I was in Jeddah when Major Nidal Hassan opened fire on soldiers at Fort Hodd and killed 13 of them, wounding 30 others. I sat in front of the television and followed the news, switching between western and Arab news stations. I returned to the news at every free hour in the following days and when I read on the news ticker that a congressman wanted to open an investigation into terror, I decided immediately that it was Senator Joe Lieberman. I called my office in London to check on the matter and quickly received news from AFP confirming it.

Senator Lieberman said, “"There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hassan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act.”

Lieberman is a Likudnik Jew who represents Israel in the Senate; he is an enemy of Arabs and Muslims, no matter how much he denies it. He supported the war in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, and continues to call for a war against Iran.

I once read comments about him in the American press describing him as pro-Israeli, and not representing America.

I will not respond to Lieberman this time; I am on the other side. Instead, I will select an article by R. J. Eskow in the Huffington Post e-newspaper, in which he wrote that the despicable senator did not describe other acts of murder in American military installations as terror.

The writer quoted a dictionary definition of terror, as “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.” Eskow noted that the killer was not trying to frighten people or intimidate them, or exert pressure in order to achieve political demands; he killed in order to take out his anger on other people, without trying to change anyone’s opinion.

Eskow was certainly referring to Lieberman’s Likudnik tendencies when he selected an example on terror, namely the Irgun gang’s bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946. The act killed 91 people and it was certainly a terrorist act, with the goal of intimidating British occupation forces and encouraging them to pull out of Palestine.

I agree with the writer that al-Qaida’s acts constitute terror, because they are used to achieve political objectives. Let us move on to other Likudniks from the well-known war cabal; they had a field day in the US after the Fort Hood massacre, because they found an excuse to accuse all Muslims of radicalism and terror.

The website of the FrontPage magazine saw the massacre as a means of once again discussing the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), about which I have never heard anything, unless it is from the Israeli mafia’s campaigns against the group. The website hosted Congressmen Sue Myrick, who heads an anti-terror group in Congress and recently asked for an investigation into CAIR; and the first question to her mentioned this. She spoke about jihad and “jihadiyya,” and CAIR’s relations with Hamas and the Holy Land Foundation.

Hamas is a national liberation movement against Israeli terror. The “esteemed” Congresswoman Myrick would serve her country if she focused on the terror of Israel, which is responsible for the presence of Islamist terrorist more than al-Qaida, because it has turned people to terror as a response to its own terror.

Other Likudniks found an opportunity in the Fort Hood massacre to sell their book “Muslim Mafia”; one website advertised that it would send a copy of the book autographed by its author, Paul Sperry. I did not see anything new here; there is talk about Major Hassan being influenced by the ideas of the American-Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who lives in Yemen. While the news was in every newspaper and website, the right-wing Washington Times called it “special,” or a “scoop.”

The Likudnik Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post began his article by saying that there was no surprise that the man screamed “Allahu Akbar,” as he killed American soldiers, to link between Islam and the murders. I decided to not continue reading the article.

The Likudnik warmonger Frank Gaffney went above and beyond the call of wretchedness; he saw another opportunity to attack Islamic law (Shari‘a). He claims that a central tenet is that a Muslim’s duty is to wage jihad, which he describes as a holy war, so that non-believers submit to Islam. Gaffney said this, although Major Hassan killed soldiers and did not urge anyone to convert to Islam, or any other religion.

David Horowitz, who is like the others above, or worse, took the opportunity to attack the “unholy alliance between the anti-American Left and radical Islam – whose Muslim Brotherhood network extends through our universities” (there is a Likudnik campaign against universities and I have enough on this to write a book, not just a column).

I read the first line of an article by the extremist Daniel Pipes and refused to keep going; he begins by writing that “When a Muslim in the West for no apparent reason violently attacks non-Muslims…”

The reason is as clear as day: it is Pipes himself, along with Gaffney, Horowitz and Krauthammer, and all defenders of Israel’s crimes, its fascist government and the neo-conservatives’ wars against Muslims. They are what have led to counter-terror. They will not rest until the terrorists use weapons of mass destruction, so that we all become victims of their extremism.