As is seemingly tradition, the media is once again playing that classic game known as ‘How Can We Blame Bush?' It's the party favorite where liberals take the biggest headline of the day, and immediately link Bush to the cause in one fell swoop, eliminating all facets of rationale.
Now, syndicated columnist Gwynne Dyer has introduced his own version, something that is only surprising in the length of time it took for this kind of diatribe to crack the pages of the media: ‘Fort Hood = Bush's fault'.
In his latest column, Dyer makes the tired argument that it is the War on Terror which breeds Muslim resentment, and by extension, is an obvious explanation for the actions of Major Nidal Malik Hasan. It was President Bush who popularized the War on Terror phrase, delivering a speech shortly after the attacks of September 11th which would outline his future plans.
As Dyer states (emphasis mine):
The one explanation that is excluded is that America's wars in Muslim lands overseas are radicalizing Muslims at home.
Dyer's revisionist history also explains that the War on Terror itself was not in response to escalating attacks by jihadists - rather, it was part panic, part ignorance, and a heaping portion of racism.
(More after the break)
So why did the U.S. invade those countries? The real reasons are panic and ignorance, reinforced by militaristic reflexes and laced with liberal amounts of racism.
This incredible argument is nothing new - that U.S. foreign policy is somehow responsible for the murderous actions of deranged jihadists. An argument rooted in the same vein as a Jeremiah Wright, the only phrase missing from Dyer's piece being ‘chickens coming home to roost'. In essence, the 13 lives lost at Fort Hood were lost because of the actions of our government.
Saying that the War on Terror breeds Muslim resentment is in a word, absurd. Muslim resentment has been prevalent for quite some time, long before any tangible war had been waged. The U.S. was not engaged in a war prior to 9/11, when bloodshed was brought to our shores. Muslim fanatics on the other hand, were clearly already at war with America. It was certainly not Bush's war that contributed to the numerous terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. Not the bombing of the USS Cole, perpetrated by the Islamic fundamentalist group Al-Qaeda. Nor the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
It is rather stunning to sit here over eight years removed from 9/11, watching the media transform the story of that day from Americans being the victims, to Muslims being the victims; even when a Muslim commits 13 acts of cold and calculated murder in the name of God.
What Dyer fails to recognize, and what the main stream media has struggled mightily with since the War on Terror began, is that events such as this are not independent of the Muslim religion. They are, at least in part, because of extremists within the Muslim religion. Jihad, after all, is a religious term for ‘holy war'.
It is quite a simplistic attitude to believe that violence perpetrated by hard line Muslims is merely a response to American foreign policy. It is an excuse that Islamic fundamentalists want you to believe, and one which has flourished in the media. But it is nothing more than an excuse - one which avoids the harsh realities behind sharia law. Foreign policy, for example, does not enter the minds of those engaging in an epidemic of religious-based honor killings in the U.S.
The media would have you believe that the massacre at Fort Hood occurred because of every reason under the sun, other than the obvious. Hasan was a victim of taunts about his religion. He was stressed about his pending deployment. His car was keyed. His bumper stickers were removed. And now, according to Dyer, he is a product of U.S. aggression.
The problem here is that the media is far too frightened to admit the truth, preferring political correctness to an acceptance of reality. The reality being that there is a portion of the Muslim population which condones and supports violence, without reasonable justification. There is a jihad being waged upon our way of life. Hasan made himself a part of this holy war long before he shouted the phrase "Allahu Akbar!"
The media may not want to believe this, but it is true.
These religious fanatics kill over depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a cartoon. They kill when their daughter's become ‘too westernized'. They lob hand grenades at fellow soldiers while they sleep because of resentment. They behead their wives if they request a divorce.
Pointing this out however, will leave you marginalized in the media as bigoted and racist. Accusations which have actually helped to create this current climate of political correctness; political correctness which has now directly cost innocent American's their lives.
The war may be won when Muslim fanatics such as Nidal Malik Hasan can no longer threaten the safety of our people. More realistically though, it will be won when the media finally disavows the ideology of death to innocent Americans, and once again portrays the dead as the real victims.
No, it is not the War on Terror which has bred Muslim resentment and violence. It is radical Muslim terror which has brought us to this war.
Photo Credit: U.S. Government via Getty