He's upset with Robert E. Lee, the United States officer who betrayed his oath to the Constitution he had sworn to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and turning traitor, treasonously killed 600,000 fellow American soldiers.
Why is he upset?
Because Lee gets all these statues, and Hasan only gets a prison cell.
"But...but...Amicable Anarchist, Nidal Hasan was fighting for the cause of Islamo-fascism!"
Yeah. So no statue for him. Because now all of a sudden you don't mind there being no statues, you figure that history and heritage can get by without monuments when it's an Islamic guy.
But Lee was fighting for the cause of chattel slavery, so how was that better? And before you cry out "State's rights", yeah, he was fighting for State's rights.
The State's right to legal slavery.
And no, this is not about the "slippery slope" of us getting rid of $20 bills because a slave owner is on them. Andrew Jackson was known for other things, the "slave owning" was an incidental. He's on there for being a President, not a slave owner.
Robert E. Lee is LITERALLY in the position of Nidal Hasan. He is not truly known for anything but his treason against the United States and his facility in killing far more U.S. soldiers than even Hitler managed to. It's not like he invented corn, but oh yeah, then had some slaves. Nope.
Nor is Nidal Hasan known for anything but his treason against the United States and his facility in killing 13 soldiers.
Both did so for reasons of "conscience", as if they wrestling with their pwecious-wecious consciences excuses them from their honor and their oath and the law! Both did so for causes clearly unpopular at the time. Both did so for causes that were at war with the United States of America.
So why Lee? Why him and not Hasan? Is it because Lee killed 599,987 more young men? Is it because he married into his money and bungled his father-in-law's estate? Is it for his not freeing his father-in-law's slaves and when some tried to run off, capturing them, jailing them, then selling them to a slave trader that would "have them do their duty" with "firmness" for his financial benefit?
Is it for how prettily he spoke, no doubt with a tear in his manly eye, about how his "honor" compelled him to slaughter so many American teens upon the alter of that supposed "honor"? An "honor" defined by oath breaking and treason, mayhem and murder?
Ahh, what a darling little martyr Lee was! How thickly did he lay it on with a war torn nation that would swallow anything for peace! The slave-owner who opposed slavery, the man of honor who had none, the loyal patriot who betrayed his oath, the lover of his countrymen who killed more of them than any in history!
Does someone wish to pipe up - after a hasty google search - with some over-inflated account of him having participated in our interminable skirmishes and wars with Mexico? 99% of you not knowing of any of those at this moment? Good luck. Apologists in vain try to make him of some note before the war, when in truth he was of no such note.
The key difference in the men boils down to two. Lee killed FAR more men for his "honor" than Nidal Hasan did. Lee's cause was that of blacks being slaves, Hasan wanted all to be slaves to Allah.
Which then are we giving Lee the statues for? That he killed more poor American teens, or that owning blacks is moral?
Or are we, after all, going to be told that it was for his great triumph in marching from Veracruz or mapping parts of Florida?
No comments:
Post a Comment