Posted on 11/11/2009 12:13:39 PM PST by Delacon
As we and the Manchester Union-Leader noted earlier, the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, escaped any preventive action because of a politically-correct obsession with "diversity," which made officers reluctant to report Hasan's extremist remarks in favor of terrorism and against non-Muslims, lest they be accused of discrimination or insensitivity.
Some military leaders, catering to liberal Congressional leaders and the Obama Administration, continue to cling tightly to the "diversity" dogma, demanding that those in the military keep silent rather than saying things that might call into question their "diversity" obsession:
"Naval Academy senior commanders decided during the World Series to remove two Midshipmen from the color guard that appeared. What was their offense? The color guard was deemed too white and too male. There was accordingly a push to make the color guard more 'diverse.' Two members of the color guard were removed and replaced by a Pakistani and a woman to achieve the requisite 'diversity.' The Pakistani unfortunately forgot his cap and shoes. He himself had to be replaced at the last minute by one of the two middies removed earlier. The midshipmen have reportedly been ordered not to speak of these events."
Our government's obsession with "diversity" also created the climate in which officers were afraid to report the suspicious behavior of the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal M. Hasan. Although his anti-American, pro-terrorist views were common knowledge, "a fear of appearing discriminatory . . . kept officers from filing a formal written complaint," reports the Associated Press. As a result, he escaped any disciplinary action or review of his fitness.
The Fort Hood shooter had previously said that Muslims should rise up against the military, "repeatedly expressed sympathy for suicide bombers," was pleased by the terrorist murder of an army recruiter, and publicly called for the beheading or burning of non-Muslims, talking "about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire." But thanks to a politically-correct double standard, nothing was done to remove him from a position where he could harm others.
The lesson of the Fort Hood shootings is that applying politically-correct double standards, rather than treating people equally, can be lethal.
(Intelligence officials knew that Nidal Hasan, the soldier who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was trying to contact Al Qaeda. He once attended the same mosque as 9/11 terrorists.)
In a desire to curry favor with the liberal Congress that funds it (and the Obama Administration), the military has increasingly adopted politically-correct policies that abandon equal treatment. One example is racial preferences in admissions to the military academies, imposed in the name of “diversity.” (In practice, “diversity” seems to mean crude “racial proportionality”: it is harder for Asians to be admitted to the academies than for whites and Hispanics, and harder for whites and Hispanics to be admitted than for African-Americans. Such preferences are of dubious legality under Supreme Court precedent.)
In this climate of political correctness and double standards, it is understandable that officers were afraid to file complaints about Hasan, for fear that they would incur the wrath of the “diversity” police.
Even now, the Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, denies that the military failed to pick up the obvious warning signs about Hasan, and he is more concerned that the shootings will undermine the army’s commitment to “diversity,” than he is about the tragedy itself. He claims that a backlash against diversity would be an even "worse" tragedy than the one that took place at Fort Hood. He remains wedded to a policy of "zero tolerance" for criticism of "diversity," i.e., double standards. He seems more concerned that “diversity” will become a “casualty” of such shootings than that American soldiers will.
President Obama’s initial response to the tragedy last Thursday was embarrassing, even for some liberal journalists. Obama’s initial remarks about the tragedy came buried in the middle of a speech laced with “wildly disconnected” ramblings about an unrelated topic, starting with a “joking shout-out.” Even the liberal Boston Globe chided the president for a speech lacking in ”empathy” for the victims.
In an absurd display of political correctness, early media reports chose to harp on the false claim that the killer had PTSD (which he didn’t: he never even served overseas) or the unsupported claim that he had been subjected to harassment (support groups for Muslim soldiers say they have received no recent reports of harassment).
I was hoping that the military could be counted on to support Free Americans, but I was naive. Of course, as with any army, the upper ranks of the officer corps is interested in one thing - promotion, which requires them to indoctrinate themselves in the current regime’s dogma. I still have hope that the troops are smart enough to see through the propaganda that they are being fed from the top.
“We are not fighting a group. We are not fighting one group, Al Qaeda (AQ). But hundreds of groups and their financial backers.”
Never said we just fighting AQ. Are you trying to be obtuse? We are fighting militant islam in all its flavors. We are also fighting countries that use militant islam to further their own ends and do damage to the west. I used the term fellow travelers versus your “financial backers” because it was more encompusing.
“Terrorist groups are not Nation States they are individuals banded together. They fight for no flag or country. They do fight for ideology (as you said)”.
You wont find me disagreeing with the idea that the nation/state is no longer the only legal foreign policy construct. It used to be that it was an act of war if our country invaded a country under any reason. I think nations should not be morally allowed to declare war if it is shown that they harbor non formal military organization used to attack other nations.
“When we say terrorism it is a term which embodies all these individuals and entities on one word. When we say terrorism it is a term that embodies their actions in the world at large”.
Huh?
“I never said terrorism was the only method they use, you did. FEAR in any and all forms is what they use. Terrorism is a tool yes, but it is a known commodity that can be cited and called by name”.
Actually, I think I said we had a problem with semantics. We still have. I did define terrorism as just a methhod and that you cant make war on a method. As for fear, well I feared the USSR nuking us back in the 80s. Did that make it terrorism. No, fear doesnt equal terrorism. As a soldier you should no that. Fear pervades all war. Fear even pervades cold wars. Dat dont make it terrorism. No, the best and the brightest have had a hard time defining the term terrorism. I’d like to call it any violent attacks on civilians for political/religious reasons. But then Hasan doen’t fit in with that definition except for one victim. I’m fine with that becauce it fits in with my overall view. Hasan is part of the overall war on militant islam and should justly be dealt with(death penalty). There are muslims in this country that commit acts of war because they see the overall war better than I think you do. They aren’t terrorist though. They are treasonist soldiers/civilians out of uniform. In the Hasan case, he should be shot as an espionage agent for the other side.
Few people I think, I hope, ...at least fewer people every day... doubt what this administration, the “intelligence” agencies, senior civilian law enforcement in major and mid-size cites, and yes, even officers in the military will do when the time comes.
It’s going to be ugly and brutal but at least we’ll be partially cleansed of the Commie traitors and Muslim filth which so infects our culture, our heritage, our land, our religions, and our very way of life.
Only then will we be able to return to normal life: worshiping the G-d of Life, working hard, and trying to make a better life for our children.
You go ahead and call it what you want.
You go head and say “We are fighting .... and add your 50-100 words to describe it”
I’ll use terrorist and terrorism. It’s not giving in top PC, rather the opposite.
And who will The One appoint to streamline our top-heavy military? His diversity Czar?
“Call it semantics if you like, but realize in playing semantics it allows them to win the battle of the mind ... the mind of their enemy, which is us. Getting their enemy to be confused on exactly who they are and where they are”.
I’d prefer to win the battle of the mind over anything else. What happens is that people who hold that we are in a “war on terrorism” are losing it over semantics. I don’t think you and I are opposed over who we think we are actually fighting. You and I both know that we are fighting a war against militant islamists and those that think what they are doing is just wonderful. And I call it that kind of war. You however want to call it a war on terrorism even though you know that terrorism is only part of the method they employ. Whose using semantics to forward their argument here?
“Terrorist are local, they are nationwide and they are global. Terrorist come in many forms and shapes and sizes and they fight their war from the shadows. You are giving them the shadows by not calling them terrorists and not calling it a war on/against terror. Also, by allowing our government to raise them up as above ‘name-calling’ and by this action demean our fighting men and women as oppressors for fighting them.
I agree that terrorists are local, national and global but all terrorists and all forms of terrorism are not what we are fighting. We are fighting militant islam. Terrorism is just one of militant islams’ methods. From the guy who sends money to a jihadist organization, to the guy who emails others to fight the infidel on the streets of the US, they arent terrorists but they are enemies in the war and should be put down.
“Foreign Affairs is the realm of Nation States and politicians. I would not consider State Department policies, nor the individuals that carry them out, as rightfully fighting terrorism”.
Huh? The boundaries of nation states is being eroded by politicians and corporations. Not all of this is bad, but the one fundamental purpose of a nation state to defend itself has been the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. Now nation states hide in the shadows(to use your term) to allow militant islam organizations to act freely within their borders. Some of it is terroristic in nature. Some of it is funding such as all the mahdras being funded by Saudi Arabia and other countries within this country.
“Fighting terrorism is rightly the the realm of military professionals”.
No fighting the immediate threat which is militant islam from within and from without is the realm of the military. Terrorism is a method and who is using it against the US and how the US should fight it falls within the political realm. They point, you shoot.
“Your “The ‘We Are Not Allowed To Say Who We Are Fighting’ Service Medal” is exactly what they want. They do not want to be pidgin-holed or called what they are. They want us think of them as nice people and that is the trap when you can not call someone exactly what they are.
Wish you had won “The War on Violent Islamists” award. How would that have been worse wording than the one you got? Says it all if you ask me. No shadows there and it sure as hell pigeon holes the enemy.
“No ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ are words that have had meaning for decades. They have been known to us for over 100 years and we need not allow them to win the battle of semantics ... let alone the battle of our lifetime. The battle against their terrorist activities. The battle against their jihad.
Yes terrorism has been around for a long time but you still miss the point. Until the violent islam reared its ugly head, terrorism was considered just a method, not a movement. Terrorism was not the underlying cause to fight. Nations fought the movements that used those methods not the methods themselves.
“No ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ are words that have had meaning for decades. They have been known to us for over 100 years”
One last thought. Yes terrorism has been around for a long time but “war on terror” popped up only recently in the pc age because it means nothing. The UK didn’t declare a war on terrorism. They declared war on Irish Nationalism and the IRA. Spain didn’t declare a war on terrorism, they declared a war on Basque nationalism. And we didn’t declare war on terrorism, we declared war on native american tribes. Now you can say one side was/is right or wrong, but name the damn sides for who they are. In this particular war I side with the US over militant fundamentalist sharia imposing utopianists. I’ll take the over.
Canteen ping.
btrl
The leadership in the Military reflect the Civilian leadership,case closed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.