Mark Mardell:

The alleged murderer was clearly a Muslim, but there is very little to suggest that he adhered to a hard-line interpretation of his religion or that he had political or religious motives.

Really? How about this, Mark?

A US officer who killed 13 soldiers in a gun rampage at a Texas army base shouted a triumphant Islamic proclamation before opening fire, it was claimed today.
Army spokesman Lieutenant General Bob Cone said witnesses heard Major Nidal Malik Hasan cry “Allahu Akbar” – Arabic for “God is great” – before opening fire at the Fort Hood complex.

And this?

He gave a Grand Rounds presentation. . . You take turns giving a lecture on, you know, the correct treatment of schizophrenia, the right drugs to prescribe for personality disorder, you know, that sort of thing. But instead of giving an academic paper, he gave a lecture on the Koran, and they said it didn’t seem to be just an informational lecture, but it seemed to be his own beliefs. That’s what a lot of people thought.

He talked about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire. And I said well couldn’t this just be his educating you? And the psychiatrist said yes, but one of the Muslims in the audience, another psychiatrist, raised his hand and was quite disturbed and he said you know, a lot of us don’t believe these things you’re saying, and that there was no place where Hasan couched it as this is what the Koran teaches but you know I don’t believe it. And people actually talked in the hallway afterwards about ‘is he one of these people that’s going to freak out and shoot people someday?’


“A source tells NPR’s Joseph Shapiro that Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, according to the source, who worked with him at the time.”

It’s not as if Mark Mardell hasn’t had time to read the internet today:

But for some, nothing less than a conspiracy will do as an explanation. On the website of a respected newspaper, I see one poster has blamed Barack Obama, whom he calls “that Marxist thug”. It’s not that it’s hard to follow the logic; it’s that there isn’t any.

Mardell would rather recount the idiotic comments of one goofball he’s read on a website somewhere than concede that the motives of a Muslim mass murderer could be down to his religion. Never mind the killer, check out this fruitcake instead; right wing nutters are the real problem here in America, nudge nudge.

He concludes:

Still, searching for patterns and for answers is part of what it is to be human. I loathe cliche, but perhaps, for once, this is a “senseless tragedy”, devoid of deeper meaning.

Nothing to do with the Religion of Peace! Repeat – nothing to do with the Religion of Peace!

Here’s another cliché for you Mark – wake up and smell the coffee.


In the morning, neighbors said Hasan handed Qurans and donated his furniture to anyone who would take it.


Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people and wounding 30 others at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas, regularly described the war on terror as “a war against Islam,” according to a doctor who was in a graduate program with him.

While studying for a masters degree in public health in 2007, Hasan used a presentation for an environmental health class to argue that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign, said Val Finnell, a classmate.

Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to PC PR

  1. DP111 says:

    Washington – A top US Army official confirmed Friday that the suspect in the killing of at least 13 people at a Texas army base likely shouted ‘Allah Akbar’ (God is great) before opening fire.

    Army Lieutenant General Robert Cone, commander of the Fort Hood, Texas, base where the shootings took place on Thursday, made the comment in answer to a question from NBC news.

    Cone said ‘there are first hand accounts’ to the effect that the suspect, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had yelled the Muslim religious chant.

    NBC reported that the death toll had risen to 13, as one of the victims had died overnight.

    The 39-year-old suspect in the killings is a US Army psychiatrist described as a devout Muslim who opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and had been trying to resign from the Army, according to media reports Friday.

    Prior to the shooting, he told a shopkeeper that he was looking for a good muslima. Apparantly he changed his mind, and decided to  collect 72 virgins instead.

    Things are not quite working out for Hassan. He is now in a hosipital, will be court martialled later, and if he is lucky, collects his 72 virgiins. If not, he will have a long wait.


  2. dave s says:

    Not bias from Mardell just fear. The unreality of the liberal mindset makes it nearly impossible for someone like Mardell to begin to understand or cope with an event like this. Let him cling on to his illusions. It soon will be all he has.


  3. Anonymous says:

    Imagine a white guy had gone on the rampage, shooting black people while shouting ‘White power’ – I’m sure Mardell [and the police] would instantly classify it as racially motivated. But when Hassan shouts ‘Allah Akbar’ Mardell thinks it’s just a ‘senseless tragedy,  devoid of deeper meaning’. Hmm, double standards methinks.


  4. Lloyd says:

    “alleged murderer” I’m all for innocent until proven guilty but the evidence does seem to be a little overwhelming.


  5. John Anderson says:

    The BBC and much of the media willcarry on with their  total psychobabble – because they are afraid to call a spade a spade.

    Either that,  or they are clueless. reminds me of the Beyond the Fringe sketch on the Great Train Robbery.


    Meanwhile Obama is now under criticism for his reaction yesterday. He told the networks he would appear at 5pm,  went to the podium of a conference and spent the first 3 minutes yacking on about conference attendees and liberals – giving “shout-outs”.  Then he finally fumbled through his Teleprompter remarks. 

    Totally insensitive,  a lot of people are seething about Obama’s inept performance.


    It is about time some of our leaders and media said :

    “OK,  this looks highly likely to be an event of Islamist jihadism.  Murder in the nameof a TWISTED version of Islam.”  

    (Some may see it as mainstream Islam,  a literal reading of the Koran – but if we only got this degree of truth from the media we’d see things more clearly,  and the nutters would look more isolated.

    Instead we are giving them psychobabble cover,  blaming everyone except THEM.)


  6. DP111 says:

    Liberals are in total denial of the nature of Islam. They love to belittle the BNP and EDL. It will be ironic that if Muslims ever had sufficient power to run amuck in the UK, it will be the likes of EDL and BNP that will be standing between them and a ” Hasan chop”.


  7. George R says:

    BBC’s Mr. Mardell  is incapable of spotting an elephant in a room or in a city.

     Before BBC Mardell’s present Obama adoration stint Stateside, he lived for years  in Brussels, a city he described as ‘charming’; of course, he made not a single reference to this:

    “Brussels: possible Muslim majority in 15-20 years”



  8. Bob says:

    Mardell is the one not jumping to conclusions here

    ‘he may or may not be a terrorist’

    maybe he was an islamic terrorist, but do you honestly think it would be good journalism to condemn him as an islamic terrorist based on the fact that he’s a devout muslim, few news outlets are reporting it as such, while making it clear he was a devout muslim we’ve yet to see anything conclusive that links him to any terrorist organisations – yours is the only bias here


    • Hurf Durf says:

      we’ve yet to see anything conclusive that links him to any terrorist organisations” 
      That hasn’t stopped Timothy McVeigh rightfully being labelled a terrorist, has it? You think Muslims can only operate as a group? How racist of you.


      • Bob says:

        oh I see, I was under the impression this post was about the fact he was a religiously inspired terrorist, perhaps I misread this:

        “Mardell would rather recount the idiotic comments of one goofball he’s read on a website somewhere than concede that the motives of a Muslim mass murderer could be down to his religion”

        “Nothing to do with the Religion of Peace! Repeat – nothing to do with the Religion of Peace!”


    • D B says:

      Mardell claims there is “very little to suggest… poltical and religious motives”. That is absurd. There is plenty of evidence “to suggest” just that, regardless of whether or not that was his motivation. Hot Air’s Allahpundit summarises:

      But here’s what we’ve got so far, according to eyewitnesses, colleagues, and friends. He considered the war on terror a “war on Islam” and himself a Muslim first and an American second; he thought Muslims had the right to stand up to the “aggressor” in the Middle East and is suspected of posting things online about the selfless heroism of jihadist suicide bombers; he was placed on probation for proselytizing about Islam to patients and colleagues and was sufficiently devout that he refused to have his picture taken with women; he once used a lecture at a medical conference as an opportunity to discuss how the Koran orders decapitation for infidels; and, oh yes, he yelled “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire.

      Most of this was known before Mardell wrote his blog post, and yet his reflex response was to disregard a possible poltical/religious motivation. As Allahpundit states:

      But would the same benefit of the doubt be given to a nut trending towards fanaticism of a different ideological hue?


      • Bob says:

        Highly responsible journalism there

        I guess we needn’t bother with the FBI investigation, and the ‘let’s not jump too conclusions’ is because Obama’s really a Muzzie


        • D B says:

          Weak, Bob.


          • Bob says:

            no weaker than you lot seeing what you want to see and using blogs to back up your own claims

            I just watched a news report that said ‘motives still unclear’ – amazingly it wasn’t the BBC…


            • D B says:

              What in the quoted Hot Air summary of eyewitnesses, colleagues and friends is incorrect?

              Did the non-BBC report you watched begin by disregrading the notion that Hasan’s motives could be political/religious?

              As for your “Obama is a muzzie” straw man – feeble.


              • Bob says:

                Only as feeble as your attempt to cry bias on the bbc over this – the Times also report that the motives remain unclear – shall we start calling them al-times?


                • D B says:

                  As I’ve already pointed out, Mardell went further than saying that Hasan’s motives were unclear. He stated “there is very little to suggest that he adhered to a hard-line interpretation of his religion or that he had political or religious motives.” There was plenty to suggest exactly that but Mardell chose to disregard it. Whatever Hasan’s motives, Mardell was wrong to say there was little evidence that those motives could be ideological.

                  (Could you not find anything incorrect in the Hot Air summary of reports, then?)


                  • Bob says:

                    Mardell does mention that he may or may not have posted said comments online – he chose to take a different view to ‘hot air’

                    The way I see it – he’s either gone nuts, or he’s a relgious extremist, and Mardell chose to see the former situation, that this attack was unlikely to be about beliefs – which is in line with much of the ‘media narrative’ I’ve seen, and the evidence does seem to point towards the ‘he’s nuts’ theory – maybe Mardell is wrong, time will tell


                    • D B says:

                      As I said – Mardell chose to disregard the evidence that ideology may have been a driving force, preferring instead to guide his readers in a different direction. Hasan could’ve been motivated by something other than politico-religious beliefs; the fact that Mardell’s first response was to downplay the possibility that such beliefs could be a motivation is instructive, and the reason for my blog post.


                    • David Preiser (USA) says:

                      Exactly.  All editorializing has been in one direction.  The BBC deliberately chose not to report certain key pieces of information for several hours, because that would have distracted from their editorial agenda.  Mardell and his colleagues would not make the same attempt if the perpetrator was not Mohammedan.


                    • David Preiser (USA) says:

                      Why did he go nuts?  Even the BBC allows that Hasan may have been “radicalized” by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  There is now evidence that he spoke out against these wars to his colleagues – forget about alleged website activity for the moment – and was openly against being posted to Iraq.

                      No other religion would make someone “radicalized” in this way.  So there is a direct link between the caveman version of Islam and this act of mass murder, whether he is mentally ill or not.

                      Also totally ignored by you and the Beeboids you’re defending is the fact that this murderer was a psychiatrist, working in a medical facility with other psychiatrists.  It simply isn’t believable for one nanosecond that he could be mentally deranged in such a way and none of the people trained to look for exactly this situation noticed anything amiss with him.

                      The basic mental illness defense simply isn’t credible.


                    • Anonymous says:

                      Bob baby, Bob baby, listen to your papa.  Would you be kind enough to advise us of what mainstream UK news outlet tried to rubbish those who had drawn conclusions from the clear evidence available that it was a Muslim terrorist attack?

                      Still, you keep on trying to protect the BBC as a left-wing propaganda tool.  You know that in Britain the Left cannot survive on a level playing field.

                      DEPRAVADISE THE BBC!



  9. Marky says:

    Had a moderate BNP supporter lost the plot after the BNP had been widely spreading literature like this…

    “Then when the Sacred Nazi Months have passed, then kill the (whoever) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform some grovelling, and give loads of money, then leave their way free. Verily, Nick Griffin is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [BNP 9:5]

    Then I’m sure the BBC would be jumping to conclusions and looking for deeper meaning. But yeah it could be all sorts of reasons.


    • D B says:

      Nice link, David. The “British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing” parody headline hits home every time.


  10. Guest says:

    At best, a sincere, if misguided attempt at playing down in a cack-handed manner anything that could lead to ‘over-reactions’. Not really the job of a journalist. Well, maybe one from an entity that is ‘unique’.


  11. Grant says:

    Mardell is a moron.


  12. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I don’t care what anyone else says.  When Mardell says that perhaps, for once, this is a “senseless tragedy”, devoid of deeper meaning, he is simply speculating, and in the PC direction, genuflecting towards Muslims. He doesn’t do that for other groups.  He is quick to assume nefarious intent for others, but not for a mass murderer.  All BBC reporting and commentary has contained this exact same speculation, in this exact same direction.  All of it, across the spectrum of BBC broadcasting.

    Undeniable evidence of a specific, biased editorial policy and mindset.


  13. John Anderson says:

    Col Rlph Peters has a fiece piece attacking all the PC nonsense that protected the Murdering Major from dismissal from the Army,  and the current PC nonsense in the media.

    Hasan is a jihadist.  His actions are rooted in his religion.  Period.   Anyone who denies that is either a liar or a buffoon.


  14. deegee says:

    I hope Pounce is following this thread.

    How can the armed forces remove the threat of Islamic jihad infiltration without discriminating against all people of colour; people of a Muslim background, e.g. South Asian or Arab; Muslims or even lapsed Muslims?


  15. Anonymous says:

    “if the perpetrator was not Prophet Mohammedan.”

    Fixed by Media


  16. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Further evidence of BBC blindness and attempts to distract from the real issue can be found in Adam Brooke’s “Analysis” inset accompanying a news brief about the President’s praise for those who stopped the jihadist attack at Ft. Hood.

    Brooke continues the distraction by discussing psychiatric care in the Army for those returning from combat.  Once again, this is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, as Hasan hadn’t actually gone to Iraq.  Further, as doctor, he would hever even have seen combat, or ever been in much danger at all.  Brooke doesn’t want you to think about that, so he goes on about rising suicide rates in the military.

    Attention BBC:  this was not a PST-related suicide.  You are making a false connection, and now actively denying facts about this guy.
    The same PC madness on display by the BBC on this story is the same PC madness that kept the Army from dismissing someone who spoke openly against his country, and had already raised several red flags.


  17. The Gipper says:

    Also worth nothing that the BBC decided not to include ANY of Obama’s opening remarks, y’know, when he was giving a “shout out”. Their audio only covered his speech on the matter at hand. If only that was what actually happened.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Good point.  Especially since the BBC has form editing The Obamessiah’s speeches to create “an impression”.  Censorship and deliberate misinformation by your official state broadcaster in order to promote the image of the leader of a foreign country.  Your license fee hard at work.


  18. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Ultra-Left NPR has reported that Hasan was known to have jihadist tendencies that were somehow ignored by his superiors.

    Officials Begin Putting Shooting Pieces Together

    But second of all – and this is, perhaps, you know, more relevant. The psychiatrist says that he was very proud and upfront about being Muslim. And psychiatrist hastened to say, and nobody minded that. But he seemed almost belligerent about being Muslim, and he gave a lecture one day that really freaked a lot of doctors out.
    They have grand rounds, right? They, you know, dozens of medical staff come into an auditorium, and somebody stands at the podium at the front and gives a lecture about some academic issue, you know, what drugs to prescribe for what condition. But instead of that, he – Hasan apparently gave a long lecture on the Koran and talked about how if you don’t believe, you are condemned to hell. Your head is cut off. You’re set on fire. Burning oil is burned down your throat

    But the BBC doesn’t want you to know any of that.  No, Hasan’s motivation for mass murder will remain a mystery to BBC viewers for some time.

    Not only that, but Hasan was known to have troubling views due to his religious beliefs quite some time ago:

    Suspect told “There’s something wrong with you”

    Danquah assumed the military’s chain of command knew about Hasan’s doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates in a graduate military medical program. His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.

    So the guy was already known to have caveman Islamo-nutter views.  If the Beeboids had any intellectual integrity on the issue of Islamic terrorism, they would be able to discuss how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not, in fact, wars against Islam, and that’s where this guy went wrong.

    That’s where this whole thing falls apart.  We all know that Muslims kill infinitely more Muslims than US or UK troops.  Yet, the BBC never manages to find an analyst who will bring this up.  There is never a Newsnight or Panorama or special documentary about how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not against Islam, and there is no war against Islam by the West.  They never do a programme reaching out to Mohammedans in the UK trying to explain any of this to them.