Letters

Re “Doctor held in Ft. Hood killings,” Nov. 6, and “Terror at home,” Editorial, Nov. 7

It is a sad day for the U.S. Army. I was an officer once and proud of it. I never thought I would see the day when an officer would kill his own men.

William A. Pace

Rolling Hills Estates

::

The Times’ editorial is misleading and leaves too much unsaid.

There is no vast reservoir of “communist maniacs” a la Lee Harvey Oswald or “right-wing conspiracy theorists” a la Timothy McVeigh. However, there is a vast reservoir of active and aspiring Islamic terrorists who are killing or threatening to kill the supposed enemies of Islam all over the world. Your editorial suggests that the threat from these three sources is the same. It clearly is not.

Your editorial should tell moderate Muslims, if there are any, that we expect them to marginalize these radicals, report them to the authorities and pressure Islamic scholars worldwide to unequivocally state that acts of terror are evil. They have not yet done so.

Tell them that if they won’t, we will have to take steps to defend ourselves. These could include unsavory steps such as ethnic profiling if that’s what we are forced to do.

Raymond R. Toal

Mission Viejo

::

Enough. Political correctness is ruining this country. Instead of making people more tolerant, it has simply underscored the differences of various cultures and religions and driven people further apart.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is not a “suspect” and is not an “alleged” anything. He is a terrorist and a Muslim.

Just once, could we please call a spade a spade?

Sandra Stubban

Stanton

::

Terror at home: Thank you for calling it what it really is.

Daniel Dunn

Northridge

::

There is no mystery about Hasan’s motives or actions. His reported statements show that he is strongly against the U.S. war policy in Afghanistan and Iraq. He decided to kill U.S. troops about to be sent to Afghanistan, before they could kill Afghans on Afghan soil. Certainly a rational means-ends calculation, and no more terroristic in nature than a Predator drone attack.

The Times is doing its readers a disservice by attempting to portray Hasan as an isolated nut or hater-terrorist.

Instead of propagating these foolish explanations, The Times should instead continue to criticize these wars and start demanding their immediate end, along with the withdrawal of all U.S. troops.

John R. Yates

Los Angeles

::

Congratulations are owed to the National Rifle Assn. The NRA has always said that if people were armed, as is certainly the case at a military installation such as Ft. Hood, then they would be able to shoot mass murderers like Hasan and stop the slaughter. And that’s exactly what happened.

Eventually.

Sure, at least 13 people died, but when seen in the larger scheme of things, they died to protect our precious 2nd Amendment, our right to bear arms. And after all, isn’t that the purpose of the soldiers, to put their lives at risk to preserve our rights?

Isn’t it?

So this means that the NRA has been correct all along, and that these people -- the pregnant woman, the young kid in uniform, the 62-year-old physician’s assistant -- didn’t really die in vain.

Right?

Ronald O. Richards

Los Angeles

::

It was a tragedy that those unarmed people were gunned down like chickens in a chicken farm.

The casualties could have been minimized if all off-duty soldiers were armed.

There are always some wacko psychopaths in this free society. We can never be sure that they won’t turn up in crowded places.

Self-protection is a better option.

Christopher Chui

Monterey Park