Why are we not surprised?
Here is yet another case where only two sides are considered, neither of which is the actual cause of the problem.
“Preliminary reports indicate there was a single shooter that was shot multiple times at the scene,” Cone said at a news conference. “However, he was not killed as previously reported.”
The suspect, identified as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at a military processing center at Fort Hood around 1:30 p.m., Cone said.
The left is running around screaming about religious intolerance making people righteously snap.
“You’re entitled to ask, was he moved to Fort Hood because he wasn’t doing well at Walter Reed and they thought the fresh start would help?’ ” he said.
“Talking to people who knew him,” Casscells said, “no one thinks that this was (post traumatic stress), and they are skeptical that he was subject to religious harassment.”
The right is pointing out that muslims will resort to extreme measures when they feel threatened.
On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting “Allahu Akbar!” committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.
This is not at all the first such incident:
A US soldier has been convicted of the murder and attempted murder of colleagues during the opening days of the Iraq war.
Sgt Hasan Akbar carried out a grenade and rifle attack that killed two officers and wounded 14 other service personnel at a camp in Kuwait.
It was the first time since the Vietnam War that an American had been prosecuted on charges of murdering a fellow soldier during wartime.
Prosecutors say Akbar told investigators he launched the attack because he was concerned that US troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.
They said he carried out the attack “with a cool mind” to achieve “maximum carnage” on his comrades in the 101st Airborne Division.
The defence acknowledged that Akbar had carried out the attack, but said he was too mentally ill to have premeditated it, and was fuelled by emotion.
We’re missing the obvious. Diversity sets us up for internal conflict. While one side is busy blaming those who never wanted diversity (side effect #1), the other is busy pointing fingers at the foreign newcomers whos values do not fit (side effect #2).
Neither side will address this root cause because both the Democrat and Republican represent leftist values, which is to say, individual liberty, which happens to include the freedom to relocate and seek new opportunity elsewhere.
Their argument with one another involves the methods of achieving this individual liberty. The left wants to make tolerance universal and mandatory with retribution for non-compliance and in this way achieve everyone’s freedom. The right wants to make everyone a cloned Free American loyal to liberal Western values whether they agree or not.
Not only does this universal value operate against diversity by forcing blanket uniform conformity on all in order for it to function, which means participants have to sacrifice something meaningful to them like their native beliefs, it makes diversity into a source of woe as in the foregoing examples when people who are included have values more dear to them than those of Western liberalism.