The right believes it was his Islamist ideology, represented by this fellow:
The left's image of the right's view is akin to something like this:
The left believes it was because of the discrimination of the military, who hate Muslims so much they've broken a decades long rule against alterations to the approved uniform code for religious reasons.
Army Times further reported that a Muslim officer serving as an orthopedic-surgery intern at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center had received permission to "wear a beard, as required by his sect of the Muslim faith."
As I said in my last post, Hasan's IDEOLOGY was the driving factor of his attack, not his religion. We can debate the theology and pure religious validity of Islam vs Christianity or secularism or whatever, but that's not the problem (at least to me). The modern Islamist movement that's attacking the West is born out of a POLITICAL version of Islam created by Sayyid Qutb. The modern Islamist ideology consists of a Marxist-inspired vanguard strategy sewn together with revanchist dreams of re-making the Islamic Caliphate that their Prophet created in the 8th century. Something even the most uneducated American should known as anti-liberty and dangerous.
Alas, the left wants you to looking at the knee-jerk anti-Muslim sentiment that rears its ugly head after terror attacks (not something I support, but something that is real and slightly understandable), and not at the attackers themselves who are the programmed automatons of a dark and dangerous political force.
Who is really more dangerous? A bumpkin making bigoted remarks about Muslims while nursing a cold beer, or a motivated ideologue fueled by religious fervor bent on the murder of innocence?
Don't be fooled by the attempts at distraction by the Left. You're reason is right.