Salon Ignores Inconvenient Fort Hood Facts To Get Clicks

AP_fort_hood_memorial_2009_sk_140408_16x9_992

In its never-ending quest to click-bait its readers with “intolerance”, this week Salon decided to go with the terrorist angle – stating that people who practice Islam are unfairly labeled terrorists. Here’s the gist of the article:

Despite the strikingly parallel narratives of both men forever linked as Fort Hood shooters, who were both ruled out as terrorists by law enforcement, the media coverage of Lopez and Hasan has been markedly different. Specifically, Lopez, like many other non-Muslims who have used firearms to kill, has been classified as “mentally ill,” while only Hasan has had the label of “terrorism” attached to his story.

The article then goes out of its way to reach for similarities between the two shooters: Both were disconnected from their fellow soldiers! One wanted a break from the army, and the other didn’t want to go to Iraq! They both thought commercials before movies were annoying!

Why, they were practically the exact same person! Except for the fact that Hasan was Muslim, and for that reason, and that reason alone he was labeled a terrorist. The author, Sara Kamali, goes on to list a bunch of other “tomato, to-maht-o” references, before saying we need to call the whole thing off and realize this has nothing to do with Islam.This message would be better served if during the same week an Islamic terrorist group hadn’t kidnapped 276 school girls to sell as sex slaves, but hey, that’s just a timing issues – not an Islam issue.

But the irresponsible part about this article is that Salon published it without it having any reference to the facts that make it clear Hasan was a terrorist. One wonders if the author didn’t both to read his wikipedia page, or did read it and just decided to lie. Here are some quick bullet points.

  1. The year of the shooting, Hasan was emailing with Anwar al-Awlaki, a known terrorist Imam .  Hasan talked to him about such light-hearted topics as “when jihad is appropriate” and “if it’s permissible to kill innocents in a suicide attack.” You know, basically the same type of email your Aunt forwards you about how it’s important to treat every day of life as if it’s a rainbow. 
  2. Hasan reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he opened fire, which translates into “God is great.” Generally, when someone murders a bunch of people while shouting about God, it’s logical to suspect it might have something to do with God.
  3. After the shooting, Hasan said at a hearing that he had “switched sides” and regarded himself as a Mujahideen waging “jihad” against the United States – So there’s also the fact that he said he was  a terrorist. 

So while Salon publishes their brilliant theory that the media is miscategorizing this violence because it’s biased against Muslims, it either negligently or willfully ignores the fact that, just maybe, people called Hasan an Islamic terrorist because he was talking about Islamic terrorism with an Islamic terrorist before the attack, shouted Islamic terrorist shit during the attack, and said he was an Islamic terrorist after the attack?

Why doesn’t Salon feel dirty hiding the fact that Hasan was penpals with Anwar al-Awlaki? Here is the second sentence from al-Awlaki’s wikipedia page:

U.S. government officials said that he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda

You know why it says “was”? Because he’s dead because Obama took him out with a drone strike for being a terrorist. Maybe rather than focusing on how similar they are because “they both felt like outcasts”, like oh…everybody at some point in their life, we should focus on their differences – like one having a drone strike target on his AOL Buddy list. This is not just a duck looking and acting like a duck, this is a duck that straight up told everyone he was waging jihad against the United States.

Yet none of that makes it into the Salon article. And Salon doesn’t care. They just want their readers to pat themselves on the back for being more tolerant than anyone else – even if it’s based on complete lies and misinformation. Who needs journalistic standards when clicks get you paid?

Related posts

Leave a Comment