Even Time Magazine is wondering why Islam is not mentioned in Fort Hood report

Note John, that the Time article also does not use "willing nilly" the word Islam or Islamc as well and correctly so. I agree with what Time says that the report has been shredded by libral nicesness but let's get some reality checks and terminology correct because it is important. Without correct terminology people make mistakes, get the wrong impression and worse, they act upon it.

The word Islam, Muslim, islamist and jihad should have been in the report to the level appropriate. The term used, also in Time was "Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform." which I agree with. They can say at any time and it should say in the report that he is a Muslim, that is also a plain and simple fact. The Time's article also quotes Joe Liebermann's scathing criticism which is fully justified (I like Liebermann and perhaps

I am dumbfounded that the report denies the reality and claims that "religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor" because relgious fundamentalism (ie radicalism) is also political radicalism under the excuse of religion and thus a danger and a risk.

Though the report is all "liberally nice", I see your post going too far the other way and also incorrectly using terminology correctly. By implication, you continue to make "Islam" the most important factor and thus leading to the assumption that it is Islam itself that is the cause, which as you know I utterly reject. The culprits are Muslim extremism, radical islamists, small "i" jihadism and political radicalism in general and to not use those terms is simply blindness to the real dangers and to use the wrong terms in generalized terms is unjustified targetting and causing hate.

I was going to say that I love it when you have moments of clarity, but the
end of your comment changed my thinking. You're always trying to say it's
political or cultural radicalism that has nothing to do with Islam. I'm
simply pointing out that Islam is a part of that equation and to deny it is
dishonest. I can very well acknowledge the political and militaristic
aspects of Islam and those are which I have the biggest problem with. The
religious aspects I could care less about even if I am shellshocked someone
would want to follow a religion led by Muhammed (Knowing his life story).
Above all though, it's still Islam and it's still a problem that Muslims
need to deal with.

I guess Liberals think Islamic terrorism is a figment of our imagination

Funny, when that crazy fundamentalist Christians killed that abortion doctor, it was all , Christian violence, fundamentalism and Radicals blah blah blah" why not in this case?
What ever happened to recognizing the problem in order to deal with it? Political correctness is getting so out of control when it comes to condemning Islam.
When a Catholic molest a boy or when a rabbi is caught laundering money....why is their religion mentioned? Yet a man clearly yelling "Allah akbar" which is the trademark for Islam is not even mention in the media

We are afraid of the retaliation and riots that come after badmouthing Islam in anyway, so we choose not to talk about it, and label it as violence and militants instead of Islamic violence, which is what it is.

At this rate, I wonder how sensitive to their feelings and pampering their asses we will be in 50 years