Diuretic
Permanently confused
Exhibit 1: He was a Muslim
Exhibit 2: He wanted out of the military after 9/11! I think most of us remember the surge in recruitment back then.
Exhibit 3: He attacked US soldiers
Exhibit 4: He was extremely upset with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Exhibit 5: He expressed views that America was the aggressor
Exhibit 6: He wrote blogs praising suicide bombers as true soldiers
Exhibit 7: It was confirmed that as he was shooting American soldiers he yelled "Allah Akbar!"
I think the burden of proof as shifted to the appeasers here!
Appeasers? What a bloody stupid position to take. This was an individual act, the way you're banging on you'd think every second Muslim in the States was firing away at people. Yes it's tragic but put it into perspective. One man apparently went nutso. The reasons for him going nutso were apparently related to his religion and cultural identity and his imminent posting to a war zone in an Islamic country occupied by western forces. Appeasers? That's not appeasing, it's simply trying to understand what happened.
I think the point that most people are trying to make is that if this guy HADN'T been Muslim, military authorities would probably been more reactive to the odd behavior he'd displayed. In today's PC world everyone is so afraid of being branded a bigot or a racist or a xenophobe or whatever other name people apply that they'll overlook the obvious. It's a sad thing that people's safety is compromised for political correctness.![]()
If that is the case then firstly, thank you for clarifying that for me, I was obviously reading the context wrongly (and I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it). Secondly, if that is what's happening then it has to stop because, as you point out, it's going to inhibit a proper and reasonable response to perceived or reported problematic situations.