The New York Times just released an more in depth article to follow up their initial report, and the writer speculates as to what could make a man do such a thing. The lead before you click through to the full article cites a cousin, who said the man was unnerved by all the trauma he had seen in treating soldiers coming back from their tours. So far so fair?
The actual article opens with the fact that this man's family immigrated to the US from Palestine. Its not my imagination that the article fixates on his nationality and religion, as if to say, "He tried so hard to be American, he was so proud to serve the country, but in the end, his conflicting loyalties to his religion caused too much turmoil within him."
If not to suggest that he was overly zealous, why end the article by saying he was unmarried because he couldn't find a woman religious enough?
He is the cause of deaths and tragedy. And now he is doubly suspect because he is Palestinian, and Muslim.
I'm reminded of Cho Seung Hui, who opened fire on his college campus three years ago. All the media wanted to talk about was the fact that he was Korean. Korean movies are so violent they said, it must have pushed him to this.
It was America that made us who we are.
No comments:
Post a Comment