Not jumping to conclusions at Fort Hood unless we make judgments

November 11, 3:57 PMHartford Conservative ExaminerJohn Talleos

Previous Next

26 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Hartford Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

  When a jihadist opens fire killing 12 people at a military base yelling “"Allahu Akbar" (God is great) does that mean he is a Islamic terrorist committing terrorism ? Of course the obvious answer is yes but in wake of the tragic incident there is a rush to turn a blind eye into what actually constitutes a terrorist act and what does not and by whom.

   It's so very important that, in president Obama's words, we don't rush to judgments. He seems to be too late with this advise because all the way down the chain of command investigators had done just that. But what judgment would we be rushing too, and what are we suppose to be implying when a judgment is made? Could we say that some Muslims are willing to kill and maim just about anyone that isn't Muslim in the name of God? Is that too harsh for anyone? Insulting, insensitive perhaps? What are we risking here, political correctness, someones feelings?

   When an abortion doctor was murdered last year clearly it was an act of political terror. We know this not only because of the act itself but because the left had “jumped” to the right conclusions without the risk of insinuating that it was a Christian act by nature acted upon by a white male. If caution is the rule with jihadists, so they advise, it is clearly out the window when it comes to Christian males.

   When it comes to Islamic terrorism we can say that most Muslims are not terrorist. Why is it automatic to assume that non-Muslims will think otherwise? Isn't that in itself a rush to judgment? Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey not only assumes this but thinks it is the most important aspect of the whole affair when he says:

   "I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers... And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."

   Well, not quite. If given the choice of thirteen lives and the loss of diversity (whatever that means) which is the better choice? Aside from his distorted moral calculus, would the prudent thing to wonder about is not what the non-Muslims might be thinking but what some of those other Muslim soldiers that are serving might be doing?