(Image swiped from S. Weasel's website, as she has way better photo skills than any I'll ever have, and it's one of the most accurate representations of that bastard's convictions we'll ever see. If she says it's a problem, I'll take it down ASAP)
Number One: This useless waste of oxygen wanted charges pressed against his patients for war crimes. Why? I haven't seen any info on that yet, because it would be a major violation of patient privacy rights. But it wouldn't surprise me that some of his patients have major guilt issues bacause they participated combat that resulted in the deaths of people who aren't soldiers. Now before I get a bunch of pointed messages about turning into a lefty moonbat, let's clarify a few things. We haven't fought against regulars in Iraq since 2003, and not at all in Afghanistan. The enemy, and I won't dignify them with the title Soldiers, as they are certainly NOT, uses civilians as targets, cover, concealment, and delivery systems. We have Soldiers who've killed civilians for these reasons: they represented a high threat likelihood, they were used as cover for attacking forces, or they blundered into situations and areas were there was combat going on. And I would hazard a guess that former Major Hasan was actually seeing them because they had real emotional problems, such as guilt and horror, for having harmed or killed civilians. Because I can tell you one thing from my time in Iraq. Our Soldiers don't go looking for civilians to kill for personal satisfaction. We get training and indoctrination, year after year, on ethics and law in warfare. Civilians Are Not Legitimate Targets. It's that simple.
Secondly: How can anyone say this turd isn't a terrorist? I watched some yahoo on Fox News state he isn't because he's not part of group, and he wasn't politically motivated. Islam dictates personal behavior in all aspects of life; politics is the process of generating the laws that will determine what behavior is or isn't to be penalized and rewarded, temporally. Anyone else see a link there? And as far as needing to be in a group to be a terrorist; terrorism is the pursuit of changing behavior and/or beliefs through violence. It doesn't require a damn charter and bylaws of like-minded individuals to pursue that agenda.
This situation is one of the downsides to being an economic superpower; the burgeoning numbers of idiots that nature would weed out otherwise, kept alive by the excess wealth of a successful economic system. Spare me from the stupidity of those who believe all people are inherently good, misunderstood, or simply in need of more understanding and concessions.
3 comments:
I couldn't have said it better myself...
HankH
Few years back I read of a British WWII vet talking about some of the combat in Normandy. They'd come to a house, called out for anyone inside to come out; they heard movement but nobody spoke or came out. They were about to toss a grenade in when someone called in French that they were coming. Turned out to be almost a dozen people who'd been hiding.
The vet said, as I recall, that it was a wonderful thing that they spoke up in time because "otherwise we'd have innocently murdered them." The interviewer pointed out that that was the exact right wording: with no indication it wasn't German holdouts the grenades were the standard way to go; it would have killed many, you could call it 'murder', but the troops would have been innocent of any crime. And they'd still have had to live with the knowledge of what'd happened.
That kind of thing wears on someone, probably worse today than then since back then people in general were more knowledgeable and accepting of the facts of life. And it's the kind of thing that that bastard would have called a 'war crime' so as to persecute his own patients.
I won't call him a terrorist because I don't think that murders deserve a special title because they make a political statement. The enemy wins when we give up on our convictions in the name of security.
Post a Comment