Note: I wrote this on Nov. 7th, before much relevant information came to light. My instincts were right on (as usual).
An Army officer with a Norwegian last name, affiliated with the Lutheran Church, murders thirteen people at Fort Hood. The mainstream media, more pathetic than ever, are trying like hell to pretend that the Fort Hood mass murderer is not a Muslim with an Arab name. Newsweek came very close to calling the killer a victim of traumatic stress syndrome by proxy. Even Fox News followed suite within tow days. (Our limitless faith in clinical psychology is the second form of our collective insanity.) Hasan had not been deployed anywhere more dangerous than Maryland and Fort Hood itself. He was apparently complaining about being soon deployed to the Middle-East.
Some media try to excuse the mass murder by suggesting he was “harassed.” I am sure he heard the word “raghead” almost thirteen times. So? He was a fucking psychiatrist, not a fourteen year-old! He chose to work in a military environment, not in a progressive convent! Did he expect to hear only references to: “a gentleman of Middle-Eastern origin belonging to one of the sister monotheistic faiths”?
I am not going to wait for two months, or three months, or more, for the official investigation to be completed, to ask some more rude questions.
The man is a doctor. He spent much of his time in a medical environment, surrounded by other doctors and nurses. He is a psychiatrist, specifically. He was not practicing alone in the desert. There were other psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses around him, professionals specifically trained to detect dangerous emotional dispositions in military personnel.
Did they notice nothing in this guy or did they notice and not report it because the Army does not provide a form to say, “ There is a Muslim-American in our unit who is much agitated about going to war against other Muslims” ?
Does it make sense for all levels of the command chain to refrain from asking the question in general: “Is it good management policy to send people of Arab origin near a battle-front where Arabs are sure to be killed (Iraq), to send Muslims, where Muslims will die at our hands if we are successful (Afghanistan)”? Is it wise to send them there without real military necessity. I provide this exclusion because people of such origins may obviously be useful on the battlefield itself. That’s a risk worth taking.
That guy was just a psychiatrist listening to soldiers’ mental and emotional complaints. He brought nothing special to the act of doing it in the Middle-East theater of operations, specifically. Does politically correct blindness have to extent that far?
By the way, the French are more rational on the same issue: They avoid sending to Afghanistan any of their many Muslim soldiers. They don’t find it hard to understand that if one such soldier is seized by the spirit of jihad in the middle of a French base he may do extensive damage.
Yes, the First Amendment applies to members of the military, and a good thing too. However, the protection of the First Amendment does not require the Government to be deaf to its soldiers’ utterances. You don’t have to shut them up to avoid posting them where they might act out their preferences with guns. There are jobs in Greenland or in Alaska for such people. Not segregating Muslims who oppose aloud war against Muslims is not a constitutional requirement, it’s passivity fed by the stupidity of political correctness.
Here is the elephant in the Army’s room it will not notice because of the cowardice political correctness induces: Since the defeat of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, 99% or more of unarmed people killed deliberately are killed by criminals who call themselves Muslims. The fact that most of the victims are Muslims changes nothing to the factualness of the statement.
The practical implications of this observation are not hard to understand. I don’t need a sophisticated study to know how to act: If I get threatened by a yellow dog on Monday, bitten by a yellow dog on Tuesday and Wednesday, my neighbor is bitten by another yellow dog on Friday, and me again on Saturday, by Sunday, I beware of yellow dogs.
All of this was avoidable. The insistence that everyone in the military is just like everyone else just killed 13 innocent people and degraded forever he lives of others. This happened in a location calculated to undermine military morale and to heighten military prejudice against Muslims and against Arabs.
Although Americans have shown admirable forbearance, since 9/11 lynchings would not bee surprising. Again, it was all avoidable. It will happen again because the Army does not have what it takes to do the obvious. Under a less silly administration, some general would be court-martialed for this event.
The FBI is also sick with political correctness. A couple of hours after the murders, it hastened to announce that the crime was not connected to terrorism. I am sorry, Mr FBI, whether or not the killer shouted “Alluha Akbar,” or not, if you murder in cold blood (or hot blood) thirteen unarmed people, most of whom you don’t know, that’s terrorism. It’s terrorism whether the killer is a member of an organized group or not. Might be a terrorist who is Muslim rather than a Muslim terrorist.
We can’t just profile, say the liberals manslaughter proponents. Of course, we can. Courteously conducted ethnic profiling if a minor inconvenience for the 99 999.99 out of 1 000 000 of the target categories who have no criminal intent. Having to take off my shoes at the airport is an inconvenience too. Period.
Ethnic profiling protects me, them, and their children. Let rational people start protesting imbecile policies loudly.In a less silly administration, some general would be court-martialed for this event. I am not holding my breath.
CORRECTION: I WROTE IN A PREVIOUS COLUMN ( “THE A.A. PRESIDENT” )mTHAT I DOUBTED PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD EVER PASSED THE BAR EXAM ANYWHERE ANY TIME. A FRIEND OF MINE, A GOOD LAWYER I HAVE KNOWN FOR A LONG TIME AND WHOSE UTTERANCES I TRUST SAID OTHERWISE. MY ATTORNEY FRIEND TOLD ME THAT THE FACT THAT BARACK OBAMA HAD BEEN ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT PROVED THAT HE HAD PASSED THE BAR. THAT HE WAS SO ADMITTED CAN BE FOUND ON THE SITE OF THE ILLINOIS BAR ASSOCIATION. I ACCEPT MY FRIEND’S JUDGMENT IN THIS RESPECT. I AM STILL PUZZLED ABOUT WHY THE REAL ACHIEVEMENT OF PASSING THE BAR EXAM – WHICH CAN PRESUMABLY NOT BE EASED BY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CONSIDERATIONS – IS NOT MENTIONED ON THE PRESIDENT’S WIKIPEDIA ENTRY. MR OBAMA ‘S LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS IS SHORT AND THIN; THE BAR EXAM SHOULD BE THERE TO THICKEN IT. PERHAPS ONE OF THE PRESIDENT’S SUPPORTERS WILL DO THE JOB. I AM WATCHING.
THIS IS THE THIRD CORRECTION ON THIS BLOG REGARDING THIS MATTER.