The latest award for the most absurd headline dealing with the Fort Hood attack has to go to the Financial Times for: “Anti-Muslim bias eyed in Fort Hood Attack.” The byline is attributed to Harvey Morris, who writes:
Who is “eyeing” anti-Muslim bias? No evidence has surfaced indicating that “anti-Muslim bias” led Nidal Malik Hasan to kill 13 of his fellow Americans. There is every indication that Hasan is an avowed jihadist who believes it is permissible to kill the infidels. We also know that he communicated, repeatedly, with a known al Qaeda cleric who encourages such attacks and preaches the same. Yet, the Financial Times ran this article as if it had something legitimate to say about the Fort Hood shootings. It doesn’t. Notice that the part about the shooting possibly being a “deliberate terrorist attack” comes only after the author warns readers that debate has taken on a “political hue.” Yeah, that’s it: people are calling Hasan a terrorist because it fits some political agenda and not because, you know, he said his ideology made the killing of infidels permissible. People actually believe this nonsense. The degree to which Western and American elites, particularly inside the media and even our law enforcement agencies, are confused by the Fort Hood shootings demonstrates just how little they actually understand what is going on in the world. For example, on Tuesday the Washington Post simultaneously linked to Hasan’s June 2007 jihadist presentation and published an article saying that federal investigators were still searching for a motive. It’s called jihad. Look it up.
