I have read some of Pat Murphy's views in the past with total disdain, but I have not said anything. His writing titled "Atrocities, another consequence of war" is a disgrace to anyone who has been or currently is in the military.
Military personnel are not trained to kill as a "blood sport" (his words). Is it OK to have the enemy perform brutal executions, torture and medical experiments on prisoners, as history has documented, and assume you should "turn the other cheek" and not hold those responsible accountable? Anyone in the military could be a victim of those acts.
Why anyone should not be suspect of those practicing Islam but do not turn in those who plot and kill us, including the military and civilians, is difficult for me to understand. Perhaps Mr. Murphy could explain it to us along with providing the ability to distinguish who planted an IED bomb. He states we should discard our Constitution and rule of law and allow Shariah law, including the disregard of women's rights and also allow "honor" killings.
He ignores the fact that it was the military that prosecuted these cases and brought them to the public's attention. This shows his bias and lack of knowledge that has made America the greatest country with the most professional and well-trained military in the world. When is enough enough?
Lowell Thomas
Hailey
Editor's note: For the record, the columnist did not say that the military trains its personnel to kill as a blood sport. The column states: "In this blurred, frightening setting, war's inevitable uglinesses is born—atrocities involving killing as a blood sport, for revenge, out of hate for the enemy's ethnic or national characteristics, out of panic or for self-defense."
Nor did the columnist state that we should discard the Constitution and allow Shariah law. The column states: "If adult men and women cheer when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls on Congress to write a law prohibiting Islam's Shariah law from being used in U.S. courts (a concocted scenario bordering on clinical lunacy), what should troops on the front lines in Islamic countries conclude—that American courts are being infiltrated by Islamic law?"
The point being made was that hatred and inflammatory speech in our nation can breed atrocities on the battlefield. The column concludes: "Hate always is a useful, if toxic, emotion in war. It makes killing easier, emotionless. Hate inevitably also leads to atrocities, which in turn inevitably poison the peace that follows. And it destroys young men who go into battle believing victory means killing anyone on the other side."
