It's looks more and more like the Fort Hood assassin had at the very least radical Muslim beliefs, if not connections to known terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. The Washington Post reports that Nidal M. Hasan "lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan." In addition,
Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]
The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"
Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!"
Hasan had ties to a radical Muslim cleric.
He would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. How does someone like that take an oath of office?
The media is slowly picking up these [uncomfortable] facts, mainly because they just have to. But as we've seen, everything was considered immediately -- except the possibility of radical Muslim terrorism. And the leftist cult of diversity/multi-culti nonsense is even leading some highers-up in the military to make asinine statements like this: “And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse.” As David Brooks says, it was a "rush to therapy" and ignoring some quite obvious [other] clues.
Like our local Left -- which is perpetually in such a rush to connect any sort of right-winger who commits an atrocity with talk radio, Fox News pundits, anti-abortion protestors, and those who believe in the 10th Amendment -- but then ties itself into pretzels seeking some sort of explanation for Hasan's crime.
Upon reflection, this is not unlike the Left's rapidity to trash rightist dictators (think Augusto Pinochet, Fernando Marcos, Anastasio Somoza, etc.) but outright refusal to criticize thugs like Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega (80s version), the Salvadoran FMLN, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Mao ... even though there's essentially little difference between authoritarian strongmen on the right or left.
And yes, many on the Right would excuse rightist dictators as a bulwark to communism. I'd like to think that I'm different in that regard. I think the past US interventions in the affairs of Arbenz (Guatemala) and Allende (Chile) were disgraces, to name but two. But more currently, the tendency on the Left is to indict virtually all things conservative for any sort of rightist violence, while looking elsewhere (despite obvious clues) for explanations for violence committed by so-called "protected" groups. Or, making excuses for them. On the other hand, when the evidence is clear, [most] conservatives do not do so in an opposite situation.
Hans Bader has a great article up on how "diversity obsession" played a role in the Hasan case.