Saturday, November 07, 2009

If you were the commander of a military base, what would you now do differently?

This is a question **I HOPE** is being considered by many base commanders at this moment.  Recruitment of Muslims has proven to be a “double-edged sword” (NPI).  What needs to be done differently to avoid a repeat of the Fort Hood attack?

First, within the scope of authority I am granted, I would modify the “cultural sensitivity training” mandated by the military to include greater recognition of signs of odd behavior and political discontent as exceptions to the mandate that everyone is benign and must be respected as equals.

I would especially assure that officer and senior NCO training include “signs of discontent, disloyalty, erratic behavior, anti-war sentiment, moodiness, aloofness, etc.” and courses of counseling and potential discharge as the military solution to these problems.

While others besides Muslims are capable of psychotic behavior, I would recognize that Muslims are in fact taught what we consider to be “psychotic behavior” as part of their “religious” training.  With this in mind, I would assure that my key leaders were fully aware of the teachings and track record of Islam (or what is politically correctly called “radical Muslims”) in this nation.  I’m sure there are abundant FBI reports available that reveal the anti-American, anti-“infidel” (“people of the book”: Jews and Christians) teachings of Islam in most Mosques of America.

I would establish a program that assures that anyone with identified “issues” is assigned two or three other trusted individuals in their unit to “buddy-up” with, befriend, or otherwise make it their business to know what is going on in the disturbed persons personal life and mind – as part of a limited evaluation period.

So many signs were missed with Hasan.  Why?  Mostly due to excessive political correctness, excessive and wrong-headed cultural sensitivity training, and excessive ignorance about the nature and teaching of Islam in this country, all of which mis-programmed coworkers into ignoring the many clear warning signs that were displayed.

But I’m wondering how far up the military food chain these changes would have to go to receive approval.  I envision a plethora of bureaucratic, politically/legally-correct and diversity-centric road blocks.

This is the mentality we are dealing with, from an Islamic web site in the US:

An Officer & a Gentleman

Friday, 06 November 2009 00:24 Revolution Muslim

E-mail Print PDF

Major Nidal Hasan M.D.

An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a preemptive* attack.

Get Well Soon Major Nidal

We Love You

We do NOT denounce this officer's actions,we do however apologize for the following acts committed by our country:

Bay of Tonkin

The East Timor Massacre by USA Supported Suharto

1902 Samar Massacre in the Philippines by the USMC

1,000,000 Dead Iraqis

Afghani & Pakistanis Killed by the USA

Starvation of Africa & Rape of it's Resources by the USA

Support of the Brutal "Israeli" Occupation Entity

Etc. Etc.

Every day is Fort Hood for the world community due to USA policies and & their tyrant totalitarian puppet regimes. Rest assure the slain terrorists at Fort Hood are in the eternal hellfire and it is not to late for YOU to change your policies.

And here are well-conceived comments from a reviewer of a book comparing Islamic and Christian eschatology titled “The Islamic Anti-Christ”:

The author shows that Islam is an ancient, popular, and possibly demonic-inspired religion through its sacred texts, and that it's currently a powerful political force bent on world domination. Its scriptures encourage terrorism and imperialism, and threaten the U.S. Constitution with its Sharia Law, and provide explicit directives to commit human rights abuses (prejudice, torture, beheadings).

In my opinion the U.S. response against Muslim states should be a political, economic, and military response, though the author recommends only a religious response based on prayer and martydom in the face of Islamic terror. Such a single-minded, conciliatory response is an act of surrender and enables an inevitable, intractable, self-fulfilling prophecy. I disagree with the author's recommendation.

Similar to the Cold War, where conflicting ideologies contested for world influence, the U.S. could project a powerful net of containment, hindering the spread of Islam and its empire-building ambitions. There is no distinction between Islam and a militant Islam. There is Islam, and it is militant, as its holy books brashly proclaim and its bloody history proves. There is no New Testament in Islam to overcome its past sins, and no Golden Rule to reconcile people. On the contrary, the author shows that Islam is spread by compulsion, not compassion.

The U.S. should no longer waste blood and treasure in the construction of new Muslim states in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Unless amendments are added to the Quran requiring tolerance toward other religions and atheists, and respect for their continued existence, Islam in the U.S. should be treated as a political organization under the law, not as a religious organization, for without amendment Islam will continue to be an intolerant force, and its religious and political leaders dangerous.

As the author aptly pointed out, 90% of the wars and acts of terrorism throughout the world are performed under the banner of Islam.

Exploring Islamic eschatology and Christian apocalypticism, the author shows convincingly how both religions' anticipated destinies are intertwined, and adversarial, with Armageddon the result. This isn't just a matter of personal religious belief kept hidden away in somebody's mind to be used for self-examination and betterment. Islam is a cause, and its zealots die for it, and kill for it. A political, economic, and military response to Islam as a political, economic, and military force is necessary, if one believes the prophecies on either side, and connects the dots as the author has. As Islam moves, anti-Islamic forces should move.

No comments: