We and others have written a lot about the obfuscation surrounding Nidal Malik Hasan’s massacre at Fort Hood. The New York Times chimes in with an article that could have been written by a parodist, titled “Complications Grow for Muslims Serving in U.S. Military.” The source of those “complications” is acknowledged only delicately.
The Times joins the rest of the liberal media in an exercise of radical skepticism that would have done David Hume proud:
It is unclear what might have motivated Major Hasan, who is suspected of killing 13 people.
The Times actually purports to take this absurdity seriously:
“I don’t understand why the Muslim-American community has to take responsibility for him,” said Ingrid Mattson, the president of the Islamic Society of North America. “The Army has had at least as much time and opportunity to form and shape this person as the Muslim community.”
Maybe if he had yelled “Hooah” as he opened fire….
This, though, is the nadir:
Muslim leaders, advocates and military service members have taken pains to denounce the shooting and distance themselves from Major Hasan. They make the point that his violence is no more representative of them than it is of other groups to which he belongs, including Army psychiatrists.
Yes, we’ve witnessed quite a string of terrorist attacks by Army psychiatrists. It’s a funny thing–a disproportionate number of psychiatrists have always been Jewish, but I can’t remember a single instance of one of them flying an airplane into a building. The whole thing is a puzzle, really.
The Times concluded its article by pointing out how heroic Muslim soldiers have been. The exemplar chosen by the Times was Michael Monsoor, who won the Medal of Honor. Here is how the paper’s tribute to Monsoor originally appeared:
Too many Americans overlook the heroic efforts of Arab-Americans in uniform, said Capt. Eric Rahman…He cited the example of Lieutenant Michael A. Monsoor, a Navy Seal who was awarded the Medal of Honor after pulling a team member to safety during firefight in 2006, in Ramadi, Iraq. Lieutenant Monsoor died saving another American, yet he will never be remembered like Major Hasan, said Captain Rahman. Regardless, he said, Muslim- and Arab-Americans are crucial to the military’s success in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Notice a subtle transition there? The whole article was about how tough it is for Muslims in the U.S. military, yet the last paragraphs speak of “Arab-Americans.” Is that the same thing? Well, not quite, as the Times admitted today in its Corrections section:
An article on Monday about difficulties for Muslims serving in the American armed forces described incorrectly the background of Michael A. Monsoor, a member of the Navy Seals. Mr. Monsoor was a Christian of Lebanese and Irish descent, not a Muslim. The article also described incorrectly the act that earned him a Medal of Honor. It was for falling on a grenade and saving at least three team members — not for pulling a team member to safety. (Saving a team member in an earlier incident earned him a Silver Star.)
It seems as though things aren’t really so tough in the U.S. Army, as long as you refrain from yelling “Allahu Akbar” and gunning down your unarmed comrades.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.