Joseph A. Kinney, an ex-Marine and Vietnam Vet, God bless him, nevertheless wrote a very silly opinion piece in the Times, entitled, "Surviving Ft. Hood." This is followed by a whole lot of equally silly comments in essential agreement with the premise that whenever Muslims attack us, it is, invariably, our own stupid fault and it is our job to figure out what is was that upset them and try to do better next time. Here is a taste of Kinney's article:
Just as there is no way to explain the internal agony of war, there is no real way to explain what happens in its shadow. This is the domain of tortured minds that may never heal. This may very well be the legacy of Fort Hood.
Forty years ago I was a Marine returning from the war in Vietnam. I returned having been badly wounded in the chest and both legs. I tried to find solace in my scars but could not. I had abandoned my buddies only to come home to unchartered waters. Soon I found myself more terrified in peace than I was in war.
There is no way to sort through the nightmare that took place at Fort Hood. Soldiers are not supposed to die on their way to war and they most certainly are not supposed to die at the hands of those who care for their health.
Warfare has a way of making us into something that we are not. I once cuddled a dying Marine who desperately wanted to believe my lie that the medical evacuation chopper was just minutes away. As I watched him die I felt that I was losing part of myself with him. I still see his face in my sleep.
Could it be that the psychiatrist we want to hate saw the unbearable suffering of warriors he was tasked to treat? Could it be that he identified with the suffering of those he treated at Walter Reed Army Hospital? Did he become one of us, another soul tortured by war’s anguish? I cannot forgive this man who betrayed us but I must try and understand him nonetheless....
Here is the comment that was not allowed at the Times:
1. There is absolutely no evidence that Hasan was sick or deranged. He knew exactly what he was doing. He is a devout Muslim and the loyalty of Muslims to their fellow Muslims and to Islam trumps everything else including loyalty and duty to country. Non-Muslims are always the aggressors in the eyes of Muslims for they are defined as such by Islam. He saw America and the American army as the aggressors against Muslims and he was attempting to defend Muslims by killing them.
He calmly premeditated this action - took extra courses in firing pistols, gave away his furniture and Korans, dressed in the traditional Muslim garb and probably shaved his body as well to prepare for his reception in heaven - the reward for fighting in the way of Allah. He was fully prepared to die. He shouted “Allahu Akbar” and opened up on a crowded room of unarmed soldiers.
He was a Major in the army and trained by the army in the art of compassion. He was an American, seemingly completely and fully integrated, but his first loyalty was to Islam and the ummah. That is the lesson of Fort Hood.
— Rebecca Bynum
Here is the Times' faq on comments:
Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we have created a space where readers can exchange intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers and generally cannot alter a comment once it is posted.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely.
Was I impolite?
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
%20(2).jpg)
.jpg)
