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.