OK, so we now have a couple of sources that either say “Muslim” or “black Muslim.” (We also have–consistent with early reports of any violent crime–reports of an attack by multiple persons, now changed to one, reports of an attack by grenades and small arms fire, now changed to grenades only, and various descriptions of the alleged perpetrator (all of those given since he was discovered mentioning his insubordination charge).)
We also know that several units of the 101st have spent several months in Afghanistan where, presumably, a certain amount of fatigue may have set in with some guys.
What can we conclude?
Well,
he might have been an undercover member of al Qaeda;
he might have been an al Qaeda sympathizer;
he might have been a member of Louis Farrakhan’s group (not really Muslim, but anti-American in spirit);
he might have been just another misfit soldier who flipped his lid, based on a lack of preparedness or the anxiety of upcoming battle;
he might have been a victim of battle fatigue from time spent in another war zone;
he might have been just a bad person who got mad at one too many officers, leading first to a charge of insubordination and then to an act of fragging.
(Or there could be some other reason for his action, such as the odd belief that one of the officers was getting it on with his girl, back home.)
So, on what basis do we choose from the above list?
Well, if you are hermann, the natural selection would seem to be to leap to a conclusion based on pre-existing prejudices.
So, just for the moment, let us consider that his exercise in prejudice may turn out to represent the facts of the case. Where does that lead us?
It leads us to one example of one Muslim soldier (out of 15,000 or so) committing one act of violence, from which poster hermann seems to awkardly infer that there is some problem with (all) those people.
I’m afraid that I do not consider that a fine example of fighting ignorance.
I’m confused. I thought back in October Congress approved the use of military force against Iraq to enforce Resolution 1441. At the time, this was referred to as the war resolution. So, I thought Bush had all his ducks in a row as far as complying with all U.S. legal requirements to launch an attack. What am I missing?
Convict, as has been said many times before, the Constitution does not say anything about what form the declaration should take. Therefore, by Congressional fiat, the bill passed last year is a tacit declaration of war.
Then why were Korea and Vietnam explicitly said to not be wars? There were certainly Congressional authorizations of the use of force in those conflicts.