Juxtaposing these two links brings me to recall a comment posted on another blog on this topic as well as recalling history of McCain's recklessness to illustrate the similarities to Khan's son's actions.
Early on, a comment mentioned details which I could not confirm until now... The comment:
====>"Kahn's son was an officer and stationed in Iraq. He demanded his troops to stand attention at the gates and be formally checked. This gate was used of course for entrance of goods etc coming in as well as Soldiers. Unfortunately, the day he demanded his troops for inspection at the front gate was at the same time a vehicle loaded with explosives detonated right at the gate killing him... He did not die protecting his men, he died putting them at risk."..."This has not been allowed since the Lebanon bombing to have soldiers stand at a gate for inspection. I believe it was a huge no-no, especially with concern to the safety of the troops."<====
This morning, this was posted at the BBC: Who was Capt Humayun Khan?
===>"While serving at Baqubah base, north-east of Baghdad, one of his duties was to inspect soldiers in the early morning near the compound's entrance gate.On 8 June 2004, an inspection turned deadly when a taxi sped towards Khan's line of troops.
Acting quickly, he told his soldiers to step back and hit the ground as he moved towards the approaching car. He walked with his arm outstretched in a halt gesture for 10 to 15 seconds.
Just before reaching him, the driver detonated a suicide bomb."<=====
Question remains ... Under established hostile conditions - do military inspections of troops take place in vulnerable locations as mentioned above? or was that commenter correct in stating that such risks were forbidden after Lebanon? ...suggesting this was potentially a hostile move abandoned at last minute by Capt. Khan? Curious minds would like to know.
Khan is using his son to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with the circumstances of his son’s death and everything to do with Khan’s Islamic identity.
The only reason he had access to the DNC dais, and the only reason he took to the DNC dais, was to criticize Trump for stating that we need to vet persons from Islamic countries.
Khan had nothing to say about the circumstances which led to his son’s death and he would not have had access to the DNC dais if he did, it doesn’t serve their narrative regarding Trump.
His son’s death only provided a pretense for his attack on Trump. Telling Trump “you have sacrificed nothing and no one” Khan uses his son’s death as a shield from criticism while he attacks on issues unrelated to his son’s death.
Now Khan intensifies his attack and calls Trump a draft dodger and demands that Trump end his campaign.
This charade of Khan promoting an agenda by exploiting his son’s sacrifice is disgraceful.
If Khan has a shred of decency he will end his attack on Trump – who has nothing whatsoever to do with the circumstances of his son’s death – and cease using his son’s death to promote his Islamic identity agenda.