The man shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he pulled out the FN Herstal tactical pistol which he had purchased back in the summer from a gun store in Texas. He then proceeded to methodically assassinate 13 Americans and injure dozens more in what has been described as everything from a 'crazed attack' to a 'shooting rampage'.

In fact, last week's attacks at the Fort Hood Army base have been called everything but what they were: a terrorist attack by a radical Islamist, the first on U.S. soil since 9/11/2001.

39-year old Nidal Malik Hasan is a psychiatrist by trade, a trade which he learned as an enlisted man in the United States Army. How could an American soldier shoot fellow soldiers and others? Was he simply mad? The obvious answer to anyone looking with clear vision is that Hasan was not mad, at least not clinically insane. What Hasan was and continues to be is an Islamist terrorist.

While performing his residency requirements at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Hasan made a presentation to colleagues on the proper role of Muslims in the American military. In this presentation, Hasan stated that "fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam."He further advocated the military releasing Muslims from their obligations to decrease "adverse events" and increase morale.

According to a cousin, Hasan was a practicing Muslim who became more devout following the death of his parents separately in 1998 and 2001. His family also said that he turned against the wars after hearing stories from troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2001, Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. The religious leader or 'imam' of the mosque at that time was Anwar al-Awlaki, and Hasan had deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings. This is notable because also attending the same mosque at the same time were both Hani Hanjour and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was convicted for his role in an assassination plot against President Bush.

In the aftermath of the Fort Hood terror attack, al-Awlaki, who had conveniently fled to Yemen following the 9/11 attacks, praised Hasan for his actions in murdering the soldiers and for the overall shooting event. He also called on other Muslims to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal" if they were serving in the American military.

Hasan was said by fellow soldiers to have been constantly proselytizing about his faith with fellow doctors, patients, and soldiers. In the months prior to his attack, Hasan had come under investigation by federal authorities for internet postings that said suicide bombers were sacrificing their lives for a noble cause, among other messages.

Hasan was known to have made attempts at contacting al Qaeda directly, and had continued to exchange emails with al-Awlaki, especially seeking guidance as it became clear that Hasan was going to be deployed to the Middle East where he might have to directly fight against Muslims. On the day of the attack, Hasan handed out copies of the Quran, Islam's holy book, and was said to be in a peaceful state, often the description when a suicide bomber has resigned themselves to their fate.

Now comes word today that the Obama administration is going to take Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the acknowledged mastermind of those 9/11 terrorist attacks, to trial for those attacks in a civilian court. Not handle him as a war criminal, but in the same manner as a common criminal would be handled. This is the pre-9/11 mentality, handle terrorism against the United States as a law enforcement matter rather than as a matter of national security.

Terrorism analyst Neil Livingstone has made an incredibly chilling and proper analogy. Trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Islamist terrorists is akin to going back to World War II times and taking the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor to civilian courts rather than handling them as war criminals. Livingstone is, of course, exactly right.

This is just another in a long series of missteps by the Obama administration since taking office earlier in the year. The administration seems to be all about political correctness. The President has shown from the beginning, particularly in his hasty order to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, that he refuses to take responsibility for keeping America safe.

How many more Hasan's are 'sleeper' terrorists serving in the American military, or working in American businesses, or studying in American schools just waiting for either the orders, or the encouragement, or the inspiration, or the resources, or just for simply their own 'right moment' to pull the plug on their 'legitimate' American cover and take their own action in furtherance of the jihad to bring about Islamic rule under Sharia law here and elsewhere around the world?

To call Nidal Malik Hasan an "Army psychiatrist" or a "crazed gunman" is to tell the smallest portion of the truth of what he is in reality. To call Khalid Sheik Mohammed a murder conspirator is to tell the smallest portion of the truth. The truth is that both men are Islamist terrorists, and the time is long since past to both call a spade a spade, and to treat them accordingly.

NOTE: This is a continuation of the 'Islamism Series', an ongoing series relating to the issues of radical Islam in general and its presence here in America in particular. All entries in the series can be read by visiting the www.mattveasey.com website and clicking on to the 'Islamism Series' label below this article

During his State of the Union address back in January of 2002, President George W. Bush famously called the nations of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an "Axis of Evil", criticizing nations that sponsored terrorism and were seeking weapons of mass destruction. Liberals everywhere, and especially their cheer leading media, called Bush a war monger and a liar, among other choice names.

Sitting here over seven years later, we understand far better that President Bush was in actuality simply a truth teller.

At the time of Bush's speech, former Iraqi leader Sadaam Hussein was still in power. He had already shown his propensity for evil and terror by using weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He tortured political enemies, and his sons used 'rape rooms' to satisfy their own lusts and to further punish political enemies. Thankfully, the United States acted to rid the world of this evil power structure.

In Iran, a crazed President came to power under with the blessing of the Islamic religious leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began to assail the United States with threats of destruction and domination by Islam and accelerated Iranian efforts to develop or otherwise obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a fundamentalist Islamic regime will mean devastating war at some point in the near future. They are simply that crazy.

For years, as the U.S. took the first steps against that 'Axis of Evil' by destroying and dismantling the repressive Iraqi power structure and installing the beginnings of a nascent democracy, and while we kept up pressure on Iran to change course of its own volition, we pretty much turned a blind eye towards North Korea. Oh, there were statements made, and back channel discussions held, but nothing concrete.

So what have the North Koreans done during that time under the direction of their crazed, despotic ruler Kim Jong Il (pictured)? They have aggressively pursued a nuclear weapons and missile strategy, warning western nations not to interfere, and now have nuclear weapons and are developing the missile systems necessary to deliver them against their enemies.

For the past few days, the USS John McCain, a Navy destroyer, has been tailing a Korean ship named the Kang Nam, off the Chinese coast. The reason is that this ship has been found to transport illegal goods in the past. Korea stated on Wednesday that if the U.S. intercepted the ship, they would consider it an act of war: "If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will...wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all."

Very soon, the U.S. leadership under President Barack Obama is going to be faced with the choice of confronting North Korea militarily, or facing a world where a hostile dictatorial regime has nuclear weapons capable of wiping out American cities. Will Obama try to talk while the North Koreans build missiles and bombs? Will America become like Europe, issuing strongly worded statements, with nothing to back them up? Will he fiddle while Rome burns?

It turns out that President Bush was not lying about these aggressive regimes after all. Maybe we can just allow as many nations that wish to do so to build nuclear bombs and missiles, right? After all, who are we to tell other countries what they can and cannot do? How arrogant, right? As long as we are nice to them, they won't bother us, right? If only the world had been nicer to Adolf Hitler, right?

Peace comes through one thing, and one thing only: strength. If you have it, but show that you are unwilling to use it, then you may as well not have it at all. Now many have voted for Obama to get us out and keep us out of military conflict. So perhaps if you're a liberal who voted for him, the more important question that you should be asking yourself is, where will you be when the missiles drop?