To the editor:
I am not sure what Charles Krauthammer is getting at in his piece “Religion clearly part of Fort Hood story.”
Has he just noticed that people often do horrible things in the name of religion?
In my own Christian tradition, a man just shot a fellow Christian at the victim’s church for religious reasons. Christians also slaughtered Muslims in Bosnia.
A Hindu extremist killed Gandhi, and Hindus and Muslims killed each other wholesale at the time of the partition.
A rabbinical student killed the prime minister of Israel for religious reasons.
So it goes on.
Alas, you can’t be protected by avoiding religious people. Neither Timothy McVeigh nor Seung-Hui Cho (the Virginia Tech shooter) expressed any religious motivation.
Clearly there were signs that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the suspect in the recent Fort Hood massacre, was a dangerous person. I don’t know that it would be an easy thing to decide when to give up trying to help someone, and when to destroy his career and send him out.
Still, dangerous people, not Muslims, are the problem.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
bisky1 (anonymous) says…
there is a big difference between a nutcase and a trained muslim terrorist. suggest expanding your news sources, anne.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"there is a big difference between a nutcase and a trained muslim terrorist. "
It doesn't take any special training to buy a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo and go on a shooting spree-- just a nutcase.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
good letter, anne.
He is a nut case. After all investigations are done, perhaps he was in contact with extremists (good way to get out of the army), but he is still a nutcase.
And you can't categorize all muslims by the action of one man, just as you can't categorize christians by the action of people in topeka.
sbell10 (anonymous) says…
I can't help but think that Fox "News" is fairly biased against Muslims. Using Fox to suggest something or as evidence to be the wild card in these forum discussions is ineffective.
Basically, if I ever wanted to say something with credibility, certainty, or weight, I wouldn't use Fox to back it up.
If he was a trained Muslim terrorist, then our military does a poor job of selecting service members.
jafs (anonymous) says…
Amen, sbell.
No matter what his reasons/problems, it certainly seems that the military should have noticed and taken more effective action to prevent this tragedy.
If he didn't want to be in the services, they should have discharged him.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
http://www.slate.com/id/2235760/
honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…
the U.S. military dropped the ball on this one... big time. dude was an extremist as well as a whack job. and by now we should ALL know, regardless of how much some of us like to look down on certain groups of people, that this dude is not a representative of most muslims.
RobertMarble (anonymous) says…
The facts are the facts despite the state of denial the left continues to wallow in regarding this tragedy.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
This will not be popular, but so be it. Our definition of "Christian" today is much too broad. It's almost like saying "I know how to put gas into my car, therefore I'm a mechanic." Just 'saying' you are does not make it so.
Catlover777 (anonymous) says…
And hadMajor Hasan been kicked out of the military, he could still have easily did what he did.
jafs (anonymous) says…
catlover,
Not at all.
He wouldn't have had easy access to a military base, for one thing.
He wouldn't have been angry at the military that kept him in against his will, for another.
Also, if there was compelling evidence that he might be dangerous, other law enforcement agencies could have been notified.
Why is it that so many danger signs are ignored and then, when tragedy strikes, everybody is surprised?