Are Your Sons and Daughters Safe Serving with Muslims? ? ? Hell No! ! !
The question arises is "YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER SAFE SERVING WITH MUSLIMS"? ? NOT TODAY! ! !
As properly investigated and monitored, maybe, but if left as things are today the answer is a "Definite NO"!! There is no way the military can guarantee their safety serving with Muslims.
If this can happen at FT Hood because of this neglect, God Knows what is happening on the Field of Battle
If You Truly Care than Write the 'p'resident, your members of congress and all Minority Leaders, particularly those on Armed Forces Committees, and tell them not only to investigate but take every necessary action to protect Our Troops from another Ft. Hood as well as on the Field of Battle.
'p'resident: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Congress: http://www.opencongress.org/
Senate Armed Services McCain: mccain.senate.gov
House Armed Services McHugh: mchugh.house.gov
Source and complete article (worth reading):
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=515413
Soldiers Of Allah Or Of America: Does Military Know — Or Care?
By PAUL SPERRY
Posted 12/15/2009 07:11 PM ET
The Pentagon has launched a 45-day probe into the Fort Hood massacre, promising to find answers to why it happened and how it can be prevented from happening again. But the investigation may prove an exercise in futility, judging from PC remarks by military brass.
"My message to all those in uniform — including Muslims in uniform — is how much we appreciate their service. The diversity of our force is one of its greatest strengths," said the Joint Chiefs chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, who appeared alongside the defense secretary to announce the inquiry, which reports say will focus on mental health services for troubled troops.
His remarks echoed those of the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, who after the Nov. 5 attack cautioned against linking Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's alleged terrorist act and his Islamic faith. "It would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," Casey intoned.
Military brass appear to be doubling down on the political correctness that blinded them to warning signs telegraphed by the Quran-waving Muslim officer accused of the worst mass killing on a domestic military base in U.S. history and the bloodiest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
The breakdown in security stems from "fears over offending a member of a religious minority," finds a report by the Westminster Institute, a security think tank. So worried about conveying any notion that it's at war with Islam, the Defense Department has deluded itself into believing that the enemy is bereft of religious motivation.
Though the enemy clearly states that it's waging "jihad," or holy war, against us, it's now taboo to use the term because it risks reinforcing the idea that the U.S. is at war with Islam itself.
"We are not at war with jihad," a high-ranking Pentagon official said at a recent conference. "Jihad is a legitimate component of Islam" — no worse than fasting or bowing to Mecca.
Even defining the enemy as "jihadist" is no longer acceptable, leaving GIs to fight an enemy their own commanders refuse to name. The 2009 U.S. National Intelligence Strategy, which takes into account Pentagon priorities, uses the term Islam zero times, Muslim 0, jihad 0 and jihadist 0.
In sharp contrast, the 9/11 Commission Report, released in 2004, used the word Islam 322 times, Muslim 145, jihad 126 and jihadist 32. It took five short years to completely whitewash the Islamist threat. Any wonder Hasan was treated with kid gloves?
Shockingly, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service — the Pentagon's anti-terror unit — concluded that Hasan did not merit further investigation after the FBI notified the unit of e-mails between Hasan and a radical Muslim cleric, who happens to be a top al-Qaida recruiter and a key facilitator of the 9/11 hijackers. Hasan was subsequently promoted to the rank of major with a higher security clearance.
In the name of tolerance, the military is wrongfully — and dangerously — tolerating extremists in its midst. It has closed its eyes to a serious internal threat, seemingly more concerned with protecting the enemy's religion than protecting the lives of soldiers fighting the enemy.
If the military is too PC to protect its own troops from Islamic fanatics on its own soil, how can Americans be sure it can protect the rest of the country?
As properly investigated and monitored, maybe, but if left as things are today the answer is a "Definite NO"!! There is no way the military can guarantee their safety serving with Muslims.
If this can happen at FT Hood because of this neglect, God Knows what is happening on the Field of Battle
If You Truly Care than Write the 'p'resident, your members of congress and all Minority Leaders, particularly those on Armed Forces Committees, and tell them not only to investigate but take every necessary action to protect Our Troops from another Ft. Hood as well as on the Field of Battle.
'p'resident: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Congress: http://www.opencongress.org/
Senate Armed Services McCain: mccain.senate.gov
House Armed Services McHugh: mchugh.house.gov
Source and complete article (worth reading):
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=515413
Soldiers Of Allah Or Of America: Does Military Know — Or Care?
By PAUL SPERRY
Posted 12/15/2009 07:11 PM ET
The Pentagon has launched a 45-day probe into the Fort Hood massacre, promising to find answers to why it happened and how it can be prevented from happening again. But the investigation may prove an exercise in futility, judging from PC remarks by military brass.
"My message to all those in uniform — including Muslims in uniform — is how much we appreciate their service. The diversity of our force is one of its greatest strengths," said the Joint Chiefs chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, who appeared alongside the defense secretary to announce the inquiry, which reports say will focus on mental health services for troubled troops.
His remarks echoed those of the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, who after the Nov. 5 attack cautioned against linking Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's alleged terrorist act and his Islamic faith. "It would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," Casey intoned.
Military brass appear to be doubling down on the political correctness that blinded them to warning signs telegraphed by the Quran-waving Muslim officer accused of the worst mass killing on a domestic military base in U.S. history and the bloodiest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
The breakdown in security stems from "fears over offending a member of a religious minority," finds a report by the Westminster Institute, a security think tank. So worried about conveying any notion that it's at war with Islam, the Defense Department has deluded itself into believing that the enemy is bereft of religious motivation.
Though the enemy clearly states that it's waging "jihad," or holy war, against us, it's now taboo to use the term because it risks reinforcing the idea that the U.S. is at war with Islam itself.
"We are not at war with jihad," a high-ranking Pentagon official said at a recent conference. "Jihad is a legitimate component of Islam" — no worse than fasting or bowing to Mecca.
Even defining the enemy as "jihadist" is no longer acceptable, leaving GIs to fight an enemy their own commanders refuse to name. The 2009 U.S. National Intelligence Strategy, which takes into account Pentagon priorities, uses the term Islam zero times, Muslim 0, jihad 0 and jihadist 0.
In sharp contrast, the 9/11 Commission Report, released in 2004, used the word Islam 322 times, Muslim 145, jihad 126 and jihadist 32. It took five short years to completely whitewash the Islamist threat. Any wonder Hasan was treated with kid gloves?
Shockingly, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service — the Pentagon's anti-terror unit — concluded that Hasan did not merit further investigation after the FBI notified the unit of e-mails between Hasan and a radical Muslim cleric, who happens to be a top al-Qaida recruiter and a key facilitator of the 9/11 hijackers. Hasan was subsequently promoted to the rank of major with a higher security clearance.
In the name of tolerance, the military is wrongfully — and dangerously — tolerating extremists in its midst. It has closed its eyes to a serious internal threat, seemingly more concerned with protecting the enemy's religion than protecting the lives of soldiers fighting the enemy.
If the military is too PC to protect its own troops from Islamic fanatics on its own soil, how can Americans be sure it can protect the rest of the country?
© 2010 Created by Savant Noir (Admin).
Powered by 
.
