In more Invite the World / Invade the World news, from the NYT:
KILLEEN, Tex. — Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people, told a judge on Tuesday that he believed he was defending the lives of the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan from American military personnel when he went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood here in November 2009.
You know, the U.S. Army has well-known precedents of how officers are supposed to behave when they find themselves in an extreme conflict of loyalties, such as Robert E. Lee resigning from the Union Army or William Tecumseh Sherman resigning as superintendent of the Louisiana military academy. Lee and Sherman didn't suddenly open fire on random comrades.
Major Hasan’s remarks were the first public explanation about the motive for one of the deadliest mass shootings at an American military base. His comments came a day after the judge granted his request to release his court-appointed military lawyers so that he could represent himself.
On Monday, one of Major Hasan’s first legal maneuvers had been to ask the judge, Col. Tara A. Osborn, for a three-month delay for the start of his trial, scheduled to begin on July 1. His primary reason in asking for the delay was to change his defense to “a defense of others,” but he had not elaborated on the identity of the “others.” At a new hearing on Tuesday, Colonel Osborn asked him pointedly whom he was defending.
“The leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban,” he said, specifically naming Mullah Muhammad Omar, the founder of the Islamic insurgent group.
His comments, delivered in a soft, matter-of-fact tone, stunned many in the courtroom. Seated in the gallery behind him were Army soldiers, military police officers and relatives of some of his victims. Colonel Osborn then asked him to explain his defense, and Major Hasan asked for a recess to gather his thoughts.
When the hearing resumed a few minutes later, the judge again asked him to explain the facts supporting his defense, and he said he preferred to submit his thoughts in written form. “I don’t want to brainstorm in front of the court,” he told her.
I've always suspected that Hasan, who is a Palestinian, has, at least in part, motives similar to Sirhan Sirhan's for murdering Robert F. Kennedy.
But, the real question is: Why, 42 months later, this guy is still alive?
Mark Fidel Kools/Hasan Karim Akbar is still alive too.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"His [Hasan's] comments, delivered in a soft, matter-of-fact tone, stunned many in the courtroom."
They didn't stun me, but then I'm one of those Americans who's taken the time to study what Islam is really all about - and how its adherents think and work. Unlike our "leaders" who are, by executive fiat, prohibited from considering Islamic motives for Moslems' jihad violence.
One of the reasons we live in dangerous times is because our Dear Rulers, instead of opposing and extirpating Islam wherever it rears its poisonous head or insinuates its toxic tentacles, have appeased Moslems and mistaken to have granted to Islam the status of a religion.
Of course the army should have long ago convicted and executed Hasan. But not before the army should have forcibly shaved him of his jihad facial hair.
I'm just guessing here but do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that the President is a Muslim?
ReplyDeleteApparently you're not supposed to say that but let's think about it for a moment.
Jews I'm told say you are a Jew if your mother was a Jew. For Muslim the rule is the religion of your father. Obama Senior was of course a Muslim. The President's operatives say that Barrack senior wasn't a very 'good' Muslim. I don't think my own father was a very good Catholic but unless he had come to be excommunicated he would always be counted as a Catholic.
Barrack Obama has a large extended family almost all of whom are Muslims. The only Christians were his maternal grandparents who raised him. All my relatives natural and by marriage were Catholics including a couple priests and a Monsignor. We did have a Jew and a Protestant however. Obama's family is as least as Muslim as mine was Catholic.
Young Barrack (or Barry) attended Catholic and public schools as a registered Muslim. He studied Islam. Most Americans don't study a particular faith in school but I did. In Catholic military high school we said a rosary every day. That's not the norm in these secular days but Obama probably had more schools days of religious instruction than I did. He studied the Koran.
So it's fair to say that Barrack Hussein Obama was born and raised a Muslim. I don't really see how that can be questioned. I am not citing crackpot sources or secret material. If he were anyone except a prominent politician the family connections alone would be sufficient to mark him as a Muslim.
I won't speculate about taqiyya. I'll accept that he is some kind of riddah Christian now. But he certainly was a Muslim by any conventional definition.
I have Muslim friends - they are less Muslim than he is.
Albertosaurus
But, the real question is: Why, 42 months later, this guy is still alive?
ReplyDeleteThe army is still classifying the incident as "workplace violence", treating the entire thing as the result of one nutcase who flipped his lid. They have steadfastly refused to call it terrorism, and have refused to treat the dead and wounded as casualties instead of victims. If you're going to take that line of reasoning, you can't execute him because he's crazy.
You'd think, at the very least, his testimony would force them to call a spade a spade.
The Childress Sisters say he's white, so let's fry him. But wait, General Casey says he's Diverse, so that would be racist, and Diversity might suffer as a result -- and there is nothing on Earth worse than that.
ReplyDeleteSteve Sailer:"You know, the U.S. Army has well-known precedents of how officers are supposed to behave when they find themselves in an extreme conflict of loyalties, such as Robert E. Lee resigning from the Union Army or William Tecumseh Sherman resigning as superintendent of the Louisiana military academy. Lee and Sherman didn't suddenly open fire on random comrades."
ReplyDeleteLee and Sherman were gentlemen operating under Anglo codes of conduct. Such things are so frightfully old-fashioned in our brave, new multicultural America...
syon
ReplyDeleteLee and Sherman were gentlemen operating under Anglo codes of conduct.
Lee was a gentleman. Sherman was a war criminal. *Fergit, Hell!!*
****
Excellent take on the Obama/Muslim issue, Pat.
****
Political Correctness is going to get a bunch of people killed.
Oh, this trial has at least another three and half years to go.
ReplyDeletei stopped posting about this guy a while ago. nobody seemed to care he was still alive.
ReplyDeleteWell if you're looking for expedited justice, the trial of George Zimmerman has started to get in motion!
ReplyDeleteWell if you're looking for expedited justice, George Zimmerman's trial is starting to get in motion. A court employee has already started the process of eliminating unflattering pictures from Trayvon Martin's cellphone depicting drug usage and fun with guns.
ReplyDelete"You know, the U.S. Army has well-known precedents of how officers are supposed to behave when they find themselves in an extreme conflict of loyalties, such as Robert E. Lee resigning from the Union Army or William Tecumseh Sherman resigning as superintendent of the Louisiana military academy. Lee and Sherman didn't suddenly open fire on random comrades."
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, he asked to be sent to a non-Muslim country and they said no.
What's the difference. Rot in prison for life or a quick death..
ReplyDeleteThey didn't stun me, but then I'm one of those Americans who's taken the time to study what Islam is really all about - and how its adherents think and work. Unlike our "leaders" who are, by executive fiat, prohibited from considering Islamic motives for Moslems' jihad violence.
ReplyDeleteYes. The level of understanding most of our leadership has is very primitive. Of course, there are similarities between all religions. They have holy texts, holy historical people, religious ceremonial days, religious leaders, religious organizations, religious symbols, etc. Given that approach, one can get the mistaken impression that all religions are mostly alike.
This is what I was taught in Catholic high school. However, we didn't cover much about what each religion is like in practice, and most importantly what to be wary of. That wouldn't be, shall we say, kosher.
Effectively, my generation on forward (and probably some time beforehand) has been intellectually disarmed. We were taught only the commonalities of religions. We were taught about the crusades, and that they were bloody. We did not go into any depth about the Muslim incursions that precipitated the crusades. We were taught something of other cultures and peoples, but primarily that they can do no wrong and in cases where they do in fact do wrong, that it is really the fault of white people somehow.
As a result, it's only disagreeable people like us who read unassigned texts, read for our own pleasure in general, try and understand the world, and do not accept whatever our teachers attempt to shovel down our throats who are in a position to understand something like Islam and the actions of Muslims. There will be some of us who are just contrary by nature, but others of us who are only contrary when we disagree with what we are told by those in authority. Either way, it will be in our nature to disagree and have the intellectual arrogance to think that we could possibly be smarter than our teachers.
What is changing though is that internet search has really lowered the bar for research. Someone with no training and less IQ can do more effective research today, much faster, than someone 20 years ago. And there are sometimes comments on internet news articles allowed, and they are usually more interesting and informative than the actual news stories are themselves. So it only takes someone to read an internet comment that talks about Sura X:Y (e.g. 9:5, there are many others) to go google it, and get their red pill.
Initially, people like us were dismissed as nutjobs, but this is not nearly so much the case nowadays as everyone is to some extent a nerd. Everyone googles.
Didn't Obama & the FBI recently go off-message (or at least, anti-Army) and criticize the "workplace violence" terminology? For POTUS it came as a passing comment in one of his droning speeches
ReplyDeleteWe used to execute murderers within a month---- Such as President Roosevelt's would be assassin
ReplyDeleteAssassination Attempt on FDR (1933): On February 15, 1933, President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt had just sat down after giving a speech at the Bayfront Park in Miami, Florida when five shots rang out. Giuseppe Zangara, an Italian immigrant and unemployed bricklayer, had emptied his .32 caliber pistol while aiming the best he could at FDR while standing on a wobbly chair about 25 feet away. Although none of the shots hit FDR, Chicago's Mayor Anton Cermak was mortally hit in the stomach and four others received minor injuries.
In an interview with officials after the shooting, Zangara stated that he wanted to kill FDR because he blamed FDR and all rich people and capitalists for his chronic stomach pain. After Cermak died of his wounds on March 6, 1933 (19 days after the shooting), Zangara was charged with first-degree murder. Zangara pleaded guilty to the charge and was then sentenced to death. On March 20, 1933, Zangara died in the electric chair.
TontoBubbaGoldstein:"Lee was a gentleman. Sherman was a war criminal. *Fergit, Hell!!*"
ReplyDeleteWell, if Sherman counts as a"war criminal," then what does that make Lee? He fought to defend slavery, a system that was based on the subjugation of an entire race. Lee was the true war criminal, a man who was willing to kill in the name of slavery.
TontoBubbaGoldstein:"Lee was a gentleman. Sherman was a war criminal. *Fergit, Hell!!*"
ReplyDeleteSure, Lee was such a gentleman that he was willing to defend a way of life (slavery) that condoned mass rape, the selling of children, sadistic beatings,etc. Gentlemen do not defend rape.Lee murdered his fellow Americans in order to defend rape.Lee was no gentleman.
The guy who threw a grenade in a Army tent right before the start of the Iraq war in 2003 was sentenced to death, he is still alive.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine a Japanese American saboteur from 1941 still being in legal limbo by the end of the Truman presidency?
I cannot. However it's a different military, since the movie "The Execution of Private Slovik" came out in the 70's
Pardon me, but would you have any Grey Poupon
ReplyDeleteDidn't he just admit his acts were also treasonous?
ReplyDelete"You know, the U.S. Army has well-known precedents of how officers are supposed to behave when they find themselves in an extreme conflict of loyalties, such as Robert E. Lee resigning from the Union Army or William Tecumseh Sherman resigning as superintendent of the Louisiana military academy. Lee and Sherman didn't suddenly open fire on random comrades."
ReplyDeleteThe US army of 1861 probably never would have allowed a muslim to join. If one volunteered, he would have been turned away as unsuitable to be a soldier in a christian nation.
Why couldn't the army simply decline to accept jurisdiction over him. He isn't a traitor - he had no allegiance to the nation in the first place - he's an ourtight enemy. Strip him of his rank, discharge him, and then turn him over to the state of Texas to stand trial for murder. They would settle his account a lot quicker.
ReplyDeleteBut, the real question is: Why, 42 months later, this guy is still alive?
Because they didn't finish him off when they had the chance. Please let this be a lesson to us all. As a woman, I think if I had to shoot in self defense, I would probably be so freaked out scared that I would just keep shooting out of sheer terror. Well, that is the story I would stick to.
(my verification word is somaile behavior. no kidding)
You'd think, at the very least, his testimony would force them to call a spade a spade.
ReplyDelete...
Didn't he just admit his acts were also treasonous?
Yep, Hassam fits the definition of traitor in the strict, old-fashioned meaning of the word.
I'm actually glad he's taken this I-am-a proud-defender-of-Islam line of defense, instead of starting with an insanity plea.
It will compel the Army and the general public to recognize a spade as a spade.
On second thought, the trial probably won't turn out that clear-cut. The court will probably declare him not mentally competent at some point, so he'll end up with an insanity plea.
It's OK, post-modern peepul: Treason is an obsolete concept.
Why is he still live? Because justice has gone insane. I believe it's a plot by judges and lawyers to drive up lawyers' pay. Consider that today I heard the news that the trial of Marcelles Peter has just begun. Who the hell is Marcelles Peter? You're forgiven if you've forgotten - you will never,e ver hear as much about him as you've heard about Trayvon, and Barack Obama will never claim his son would look like Marcelles. Peter was the ringleader of mostly black and Hispanic "students" (in case you're wondering why you haven't heard as much about him as about George Zimmerman) who brutally raped a 15-year-old white girl at Richmond High School in Northern California 4 years ago. Nearly four years later, these assholes are barely going to trial. Just last week, Florida executed a man who raped and murdered a ten-year-old girl...23 years ago - a man whose guilt was never, ever in doubt. Why the hell does it take so long to even go to trial, and why does it take so long to carry out the sentence after they've been sentenced to death. It should not take 4 years for a rape trial with ample DNA evidence and plenty of eyewitnesses to begin, and it should not take 20+ years to execute a clearly guilty man. They executed Timothy McVeigh less than 6 years and 2 months after the Oklahoma City bombing. It's taken nearly four years just to even bring Peter and Hasan to trial. When the establishment wants to get down to business, they know how to get down to business.
ReplyDeleteIslam is not just a religion, it is an all-encompassing totalitarian ideology that also includes a political system and a legal code.
ReplyDeleteIslam is fundamentally incompatible with the US Constitution, and with most of the fundamental tenets of Western Society. If you don't want to establish a Sharia-compliant society, you aren't a real Moslem.
If the Nazis had claimed Hitler was a prophet and worshiped some twisted God, do you think Truman would have let them immigrate here after the war and practice their "religion"?
Well, if Sherman counts as a"war criminal," then what does that make Lee? He fought to defend slavery, a system that was based on the subjugation of an entire race. Lee was the true war criminal, a man who was willing to kill in the name of slavery.
ReplyDeleteRarely does a commenter cram so much ignorance into such a short post.
First, you don't know what a war criminal is. A war criminal wages a war of aggression or kills civilians or does similar things. Thus, Lincoln (war of aggression) and Sherman (crimes against civilians) are war criminals.
Second, the Union did not invade the Confederate States to put an end to slavery. The Union government allowed chattel slavery to continue in the States of the Union.
In fact, the Union invaded the Confederate States to expand slavery. As Jeff Hummel points out, the war was a war of imperialism to centralize power in DC. The point of the war was to establish NON-self government, which means public slavery. Lee fought to oppose a system of slavery that was based on the enslavement of two entire raaces.
Why is he still alive?
ReplyDeleteBecause our rulers hate us.
Next question?
They executed Timothy McVeigh less than 6 years and 2 months after the Oklahoma City bombing. It's taken nearly four years just to even bring Peter and Hasan to trial. When the establishment wants to get down to business, they know how to get down to business."
ReplyDeleteTimonthy McVeigh killed a lot more people in a very high profile manner in 1995 thereby embarrassing the pudgy draft dodging commander in chief whose national security credentials were always in doubt.
Therefore McVeigh had to be made an example of.
An added bonus was that this pro abortion athiest was somehow "right wing" due to some connections with white militias.So there were no "civil rights" race hustlers rushing to his defense,nor any Ivy League trained lawyers pleading his case for free.
But apart from the PC junk that pollutes the legal system, the main problem in a mushrooming of beureaucracy.There is just too much money to be made by all the important players in a long drawn out process than a short,speedy trial.
Timonthy McVeigh killed a lot more people in a very high profile manner in 1995 thereby embarrassing the pudgy draft dodging commander in chief whose national security credentials were always in doubt.
ReplyDeleteThe government made sure that the death toll was as high as possible. McVeigh didn't want to bomb the Murrah building when there were children in the dycare center in the building, but the Feds convinced him that the daycare center would be closed on the day of the bombing.
ReplyDeleteI won't speculate about taqiyya. I'll accept that he is some kind of riddah Christian now. But he certainly was a Muslim by any conventional definition.
I have Muslim friends - they are less Muslim than he is.
Albertosaurus"
I dont think Obama is a Muslim now but he certainly considered a part of his past identity.
He seems to be a typical athiest SWPL in blackface.
The kind of guy who would give any other religion the benefit of doubt and ideological cover he wouldnt give Christianity.
I actually had one idiot friend back in Seattle who considered himself a communist. He expressed a desire to convert to Islam only because it was "different". Then the Muslim/Left nexus began to make sense to me. It is not really something sinister as the Leftist hive mind using Muslim passion and muscle to take over the Western world.Well atleast I dont think it started out that way.
It begins with shiftless white middle class types who are disillusioned with the bland,emasculated culture of their upbringing and want to believe in something,preferably something foreign and mysterious.
Islam fulfills these criteria and then some!
Look unless these pussy evangelicals get with the program and become "muscular Christians" in the mode of late Victorians,they are going to witness a great deal of hemorrhaging of their acolytes.
Less Sermon on the Mount-more Jesus opening a can of whoopass on the moneychangers.
Less Jesus weeping over Lazarus,more of him wielding a sword ala Book of Revelation
Less forgiveness,more Archangel Michael and war against demons
Less martyrdom ,more Crusades,Jan Sobieski,Lepanto et al
Less church picnics and sing alongs,more mock battles between Saracens and Templars
If this sounds extreme, remember to fight wars, physical or ideological you need young men.And young men will tend to drift to a side that appreciates what they bring to the table.
The historical record of my country is also instructive- Hindus contrary to popular perception were known to rather warlike and occasionally (literally) bloodthirsty. Around the 5th century BC a proto hippie movement within Hinduism called bhakti(devotion) took root and preached an aversion to worldly matters.
This not only undermined morale among-st the warrior classes but when Muslims invaded many Kshatriyas actually willingly converted to Islam so they could continue their fussin and feudin'
Remember Islam has an appeal that is that of buccaneers and Fight club combined as wonderfully articulated by Raymond Ibrahim.
Having said all THAT. Islam is strong but brittle. Despite considerable Islamist victories over the decade,Islam had more than its share of PR disasters and Islam itself is losing adherents in Iran as well as Turkey.The most powerful Muslim countries on earth.
This may or may not have a cascade effect amongst European Muslims who are the real problem.
As Mark Steyn put it, the demographics are really a matter of the last man standing. Muslim birth rates are also reducing but question is how many brilliant Europeans can Muslims convert in the mean time in order to give Islam a stimulus package of another 100 years or so as the Mideast oil boom has done?
The weird thing about these high-profile trials is that they seem to drag on forever, and then get multiple appeals, and then drag on longer. And at the end of it, some notable fraction of the people convicted turn out not to have done it.
ReplyDeleteDNA evidence lets you catch this in some old cases--you convict Joe Smith of the rape and murder and save the semen sample from the victim, and years later while Joe's sitting on death row, you do the DNA test and find out it wasn't him. Modern cases will involve a DNA test if one is appropriate, I think, but there's probably some other kind of evidence that will be available years from now that will let us discover how many death row inmates really did what they're supposed to have done.
I can't help thinking you could speed the whole thing up and also make it a lot more accurate. Start with Steve's proposal about videotaping the trial and showing it to jurors in a nice, condensed form, and expand from there.
But, the real question is: Why, 42 months later, this guy is still alive?
ReplyDeleteSteve,
Hasan struck back at a military regime that is persecuting and dispossessing his people. Why should he be executed?
i stopped posting about this guy a while ago. nobody seemed to care he was still alive.
ReplyDelete"this guy"?? The man sacrificed himself in defense of others. Doesn't he deserve a little more respect?
McVeigh didn't want to bomb the Murrah building when there were children in the dycare center in the building, but the Feds convinced him that the daycare center would be closed on the day of the bombing.
ReplyDeleteEvidence please.
He fought to defend slavery, a system that was based on the subjugation of an entire race. Lee was the true war criminal, a man who was willing to kill in the name of slavery.
ReplyDeleteLee was fighting for Southern sovereignty and against imperialism.
The civil war was something that couldve been avoided. Just tragic.
ReplyDeleteOnly if you think the ending of slavery was the northern states's purpose in invading the South. If you understand that the true purpose was to acquire land, then invasion couldn't have been avoided.
The US army of 1861 probably never would have allowed a muslim to join. If one volunteered, he would have been turned away as unsuitable to be a soldier in a christian nation.
ReplyDeleteThat's probably true of the bigots in the North. In the South, a Muslim would have been welcomed to the brotherhood. Jews served.
Steve asked: But, the real question is: Why, 42 months later, this guy is still alive?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: because his fellow soldiers didn't shoot him dead on the spot as they should have done.
"Steve, Hasan struck back at a military regime that is persecuting and dispossessing his people. Why should he be executed?"
ReplyDeleteBecause we are not "his people."
Because he purported to be fighting for us while he was fighting for them.
Because our military, however imperfect, is not "persecuting and dispossessing his people." Would that we were on a mission of conquest. Then 11 wasted years of men and money might actually make sense.
Is it ok for him to kill "our people" on behalf of his people, but not ok for us to kill him on behalf of our people?
After the war Union and Confederate officers resumed their old friendships, often holding large parties where they'd swap stories. Sherman was popular at these, and his former enemies didn't seem to consider him a war criminal.
ReplyDeleteIn his memoirs Sherman describes meeting up with his old pal Braxton Bragg in New Orleans after the war, and his nemesis on the march through Georgia, Joe Johnston literally died of pneumonia from standing hatless in the rain at Sherman's funeral.
It's hard to see someone like Hassan getting together with old Christian or Jewish buddies from Army days.
The first prominent Jews in American political life were in the Confederate government. Jefferson Davis's close pal Judah Benjamin was both Secretary Of War and Secretary Of State. You literally have a Southern Jew to thank for the Confederate battle flag! Charles Moise, a Jew from South Carolina, objected to a state secession flag that was pretty much identical to the ubiquitous battle flag we all know and love, except it was a cross and not an X.
Moise said it was "Too Christian!", and demanded it be made more universal, for everybody. Some things never change.
David Davenport said: I'm actually glad he's taken this I-am-a proud-defender-of-Islam line of defense, instead of starting with an insanity plea.
ReplyDeleteHunsdon said: I agree. Give him the due of respecting him as an autonomous moral agent. He made his choice. Let him stand by it.
Anonydroid at 9:46 PM said: Steve,
Hasan struck back at a military regime that is persecuting and dispossessing his people. Why should he be executed?
Hunsdon said: If he was fighting for his people, he was doing so as a spy, i.e., dressed in enemy uniform. Spies are traditionally shot out of hand in military campaigns.
You literally have a Southern Jew to thank for the Confederate battle flag! Charles Moise, a Jew from South Carolina, objected to a state secession flag that was pretty much identical to the ubiquitous battle flag we all know and love, except it was a cross and not an X.
ReplyDeleteMoise said it was "Too Christian!", and demanded it be made more universal, for everybody. Some things never change."
Amazing! The confederates changed the flag and excised the cross to please a Jewish advisor!
Somewhere a New York Jew's head is exploding!
But who was this Moise anyway, apart from his identity as a Jew from South Carolina or "Southerner of Jewish persuasion" ,there is no more information I can find on him.
Comparison to the Civil War incidents is why Steve is the master of pattern detection. This is linked with an appropriate graphic here:
ReplyDeletehttp://ex-army.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-good-question-about-major-hassan.html
OT, but since others have already Gone There...
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Robert E. Lee (but apropos of the topic of loyalty and identity, nation and nation-breaking), has anybody else noticed a recent uptick in de novo animosity to the once-honored dead? (Also, from the last couple of weeks: another soul-of-honor at D. Frum's site agreeing that Confederate traitors don't deserve honors.)
I note this as someone who grew up in a country where the Civil War was perceived and taught as an immense tragedy (in the classical as well the pedestrian sense), a brothers' war, and all the fallen honored by their countrymen north or south. Lee in particular was regarded as a great man by Americans in general (and foreign observers, for that matter). There were exceptions here and there (understandably these mystic chords did not resonate much among black Americans), but this respect was the reigning shared national narrative.
Now the desire seems to be to transmit the history of the war as an earlier Cultural Revolution, whose rather more successful cadres have just a bit more mopping up to do before the past is eradicated completely and the Glorious Future ensured. Attacks on the Southern monuments and heroes that have been accepted pieces of that narrative seem to have increased in frequency and virulence recently. Park and street names, statues, plaques, memorials, bases, all unremarked for a century or more now attract the righteous who insist the Ungood be wiped from history.
None of this seems to be motivated by any residual passions among the descendents of those immersed in that great conflict, or among the latecomers who absorbed the history as their own. It's a de novo hate-on. From the sorts who probably think Major N. M. "Diversity" Hassan is more truly American than Robert E. Lee, lol.
"Steve asked: But, the real question is: Why, 42 months later, this guy is still alive?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: because his fellow soldiers didn't shoot him dead on the spot as they should have done."
They couldn't shoot him because they were unarmed and he surrendered when the MP's showed up. A US military base has the same gun-free zone policies as your local elementary school. Unless you are on police duty you are unarmed. If you live in military housing on base you even have to keep your private guns stored in the base armory and check them out when you go hunting or target shooting.
Hasan is still alive because killing him would diminish the level of diversity in the Army by one.
Whatever happened to the premise of a speedy trial?
ReplyDeleteWe were taught something of other cultures and peoples, but primarily that they can do no wrong and in cases where they do in fact do wrong, that it is really the fault of white people somehow.
ReplyDeleteIt's a kind of perverse White Supremacy; Liberal White Supremacy. Whites can always be expected to be the adults in the room, the ones who bend to make the peace. And the Liberal White Supremacists don't ask Whites to assent; their status as the big boses of the White race entitles them to do all of the talking; they know Whites are Supreme, and will thus "do the right thing."
Well, if Sherman counts as a"war criminal," then what does that make Lee? He fought to defend slavery, a system that was based on the subjugation of an entire race. Lee was the true war criminal, a man who was willing to kill in the name of slavery.
When someone invades your country, you don't look around and make sure all of your countrymen have their moral back yards neatly manicured before you start killing the sons of bitches who are invading you. The Yankees certainly didn't have their moral back yards neatly manicured. They ran the shipping lines carrying the slaves, they went on to perpetrate "Reconstruction" and the displacement of the Indians, and, oh yeah, they waged an aggressive war on their own ethnic kinsmen, throwing the American way of life under the bus in the process.
Sure, Lee was such a gentleman that he was willing to defend a way of life (slavery) that condoned mass rape, the selling of children, sadistic beatings,etc. Gentlemen do not defend rape.Lee murdered his fellow Americans in order to defend rape.Lee was no gentleman.
Liar.
Here's another execution time frame comparison, cf. @Anonymous (6/4/13 6:35 PM).
ReplyDeleteDuring WW2, German saboteurs landed from U-boats onto US shore in New York and Florida. Snitched out, the first arrest of the group was made on June 20, 1942. All 8 saboteurs were tried before a military tribunal. Their lawyers moved to have the unlawful enemy combatants tried in civilian court. The US Supreme Court ruled no in Ex Parte Quirin.
Six of the eight went to the electric chair on August 8, 1942, just 49 days after the first saboteur was arrested.
Huperetes: I agree with @constance, not to be surprised if Hasan isn't executed, especially in our current political atmosphere of dhimmitude political correctness in the military.
Apparently, he will be able to personally examine and cross-examine his surviving victims now that the judge in this case has allowed Hasan to represent himself!
Several initial reports of the massacre quoted witnesses as saying he screamed "Allah akbar" while opening fire. Its only a shock to anyone now because the media wanted to ignore it.
ReplyDelete