"We can never know why"? Everyone knows why . . .

Only the ignorant, treacherous, and perverse argue otherwise.

Hugh Hewitt rejects the monitoring of American mosques, even though at least three-fourths teach Islamic supremacism in accord with Qur'an and sunnah.

John and Ken finally find the voice to denounce Islam, though they still moderate the truth with "-isms" and "-ists."

Both are more truthful than the allegedly former-Muslim Obama.

And after so many lives taken, broken, and destroyed in the name of Allah, some referred (sarcastically, in the beginning) to the cause of Hasan's slaughtering as "Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder."

How stupid. How treacherous.

Muslims like Muslims Against Shari'a and M. Zuhdi Jasser excepted -- I commend their honesty and decency -- every Muslim who knows what their god and prophet require regarding offensive and retaliatory jihad against non-Muslims but does not denounce those teachings publicly and permanently is a terrorist or terrorist-supporter.

For every one who actually carries out violence against "unbelievers," how many more support, approve of, or appreciate jihad attacks like Hasan's?

If you want to claim that most Muslims are peace-loving, law-abiding, faithfully-serving-in-the-Armed-Forces kinds of Muslims, then I have a question for you: How do you distinguish between those who actually reject permanently offensive warfare against "unbelievers," the rape and degradation of women and little girls, and death for apostates and those who instead obey Allah?

Would you have us wait until blood is spilled again?  That may soothe your false sense of self-righteousness, your rotting facade of "tolerance," but what about the dead and wounded?  What about lives which in this world cannot be mended?

And when your sons and daughters are the ones raped, beheaded, or vaporized in Allah's name, what will you say?  "How could I have known?"

The truth is, as long as you persist in the pernicious lie that Islam is a "great world religion of peace," you can have no sure way of determining who is sympathetic (or worse) to jihad.

But I have a way: Point out to your decent, he's-a-swell-fellow, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly, he's-just-like-us Muslim what Allah commands and what Muhammad said and did.

Do they admit, condemn, and denounce those teachings, or do they explode?

If someone believes that their god commands, "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against . . . the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya . . . Paradise [belongs to those who] kill and are killed [fighting in Allah's cause]" (Qur'an 9), then that person is an agent of jihad, whether they contribute to it with their actions, "charitable contributions," litigation, materiel, logistics, votes, letters to the editor, prayers, or reproductive organs.

Since Allah commands and Muhammad practiced offensive warfare against non-Muslims in order to make the world Islam, what EXACTLY is the difference between an "Islamo-fascist, fundamentalist, extremist, fanatical, radical, jihadist, Islamicisi-cisi-cisi-cist" and a "moderate" Muslim?

And B. Hussein Obama aids jihad by outright lying about Islam in general (the Cairo Address) and Hasan's motivations in particular ("We can never know why.").

America, you've surrendered the keys to the kingdom -- you've given defense of the kingdom -- to the Muslim barbarian hordes.

Who are the "right" Muslims?

M. Zuhdi Jasser argues here that those responsible for American security must work with Muslims who are not intent on waging jihad against us now or in the future, rather than the wolves in moderate's clothing with whom they've been engaged, groups like CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc.

The only problem is, if Allah and his false prophet require the enslavement or murder of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, what is the difference between "radical" Islam and Islam, between "Islamicists" and moderate Muslims?

The only Muslims of whom I'm aware who explicitly reject offensive jihad against, and oppression of, non-Muslims are the Ahmadiyya (persecuted by the devout) and Muslims Against Sharia.

While Mr. Jasser's piece rightly distinguishes between peaceful, apolitical Muslims and terrorists and their supporters, he offers no reliable method of distinguishing between those among his coreligionists who reject permanently the subjugation of and warfare against non-Muslims and those who will do as their god and prophet commanded and practiced.

Even worse, he offers up the false distinction between "radical" Islam and Islam, as if there's an original, peaceful version of the Great World Religion Hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists.

(On a side note, I wish that the President had been making a sly jab with that line; considering that he's defiled the White House with his iftar dinners and his female associates with hijabs, it seems the joke's on us).

There is no conflict between "Islamism" and Islam. To claim one is suicidally-ignorant or maliciously-deceitful. But I do agree with his last line. It is time to discern where Muslims in America stand.

Unfortunately, since our leadership appears clueless about jihad (or in collusion with its agents), time is not on our side.

John Welter, Chief of the anaheim Police Department recently said this to Washington Post reporter, Karen De Young:

"Most people are very ignorant of what the Muslim faith is about, including me," Welter said. "I've got a book on Muslims for dummies; I can't be an expert on all the religions and cults and cultures in the world. But what I can do is be an expert in behavior that terrorists engage in prior to an attack."

This type of naiveté illustrates the basic problem in our current approach to engagement of the Muslim community. Our current national security problem with terrorism is not about finding behavior. That is only the most basic part of law enforcement. At the core of our national counterterrorism strategy should be a solid understanding of the ideologies and state of mind which precedes the radicalization and the motivation of terrorist behaviors.

Our security agencies understood the ideology of communism as we protected our nation during the Cold War. We should do so with even more sophistication and clarity now when it comes to the relationship of political Islam (Islamism) to militant Islamism and how they both differ from the spiritual path of Islam. The longer we avoid the centrality of political Islam in this equation, the longer it is going to take to win the war of ideas and preserve our security.

It is time for a national education and discussion on the conflict between Islamism and Islam. It is time to learn where national Muslim organizations and more importantly where the greater American Muslim population finds itself in that conflict.