — and they’re too cowardly to confront any but the most harmless of enemies. They know very well that no Tea Partier is going to come to their house and shoot them. They know no “Christianist” (in the preening lunatic Sullivan’s formulation) is going to blow himself up in a crowded restaurant during the lunch rush. They know that, no matter how many obnoxious and ignorant insults or sexual innuendos smug liberals throw at them, no anti-Almighty State protester is likely to snatch them off the street, drive them to an abandoned warehouse somewhere, and behead them with a kitchen knife — while their confreres videotape their hideous screaming death, and then hand the tape over to a sympathetic media establishment in Egypt or someplace for the edification of howling baboons in Palestine and throughout the Muslim world.

But they also know that they don’t dare so much as speculate about fundie Islam’s obvious responsibility for literally tens of thousands of grotesque atrocities — because they know what it might get them, and they’re afraid. So, being stupid and cowardly, they acquiesce and appease — thereby guaranteeing that there will be more such atrocities, for just as long as we refuse to do anything other than strain our necks looking away from the root cause of them.

Fear is not an unreasonable response to the sort of murderous zealotry created by fundamentalist Islam, certainly — especially not when that zealotry is acted on so often and so savagely by its halfwit adherents. But fear is not cowardice; what we might call the Matthewsian reflex is. As for the risible and scurrilous charge so frequently leveled by demented poltroons like Sullivan, that “Christianists” are just as bad — or even comparable at all – well, try this on for size:

The answer lies in the fact that such observations confuse history and theology by conflating the temporal actions of men with what are understood to be the immutable words of God. The fundamental error is that Judeo-Christian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theology—which commands violence. Of course, the three major monotheistic religions have all had their share of violence and intolerance towards the “other.” Whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike men merely wished it thus is the key question.

Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. God clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that—history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law. In short, biblical accounts of violence are descriptive, not prescriptive.

This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Old Testament—commanded by God and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence and intolerance have become standardized in Islamic law and apply at all times. Thus, while the violence found in the Qur’an has a historical context, its ultimate significance is theological.

In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur’anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam’s learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter.

Can there be a decent Islam? Yes, and the example provided by Muslim soldiers in the US armed forces and the moderation of core Islamic beliefs implicit in their record of honorable service establishes that well enough. Can there be a decent fundamentalist Islam? Emphatically, no. Its every tenet and doctrine is despicably anti-human, anti-decency, and anti-civilization. It is barbaric, and implacably so. It cannot be reconciled with freedom, tolerance, or modernity. It is a scourge, a blight, a chancre on the face of humanity. It must be resisted, if not wiped out.

I started this website in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. It is called what it is not only because of my gut reaction of rage against the psychotic killers who attacked my country and the glee with which their abominable act was met throughout the Muslim world, but also because I knew what would soon follow: a dismal wave of self-flagellation and blame-shifting from liberals who, as they always do, find it much easier to attack their countrymen than their country’s enemies, secure in the knowledge that the targets of their self-righteous ire will never do anything more horrific to them than refute their arguments verbally — which, to a stupid liberal coward, is frightful enough, thanks.

Within days, with the ruins in lower Manhattan still spewing plumes of ghastly smoke and many of the dead not just unburied but uncounted, my disgusted expectation was confirmed, as stupid, cowardly liberal cretins crawled trembling from their noisome holes to point the finger of blame not at the perpetrators or the toxic ideology behind the attack, but at its victims — and to mindlessly demand that America’s response be not righteous vengeance but shamefaced contrition, and more of the same appeasement that brought on the relentless escalation in fundie Islam’s war with the West that was 9/11.

The only reason conservatives rallied behind President Bush after 9/11 was that he said all the right things, and refused to give in to the craven blandishments of stupid liberal cowards. Until that time, most real conservatives had little use for the man and his “compassionate conservatism.” But in the aftermath of the attacks, he said all the right things, promising swift and just retribution. And Americans’ disproportionately positive response to that generated a wave of good will that helped to forestall criticism of his eventual backpedaling from his dead-on description of an “axis of evil” waging open war on Western civilization.

How sad is it that an American President’s perfectly appropriate response to a heinous act of war was so unexpected, so extraordinary, as to cause a wave of relief and support among mainstream Americans that served to override perfectly legitimate concerns about his previous agenda and competence? How pathetic is it that now, nobody expects the Current Occupant to do anything but continue to afflict America and comfort its enemies?

But that’s where liberal stupidity and cowardice has brought us. It’s a sorry state of affairs, and it guarantees beyond contradiction that this latest Muslim terrorist attack on US soil, being far from the first, won’t be the last, either. And stupid liberal cowards will find themselves just as spuriously shocked by the next one as they have been by all the rest. Not only are such feckless fools wholly unfit to lead a great nation — they’re only barely fit to be tolerated as ignoble and parasitic residents of one.