MCCAIN: SHOUTING ‘ALLAHU AKHBAR!’ SAME AS CHRISTIANS SHOUTING ‘THANK GOD!’

MCCAIN: SHOUTING ‘ALLAHU AKHBAR!’ SAME AS CHRISTIANS SHOUTING ‘THANK GOD!’

 730
 6
 1510

Email Article

Print ArticleSend a Tip

by BEN SHAPIRO 3 Sep 2013, 7:00 AM PDT 1248POST A COMMENT

On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) suggested that Fox News host Brian Kilmeade was Islamaphobic because he said that Syrian opposition groups shouting “Allahu Akhbar! Allahu Akhbar!” as rockets hit government offices demonstrated Islamist influence among the opposition.

“I have a problem helping those people screaming that after a hit,” Kilmeade said. McCain responded: “Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying ‘thank God? Thank God?’” He added, “That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.” McCain provided no evidence to suggest that Syrian opposition groups are moderate, as opposed to the wide swath of evidence suggesting that the opposition is heavily infested with al Qaeda.
Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New

The Fort Hood attack was terrorism. The Army should call it that.

The Fort Hood attack was terrorism. The Army should call it that.

Brigitte Woosley/AP – In this courtroom sketch, military prosecutor Col. Steve Henricks, right, speaks as Nidal Malik Hasan, center, and presiding judge Col. Tara Osborn look on during Hasan’s court-martial Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2013, in Forth Hood, Texas. Hasan is representing himself against charges of murder and attempted murder for the 2009 attack that left 13 people dead at Forth Hood. (AP Photo/Brigitte Woosley)

By Shawn Manning, Published: August 7

Shawn Manning is a retired U.S. Army staff sergeant and mental health counselor who lives in Lacey, Wash.

In November 2009, my Army Reserve Medical Detachment reported to Fort Hood, Tex., in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan. As we waited in line at the base’s processing center, Maj. Nidal Hasan entered the building and fired rounds that would kill 13 people and an unborn child and wound 32 others, including me. After many setbacks, Hasan’s trial finally began this week, only to be delayed yet again on Wednesday.

My recovery has been long and agonizing. But the pain that has taken me by surprise has come in the nearly four years since the attack, as my fellow victims and I have been given the runaround by a government more eager to protect itself than the dead and wounded.

Gallery

Court-martial of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan: Trial begins for the U.S. Army psychiatrist accused of a November 2009 mass shooting at the Army post in Fort Hood, Tex.

 On the day of the attack, I was waiting for a medical exam before what would have been my third deployment overseas. I was texting my wife when I heard the shout of “Allahu Akbar!”
I looked up to see a man in Army fatigues firing a pistol. His fourth or fifth shot went into my chest. As screams broke out around me, I collapsed to the ground. The bullet had punctured my lung and I was gasping for breath. As I lay there, he shot me five more times in my back and legs. Eventually soldiers helped me get medical attention.The bullets had narrowly missed my heart, but one had lodged in my liver. I still have two bullets in my body and deal with near-constant pain in my legs and back.During my recovery, I learned that the Army had classified the shooting as nonpolitical workplace violence instead of aterrorist attack. The language used to describe the attack may seem meaningless, but it is very meaningful to the victims and their families.Because the Army decided that our wounds were not “combat-related,” a number ofbenefits are being denied to the victims and their families, including certain health and disability ones. In some instances, the designation even resulted in victims receiving smaller salaries than we would have received during our deployment. As a reservist, I was making roughly $2,000 per month less than I would have in my private-sector job. The Army would have made up that difference had I been on deployment orders or had my injuries classified as combat-related.

Unfortunately, I am not alone in my experience. I have watched other victims and their families be denied disability benefits and treated indifferently by the Army. This has left many families suffering not just physical and emotional wounds, but financial ones as well. Though the Army claims that the survivors of the Fort Hood attack are eligible for the same medical benefits as any service member, we are not getting the same treatment as soldiers wounded in combat. That is part of the reason we have brought a lawsuit against the government.

But it would be a mistake to think that the terrorism designation is just about benefits. It is also about the government acknowledging its complicity in the attack.

Before the shooting, the Army knew that the gunman was an Islamic religious extremist. After the attack, a bipartisan Senate report concluded that the Defense Department had evidence that “Hasan embraced views so extreme that it should have disciplined him or discharged him from the military, but DoD failed to take action against him.”

The FBI knew that Hasan was e-mailing with known terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki, asking questions about religious martyrdom and expressing support for Awlaki’s terrorist tactics. It did nothing.

The Army also knew that Hasan was an incompetent psychiatrist who repeatedly neglected his duties. Yet instead of investigating, disciplining or discharging him, they transferred him to my medical detachment for deployment to Afghanistan.

Congress has labeled the Fort Hood attack an act of terrorism. In the wake of the attack, anindependent report commissioned by the FBI looked at ways to improve counterterrorism measures. Even the president said the attack was inspired by “larger notions of violent jihad.” The only entities that have stubbornly refused to call it an act of terrorism are the Army and the Pentagon. Unfortunately for those wounded in the attack, their opinions are the ones that most affect us.

Hasan’s conviction would represent one step on the path toward justice. But that journey won’t be complete until the government tells the truth about the attack, provides proper support for its victims and takes measures to ensure that these mistakes won’t happen again.

Fort Hood Hero Says President Obama ‘Betrayed’ Her, Other Victims

 

Fort Hood Hero Says President Obama ‘Betrayed’ Her, Other Victims

PHOTO: First lady Michelle Obama stands with Kimberly Munley of Killeen, Texas, and Mark Todd of Killeen, Texas, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 27, 2010, prior to the start of President Barack Obama's State of the Union address.
By NED BERKOWITZ and BRIAN ROSS (@brianross)
Feb. 12, 2013

Three years after the White House arranged a hero’s welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

“Betrayed is a good word,” former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on “World News with Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline.”

“Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of,” she said. “In fact they’ve been neglected.”

There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley’s allegations.

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder.

 

 

Munley, since laid off from her job with the base’s civilian police force, was shot three times as she and her partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, confronted Hasan, who witnesses said had shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire on soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan.

As Munley lay wounded, Todd fired the five bullets credited with bringing Hasan down.

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as “workplace violence” instead of “combat related” or terrorism.

 

Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the “workplace violence” designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as “combat related.”

 

Some of the victims “had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment” and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group’s lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.

“There’s a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case,” said Rubinstein. “We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers’ command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn’t so bad, it wasn’t combat.”

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said the Department of Defense is “committed to the highest care of those in our military family.”

“Survivors of the incident at Fort Hood are eligible for the same medical benefits as all servicemembers,” said Little. “The Department of Defense is also committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nidal Hasan and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident.”

Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the plight of many of them.

“If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it on a case by case basis,” McHugh told ABC News. “It is not our intent to have two levels of care for people who are wounded by whatever means in uniform.”

Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.

 

Mario’s note:

Sometimes there is no positive side to a story.  We should be outraged that our president takes a view of Radical Islam that allows him to sacrifice soldiers and diplomats alike. This monster roved freely on a government base and was not dealt with because of the tone of the president on Islam. Period.