Major Hasan’s killing spree was not the result of jihad, post-traumatic stress disorder or even mommy issues, but the war on terror – so says Robert Wright in the New York Times. Christopher Hitchens isn’t buying.
Wright brings to mention all those crimes the U.S. military has purported on Muslim populations around the world – throwing acid at Muslim school girls, murder, brutality, rape, Adam Lambert – but wait, that wasn’t the military, that was – other Muslims.
It takes a true intellectual to survey this appalling picture and to say, as Wright does, that we invite attacks on our off-duty soldiers because “the hawkish war-on-terrorism strategy—a global anti-jihad that creates nonstop imagery of Americans killing Muslims—is so dubious.” Dubious? The only thing dubious here is his command of language. When did the U.S. Army ever do what the jihadists do every day: deliberately murder Muslim civilians and brag on video about the fact? For shame. The slippery slope—actually the slimy slope—is the one down which Wright is skidding.
Slimy slopes or not, the left thinks little of what its moral equivocal rhetoric, much like the excuses surrounding Hasan’s rampage, does to those who actually have problems like PTSD or war injuries.
I am a wounded Iraq War Vet. I lost my right arm to an IED in late 2006. I was a patient at Walter Reed for 9 months in 2007, the same time Major Hassan was there. I have PTSD and TBI. The attempts by the media to say this guy has PTSD by proxy are absolutely disgusting, and serve as a giant middle finger toward every Soldier like me who has actually deployed and has real medical problems.
Does a problem exist if it isn’t on MSNBC? Soldiers and their problems aren’t considered problems until they become trouble for liberals. Simple things like, “Hey, we need 40,000 troops right now,” are played off as headaches and distractions from the president’s “real agenda.” Poor him.
My guess – with the show trials scheduled for New York and the excuses made for Hasan, it will become less likely a KSM or the next shooter walk out of their cave or the scene of their latest rampage breathing.
I do my damnedest not to resort to the knee-jerk, “America, love it or leave it!” mentality, subscribing more to “America, respect it!” Guys like Robert Wright really test my patience, though.
Why should they respect America? They don’t even acknowledge the fact that they are citizens with RESPONSIBILITIES as well as rights. They don’t appreciate what America affords them…because they don’t understand the unique gift that they were given.
Whether it is a poor education, or just a willful disregard of the facts, it is tools like Mr. Wright who really grind my gears.
Good point, Outlaw. Responsibility should be joined with rights. Like Yin/Yang, Hot/Cold, Night/Day. One does not exist without the other.
“grind my gears?!” I thought we were trying to keep this a PG rated site.
“God Is Not Good” by Christopher Hitchins
When Hitch wants to he can bring it. I just wish he’d stop being such an ass about his Atheism. Great we get it…..you don’t need to share anymore. We heard you…….LOUDLY. That is his biggest weakness and his worst character trait. But when he goes after Islam its a beautiful thing.
God is Good…ME.
I’ve long suspected that the only reason Hitch is on our side in the War on Terror is out of necessity — he considers all religions a threat to peace and stability, but (correctly) believes Islam to be a greater threat than Christianity.
Christianity’s intolerant bloodlust died out centuries ago…would that Islam’s had done the same
I think it would be more apt to say that Christianity extinguished that bloodlust centuries ago. I won’t say more than that, as my typing finger’s itchy, but I don’t feel like burying anyone under a rambling epic tonight.
That’s what I said,David
I mean the bloodlust didn’t originate with Christianity. The process was a long and slow one of removing the worst aspects of the old paganism.
David,
I see how historically one can make that argument, but let’s be honest; it’s human nature. Nothing has been extinguished. Will there be a future religious leader claiming to be a Christian who gets followers to die or kill in the name of what he calls Christianity? Almost definitely. Do we have Christians in this country who would restrict their countrymen’s rights in support of their view of morality? Sure. What do you think a Pat Robertson Presidency would look like if the Congress and Supreme Court were stacked with Pat Robertson clones?
Christianity is much less bloody because civilization is much less bloody (at least for those of us living outside of Rwanda). Just as there were Christians who were not blood-thirsty savages when the Spanish were killing everything that moved in Central and South America in the name of Christ, there are Christians today who lie, cheat, steal and kill while hiding behind a bastardized version of the Old and New Testaments. “The Devil can quote scripture for his purpose.” There will be blood shed in the “name” of Christianity in the future, just as there was in the past. As long as Christianity is a powerful force in the world it will attract men seeking power for power’s sake, who will use a cloak of Christianity to further their own means.
I see how historically one can make that argument…
Which is all that I’m doing. You’re completely arguing past the point I was making.
Do we have Christians in this country who would restrict their countrymen’s rights in support of their view of morality? Sure.
And where does that doctrine of rights come from, that can be held up against this misplaced moralizing?
Christianity is much less bloody because civilization is much less bloody (at least for those of us living outside of Rwanda).
And why is civilization much less bloody?
As long as Christianity is a powerful force in the world it will attract men seeking power for power’s sake, who will use a cloak of Christianity to further their own means.
Exactly, which is how many charges of Christianity’s bloodlust can be answered.
The pagan Romans abolished human sacrifice,David..it was anathema to them
Human sacrifice has always been the rage in the Levant..the story of Abraham and Isaac has always made me ill
The pagan Romans abolished human sacrifice,David..it was anathema to them…
First, I know that (though that didn’t stop them from having the gladiatorial games later in their history). Second, the Romans weren’t the only pagans. Gauls, Thracians, and Celts were among the many groups outside of Roman lands on the Continent. In the British Isles, you had a real thicket; Jutes, Angles, Frisians, Scoti, Atacoti, Picti, Irish, etc. And up in Scandinavia you would have had Norwegians, Danes, Finns, Lapps, and so on. Not counting that region, some of the last pagans to convert did so at the end of the 10th century. Considering the records are a little spotty from that period, pockets of it might have lingered centuries longer.
Human sacrifice has always been the rage in the Levant..the story of Abraham and Isaac has always made me ill…
Not exactly sure why, since Isaac was never sacrificed. Abraham assumed God had something of up his sleeve. As Paul put it, Abraham knew very well that God could bring Isaac back from the dead, since it was God who had given him Isaac miraculously to begin with. In the end, Isaac wasn’t sacrificed. God didn’t want it, but used Isaac as a symbol to demonstrate a point to Abraham. We Christians, of course, point to this as being prophetic.
Of course, you could disregard the miraculous elements of the story, but then you have to to take a priori stance, since nothing in the text can be used to separate the two elements. In which case, in order to be consistent, you would have to regard the story as almost purely mythological or allegorical, which in turn means you still have to interpret the story with in its own framework; Abraham had faith in God and his goodness. Abraham, who by the time he had Isaac was a very old man, had witnessed God’s miracles and the fulfillment of the promises made to him.
It should also be noted that the Mosaic law forbids human sacrifice, long before the Romans threw off their Etruscan rulers.
“pockets of it might have lingered centuries longer”
There are still “uncontacted” tribes living in the world today!
I’ve long been of the opinion (and I heard Newt Gingrich say the same once, to my surprise) that the non-sacrifice of Isaac was a watershed in human history. A (demonic) character in my novel WOLF TIME calls it “the first heresy, if you will.” Up to then, it was just assumed the gods wanted the Most Expensive Gift of All now and then. I have a hunch (but can’t prove) that the Romans picked the prohibition up from the Jews.