#1
Worrying about removing anti-armor assets from Europe before a replacement technology can be deployed... right. Because there's those armored division of the Third Mongol Horde to worry about deterring, right?
Sometimes, Peters strikes me as a little too wired into the dinosaur's brain.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
05/06/2005 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
You'd think he was talking about mounted Polish lancer units in 1939 right before Adolf and Uncle Joe paid a visit.
Am I missing something? Two years ago, just days before his unit was set to join the invasion of Iraq, an Army sergeant threw grenades into the tents of fellow soldiers and shot those able to flee the flames. When he was done, two soldiers lay dead, 14 wounded. The sergeant, Hasan Akbar, a 34-year-old Muslim convert who grew up in south-central Los Angeles, was captured, not killed, that night in Kuwait, and returned to the United States to become the first American since the Vietnam War to be prosecuted for killing a fellow soldier during wartime. A 15-member military jury sentenced him to death last week, making him the sixth inmate on military death row at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.
Akbar said he'd endured anti-Muslim taunts and threats and felt that his life was in danger. He claimed that he had no choice but to launch the March 2003 attack on the U.S. soldiers who threatened him. His own defense attorneys said Akbar was mentally ill.
But prosecutors said that Akbar made it his mission to stop his fellow soldiers from killing other Muslims and that he had wanted to kill Americans for some time. Akbar's diary, one he kept by computer for 13 years, spoke loudest: In 1992, he wrote: "I made a promise that if I am not able to achieve success because of some Caucasians, I will kill as many of them as possible." In a 1996 entry, he wrote: "Destroying America is my greatest goal." In 1998, he joined the Army. And in 2003, in the week before he went to Kuwait, he wrote: "As soon as I am in Iraq, I am going to try and kill as many of them as possible." (Prosecutors say he was referring to fellow soldiers).
Akbar's former platoon leader testified during his trial that Akbar was unfit for duty. He got fired from a leadership position just before the invasion. "He really was kind of fired and forgotten," Capt David Storch told a jury. So which question is the right one: How could the U.S. military send an obviously mentally ill man who abhorred fellow soldiers and walked around talking to himself to Kuwait with those soldiers?
Or: How could officers be so fed up with Akbar's poor performance that they removed from him a leadership position, but didn't relieve him of duty because it was "too complex" at a chaotic time?
Or: Why isn't the case of a domestic terrorist who infiltrated the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and later attacked his own unit at the top of the news?
No matter where the truth lies, one thing is clear: Somebody messed up. Somebody slipped up. Somebody wasn't paying attention. Now two soldiers are dead; one is on death row. And 14 bear scars. Hasan Akbar's hatred may have been borne of racism or frustration or lunacy. But whatever its origin, he should not have been allowed to carry that hatred into battle. When he joined the Army in 1998 to pay off college loans, someone should have kept up with where his mind went. Soldiers still fighting in Iraq need to know that their comrades have their backs, and not get fatally shot in the back as Capt. Christopher Seifert, 27, was as he tried to escape Akbar's grenade attack. (Air Force Major Gregory Stone, 40, died in that blast.) News networks spent more time on a runaway bride than with stories about how a man who pledged to destroy America could be shipped to Kuwait with men he believed were enemies. I'm not interested in the bride. I want to know how officials missed Hasan Akbar and whether there are others like him still in the ranks.
As Charles notes, there isn't much difference between Akbar's writings and the writings/speeches/prayers uttered by jihadis the world over.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/06/2005 12:17:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
How could officers be so fed up with Akbar's poor performance that they removed from him a leadership position, but didn't relieve him of duty because it was ''too complex'' at a chaotic time?
Easy to say from the safety of a keyboard. Harder to do. If he HADN'T killed a bunch of people there, and the officers had begun the extensive process of removing him from duty (requiring hearings etc.) ... and then someone else, maybe lots of someones, died in a chem attack because their officers were too busy to drill them on NBC measures ....
what would Charles and the rest be saying instead?
They'd be asking why those stupid Army officers couldn't get their priorities straight and were busying themselves with one fuckwit when they should have been preparing their troops for the chemical attack they knew Saddam might pull.
Posted by: too true ||
05/06/2005 6:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Shoulda, coulda, woulda. But I don't understand why vicious people are always labelled as mentally ill. Akbar is merely evil, in the classic sense of the word.
#4
Too True, your points are valid and I had a similar reaction, but it was Rochelle Riley of the Detroit Free Press who wrote the article and asked the questions. Charles provided the link and commented on Riley's failure to logically follow through on her line of questioning.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
05/06/2005 6:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
removing him from squad leader is easy. But unless Akbar broke some law or reg it would not have been easy to discharge him. Especially at a time that the Army had a stop/loss in place and Sgt Akbar would have plated the race card in his defense. It's clear from his diary that he had issue long before he enlisted.
It was way too hard to get rid of normal duds when I was in six years ago. Most of the time we had to rehab transfer discipline problems to other companies/battalions. Make them someone else's problem. If we went after someone too hard, it would like targeting -- racist targeting if the problem child was a minority.
#7
Jihadi writing? Hell more resembling a MSM editorial policy handbook than anything out there.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
05/06/2005 9:59 Comments ||
Top||
#8
How could officers be so fed up with Akbar's poor performance that they removed from him a leadership position, but didn't relieve him of duty because it was ''too complex'' at a chaotic time?
#9
I'll guess it'll be a mystery what Ms. Riley's take would've been, had Hasan Akbar been 'canned' and had gone to the media with a sob story and a bunch of special-interest handlers...
Blogger Brian Tiemann asks us to imagine what the world would be like if the 9/11 terrorists had succeeded in hitting the Capitol and the White House. Interesting.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/06/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A truly profound blog post, Dr Steve -- many thanks for bringing it to our attention! This is, IMO, highly worthy of wide distribution, folks.
And debate / discussion. It's fact. It stretches the bounds of our response dramatically. It was, obviously, something not lost on that dumb chimp Dubya or Rummy or anyone else in the Bush Admin - and triggered a response which was misunderstood, through ignorance of this precise point, on the part of many - worldwide. I thinks he's hit something quite profound squarely on the head - and I've never heard a discussion or seen a debate with the same focus as provided in this post.
Once in awhile we find that we've blindered ourselves to the point of missing a point which is, once pointed out, beyond obvious and which goes to the heart of an issue. I'm partially stumped why this hasn't been discussed at length. Our entire legal system is based upon intent, above and beyond the efficacy of acts. How could this have slipped through the cracks? I think the post itself somewhat answers that question: where they were successful triggered the average moonbat's ''Play'' mode and the debate and discussion were both redirected and drowned out - leaving behind this fundamental question, unattended and unanswered.
*slaps forehead* Duh, .com, why didn't you refine events to this question and flesh it out, lol??!!!
Thanks, Brian, for bringing this into focus. It boggles and demands attention. Wow - the ramifications are, indeed, profound.
#2
WOW! He truly sums it up. The left soooo loves the ''intent issue'' for ''hate crimes'', why not approach the jihadis this way. This guy gets it and, .com's right, brings our focus back to where it should be. Much like Darryl Worley's song ''Have you forgotten''. Apologize for the non Country music fans out there, but you gotta listen to it if you haven't heard it.
Posted by: BA ||
05/06/2005 9:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Have You Forgotten? I hear people saying we don't need this war
I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground
We didn't get to keep 'em by backing down
They say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start your preaching let me ask you this my friend
Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
They took all the footage off my T.V.
Said it's too disturbing for you and me
It'll just breed anger that's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it everyday
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
After 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right
Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember
Just what they're fighting for
Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Some went down like heros in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost and those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry about bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
Posted by: Steve ||
05/06/2005 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
They missed so we fuhgetabbudit?
Yeah, that's it. Happens all the time!
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/06/2005 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Thanks, Dr. Steve! Makes me wanna go listen to it this evening! But (as I usually say), I'm just a dumb @ss, red-stater, redneck, so whadda I know about global geopolitics? That song sums it up, and made me realize that we are going to have to get down and dirty with these punks, as all they understand and respect is power. I just hope our country (and, by that, I mean leadership) has the C.O. Jones to see it through to the end. This is a boil that has been long festering (Iran hostage crisis anyone?) and is in need of lancing!
Posted by: BA ||
05/06/2005 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Within a few weeks after first announcing his intent to run for President, several things had taken place, among which was that almost every available major donor dollar in the republican party was committed to him, and a ''Bush Family Ranch'' in Crawford, TX, was being built as a western White House. Early on, Bush was criticizes and sneered at for using the word ''strategery'' to describe his strategy. But his new word might be best defined as ''having a strategy so advanced, so well-developed, and so ahead of schedule, as to give your enemies no advantage of any kind in its execution--a new order of strategy.'' Bush and his strategists have proven themselves to the Presidency and the conduct of the wars like Tiger Woods has proven himself to golf.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Am I missing something? Two years ago, just days before his unit was set to join the invasion of Iraq, an Army sergeant threw grenades into the tents of fellow soldiers and shot those able to flee the flames. When he was done, two soldiers lay dead, 14 wounded. The sergeant, 
