They Want Us to Know

Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hassan has reportedly renounced his U.S. citizenship, in documents acquired by Fox News:

The renunciation of U.S. citizenship is contained in a handwritten note dated Oct. 18, 2012, Fox News reported. A typewritten note that does not have a date says it is not “permissible” for someone to prefer American democracy over traditional Islamic Sharia law, the network also reported. Hasan wrote that Muslims should not “compromise their beliefs” for the sake of non-Muslims.

Hassan also said that the U.S. Government, “openly acknowledges that it would hate for the law of Almighty Allah to be the supreme law of the land”, and that this position constituted a war on Islam.

Right there, Nidal Hassan has said openly, in plain English, everything you need to know to understand the enemy’s motivations. Obviously a great deal of information can be extracted by drilling down into the Shariah and learning more about this “supreme law” that drives the behavior of killers like Hassan, but the fundamentals have been laid bare.  He is literally screaming his motivations at us, and yet we seem to wish to refuse to hear.

There is this idea that to understand the enemy mindset you have to have a PHD in three different fields, and have once done an anthropological study abroad in the Hindu Kush where you helped the clan leader’s pre-teen wife give birth to her third daughter.

That’s all nonsense.  Nidal Hasan wants you to know why he did what he did. He is, in fact obligated, under his own set of beliefs, to explain it to you. And Hassan isn’t even unique. All  jihadis say the same things when brought forward to trial. And not surprisingly, because they are quoting from the same books of doctrine. It’s so simple, even children can be taught it.

And they are taught it.

Listening when someone talks to you isn’t “islamophobia”. It isn’t bigotry. In fact its the opposite. It’s the ivory tower multicultural types who insist that, only after taking in the requisite three cups of tea, and running Hasan’s statements through their post-modern models and sociological theorems, can they finally compute that Hasan’s actual motivations are whatever some Western intellectual says they are.

Thanks but I think I’ll take Hasan’s word for it.