I was thinking about this story and there was something about the coverage of the story that didn't quite sit well with me. I was trying to figure out what it was when I encountered this article.
"Here’s a summary of the Western media discussion of what motivated U.S. Staff Sgt. Robert Bales to allegedly kill 16 Afghans, including 9 children: he was drunk, he was experiencing financial stress, he was passed over for a promotion, he had a traumatic brain injury, he had marital problems, he suffered from the stresses of four tours of duty, he “saw his buddy’s leg blown off the day before the massacre,” etc.
Here’s a summary of the Western media discussion of what motivates Muslims to kill Americans: they are primitive, fanatically religious, hateful Terrorists.
Even when Muslims who engage in such acts toward Americans clearly and repeatedly explain that they did it in response to American acts of domination, aggression, violence and civilian-killing in their countries, and even when the violence is confined to soldiers who are part of a foreign army that has invaded and occupied their country, the only cognizable motive is one of primitive, hateful evil. It is an act of Evil Terrorism, and that is all there is to say about it."
Full article here.
I know that it's in our nature to cover for our own and demonize our enemies, but something about this article gets to an itch that I can't quite seem to scratch. Something about it leaves me uncomfortable and it should leave many thinking Americans with the same discomfort.
In trying to understand history, I found the best single way was to read biographies. Through a biography one can stand in their shoes, look around and see and feel how things were. Now, I'm not saying in order to understand the article you need to read bios, I'm saying how many people take the time to stand in the other's shoes, look around and see and feel what's happening?