An ideologue coddled?
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
What comes through in the Nov. 12 editorial "In plain sight?" is that warning signs regarding Maj. Nidal M. Hasan were ignored because of the Army's institutional fear of offending Muslims. This "politically correct" viewing of anyone who dares to challenge Islamist tirades as bigoted was the core problem hindering observers from connecting the dots.
Maj. Hasan reportedly vented about Muslim soldiers' alleged faith-based antipathy toward serving an institution that makes war on extremist, anti-American Islamist entities and the Army's supposed duty to excuse soldiers who oppose the war. But, in fact, Maj. Hasan could have been viewed as advocating treason.
Why was it so hard to weed out this ideologue? As The Post noted, the Army may have feared that terminating a Muslim doctor would create an "appearance problem." But coddling such hate-mongering was an insult to the bulk of Muslim soldiers who distinguish their own religious beliefs from the Islamist fringe who want to kill based on some perversion of Islam.
Jim Bloom, Silver Spring
