The grenade attack over the weekend in Kuwait has led to the detainment of a suspect, an American Muslim soldier. The news media reports that authorities are still baffled over the apparent lack of a motive. But in the meantime, because we cannot afford any more attacks like this, we need to call upon our military authorities in the Gulf region to conduct a serious review of all Methodist and Southern Baptist personnel, followed up with intense questioning as necessary.
And what follows is a collation of my responses to the responses:
I really shouldn’t have to explain all this, but am glad to have a go at it nonetheless. Joan asked me, with eager expectation, what the motive was. What do I understand that the media does not? And the answer is that I don’t know what the motive was. But I do know what the motive could have been, and what motive a smart investigator would have right at the top of his list. My initial post was because of widespread political correctness (which progressives descry even while they industriously promulgate it). The most obvious motive, the one to check first, is being outlawed from public discussion because we all know that Islam has been declared the Religion of Peace. Maybe this guy did it for religious reasons. Maybe he didn’t. But only an investigative team filled with handwringers and bedwetters would decline to check there first. Suppose Smith shot Murphy when he found him in bed with Smith’s wife. Suppose the murder had nothing to do with the adultery, which is certainly possible. But the fact of the adultery should be something the cops have at the top of their list of likely motives. But suppose we had a political agenda that required that nothing negative ever be said against jealous husbands. So the headlines read: “Smith shoots Murphy in Smith’s bed. Mrs. Smith in Tears. Police Mystified over Motive.” Were I to live in such a society . . . actually, but I do live in such a society. Jeepers. And I am also confident that some of you will think that I have erred grievously by equating Islam with adultery, which I didn’t do, but have your fun anyway.
Thomas wonders what religion William Calley was, and seriously doubts that he was Muslim. Thomas has found me out. If you go over my original post closely, you will discover that I was really maintaining that only Muslims commit crimes. Everyone else is perfect. I guess it is time for me to come clean.
Leonard objected to the making of jokes “at the expense of those on the sharp end of the stick.” And, in my view, people who don’t get jokes shouldn’t analyze them for the rest of us.
Susannah made some good points in her post, and acknowledged the only thing that I was maintaining in my initial post. My point was not that this man was a good or a bad Muslim, but simply that his religion provided a possible motive which we ought to be able to discuss in a free society.
Samuel asked why a competent investigator wouldn’t put “disgruntled troublemaker” at the top of his list. Quite possibly that is what they should do, depending on his history, etc. My objection was the reflex exclusion of certain things from the list for political reasons. A competent investigator would check anything for which there is evidence.
And last, in response to Bill, I do not believe that the military investigators are foolish enough to set aside the gentleman’s religious beliefs. I believe they are wise enough to withhold the fact that they have not set it aside. And the reason for doing this is not hard to find. In these politically correct times, if they were to announce that they believed a possible motive was that this soldier wanted to aid his Iraqi brothers in the Muslim faith, they would find themselves immediately accused of racism, which is precisely what was done to me in this exchange. Accusing people who differ on such questions of being Nazi racists is like breathing to some people. After a while you don’t notice yourselves doing it anymore.
So here is the short form. What would have happened to the investigators if they had brought up that possibility? Well, gee. What happened to me when I brought it up? The CID guys did not want a PR firestorm, mini-versions of which we see regularly on this forum. “General Franks, has the suspect always been black? Are you saying blackness is a crime too?”
“Apologetics in the Void” are repostings from an on-going electronic discussion and debate I had some time ago with members of our local community, whose names I have changed. The list serve is called Vision 20/20, and hence the name “visionaries.” Reading just these posts probably feels like listening to one half of a phone conversation, but I don’t feel at liberty to publish what others have written. But I have been editing these posts (lightly) with intelligibility in mind.