Still Staggering in Disbelief

I was just on the phone with my mother-in-law describing the whole Fort Hood affair to her – the shooting and all the signs ignored beforehand and denied afterwards. She hadn’t heard anything about it. I don’t watch news on TV – ever – but I guess they aren’t spending enough time talking about something they really don’t want the public to know the details about anyway. I think I forgot to mention General Casey’s response:

“I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers…”

They wouldn’t even be admitting that he was a Muslim if Nidal Malik Hasan‘s name didn’t make it obvious. They never did for the DC sniper. Even though he legally changed his name to John Muhammed right after 9/11, the media at the time of his arrest generally only referred to him by his previous, non-muslim name. Of course, if Hasan’s actions had absolutely nothing to do with his being a muslim (as we are repeatedly assured), why are they so concerned about a huge anti-muslim backlash? (The same one that never materialized after 9/11.) You’d think they’d be more concerned about the actual victims as opposed to some delusional hypothetical victims which haven’t happened yet and probably won’t&hellip

“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse…”

This is just insane. The casualties that you should be concerned with are the actual, you know, casualties. The people who got shot. (And when I refer to the victims of this “tragedy” who got shot, I do not include Hasan in that number.) Slavish devotion to “diversity” caused this “tragedy”, and by refusing to face that fact and alter this insane policy, they have guaranteed that the casualties we will face in the future will be … even more casualties.

6 Responses to “Still Staggering in Disbelief”

  1. DustBunny Says:

    I haven’t watched tv news for awhile either.
    I understand and agree with your thoughts written here.
    I read/heard somewhere that a possible reason it is not being called a “terrorist” act (as it is)… someOne would have to acknowlege terrorist attack on His watch.
    I find it unbelieveable that a general would conclude diversity is more important than actual people. People on his team. People trained to fight an enemy. An enemy who couldn’t give a flying F%$K about diversity.

  2. DustBunny Says:

    Also, do you know if people still have to take a loyalty oath when entering military service? My cousin told me that when he went in, he had to answer several questions concerning his relationship or lack of, to the communist party. Seems to me that some of these people would weed themselves out if questions were asked about their beliefs and loyalties.

    • RoboMonkey Says:

      They do have to swear to protect and defend the Constitution, etc., but they certainly aren’t asked about (or rejected because of) any religious affiliation.

  3. DustBunny Says:

    Seems like there are questions that could be asked– not religious affiliation, but perhaps their view of jihad. I don’t know.

  4. PaladinPhil Says:

    “They wouldn’t even be admitting that he was a Muslim if Nidal Malik Hasan’s name didn’t make it obvious. “

    Don’t you know it. We had a horrible shooting tragedy in Montreal about twenty years ago. Something I only found out a couple of years back was the shooter was Algerian. His mother anglicized his name and of course the press never told us that.

    • RoboMonkey Says:

      It took them a while to realize that they were no longer the “gatekeepers” who decided what information we the public needed to know and which information it was better to keep from us… And they’ve never stopped yearning to regain that control.

      “Ignore that man behind the curtain! on FOX News!”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: