Thursday, November 12, 2009

Gen. Casey: threat to diversity worse than Ft. Hood massacre

Here's George Neumayr of the American Spectator, a journalist in serious need of sensitivity training:

General George Casey's staggeringly inane comment after the shooting captures the atmosphere that explains it: "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

Diversity at this point is a synonym for mindlessness and self-hating hypocrisy. Were Hasan a virulent and outspoken Christian military chaplain, he would have been branded a hate criminal and whisked away. But since he is a Muslim, since Obama isn't at "war with Islam," and since Islam is so obviously a religion of peace, he was given a wide swath.

Under the paralysis of a PC culture, all Muslims are moderate Muslims and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot. If Hasan didn't define Islam as a religion of peace but as a religion of jihad, that was okay; he would come around in time to the superior liberal understanding of Islam as non-violent...

Read the rest here.

Doesn't Neumeyr understand that Diversity demands not offending people who want to destroy us? Next thing you know, he'll by arguing that a guy shooting a bunch of people because of his religious ideology is terrorism.

Sheeez.

12 comments:

Lee said...

Casey should be fired immediately. Do not pass "Go", do not collect pension.

Anonymous said...

That's clearly not what he meant (or even what he said). Expressed mathematically, it's: massacre < (massacre + loss of diversity). In other words, there are further casualties that are possible, and he wishes to avoid them.

Lee said...

Sorry, Anon, that is clearly not what he said, and I have to presume he said what he meant to say.

His words, again:

> "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

We could debate the entire framework suggested by his remarks, certainly. But he is suggesting here that loss of diversity is worse than the "tragedy". If he had meant the loss of diversity makes it even worse, he should have said "the loss of diversity makes it even worse."

It's possible that's what he meant. But that's not what he said.

And what is so great about unspecified diversity anyway? Some types of diversity may make us stronger; other types of diversity may weaken us.

If diversity means color of skin, I'm fine with that kind of diversity.

If it means certain cultural aspects of an ethnic group, I'm find with probably most of them. Germans: beer, hotdogs, parties, hard-working. I'm hip. Mexicans: great food, great music, parties. I'm with that.

But do we have an obligation to be hospitable to cultures who want our culture to die, and will work toward that end? Can any society survive that sort of diversity?

Yugoslavia had one of the most diverse cultures in Europe. Lots of languages, lots of Christians, lots of Muslims, lots of tribes. How did that work out?

When you come to the USA and expect to be treated like a citizen, there are some things that should be left behind. We presume someone comes to the USA because it offers more than his country of origin. We'd like to keep it that way.

In the USA, we speak English. If you don't want to, fine, but don't expect public accommodation.

In the USA, we honor constitutional government. If you want Allah's mullahs and imams to run the government, go back where you belong.

If you are sympathetic to the bombers of 9/11, don't become a commissioned officer in the US Army. And for heaven's sake, if you are in the Army and some nutcase of a major is lecturing such crap, put him outside the gates even if you can't bring yourself to put him in jail.

Martin Cothran said...

I'm willing to accept that that's what he meant, but it is clearly not what he said. And it points up the problem of this worship at the altar of Diversity that has distorted a whole lot of things in our society. That he would have said anything even close to this is simply ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

Actually that clearly is what he said. He's not hypothesizing another situation where no-one is injured and diversity becomes a casualty, then saying that is worse than the Fort Hood situation. He's discussing the Fort Hood situation, and saying that if diversity becomes a casualty (thereby being added to the list of casualties) then that is even worse. You don't have to read between the lines to understand that. It's the other interpretation that's putting words into his mouth. The whole discussion is about limiting further damage caused by the fallout of the shootings, and to suggest that he's saying anything else borders on the dishonest.

Remember that the general has a number of loyal soldiers under his command whose situation just became very precarious. The immediate, explicit context of his remark is concern for a backlash against Muslim soldiers in the military.

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

> The immediate, explicit context of his remark is concern for a backlash against Muslim soldiers in the military.

Maybe he needs to worry more about his "infidel" troops getting shot by other crazed Muslims. The hypothetical "backlash", at present, has a zero body count. Unfortunately, the crazed Muslim-induced body count is significantly higher.

His troops were killed by a radical Muslim who had expressed sympathy for Muslim terrorism on more than one occasion. The intelligence community was aware of all this. How are the interests of his troops being served if we ignore the facts?

> ...to suggest that he's saying anything else borders on the dishonest.

"As horrific as this tragedy was..."

Seems clear. Even though the "tragedy" was horrific...

"...if our diversity becomes a casualty..."

Seems clear. If diversity is lost...

"...I think that's worse."

Seems clear. It is worse if diversity is lost.

Worse than what?

Worse than the "tragedy."

Maybe that's not exactly what he meant.

But it's what he said.

No matter to me. He should be fired anyway, because his first duty is to his troops, not to unspecified "diversity."

The tragedy here is these troops have a general who doesn't know his duty.

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

If that is clearly what he said then why did you have to rephrase what he said for him?

Anonymous said...

I didn't rephrase what he said. I put it into its immediate context, as a response to a question. Not doing so, again, borders on being dishonest. I also noted what he did not say. I didn't have to rephrase anything.

I'm beginning to wonder if the tragedy in Fort Hood is just being used here as a soapbox to complain about perceived political correctness in the military by taking something a general said out of context. That seems to have caused more offense here than, you know, the killings.

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

> I'm beginning to wonder if the tragedy in Fort Hood is just being used here as a soapbox to complain about perceived political correctness in the military by taking something a general said out of context.

Specifically, the complaint (at least from me) is that p.c. is getting soldiers killed.

If p.c. has any place at all, and I don't think it does, it would be in a setting where the consequences weren't so grave.

And if, you know, the killings are to be avoided in the future, wouldn't it be in our best interest to stop doing the things that just got some people killed last week?

Or do we have to keep playing nice and take our bullets like good American chumps?

And when you consider the context -- that Hasan was able to walk around talking about pouring hot oil down infidels throats while wearing US Army major's insignia -- the only one missing it in this discussion is... you.