A hard-hitting piece in the New York Post has the headline, Call this horror by its name: Islamist terror.
It concerns Nidal Malik Hasan, the radicalised Islamist army officer who last week went on the rampage at Fort Hood, killing and wounding several fellow army personnel.
Ralph Peters, writing in the Post, says no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam:
What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.
This was a terrorist act [his emphasis]. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.
When the terrorist posts anti-American hate speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as “Palestinian” in a Muslim spouse-matching program and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit – well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an “Islamist terrorist.”
But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as “Islamist terrorism” in ObamaWorld.
There were a lot of warning signs, says Peters, and it’s “appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy”.