Article

2005-05-06 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2005-05-06 12:17:17 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1

Atheists Guide jihadi's creed.

Posted by 3dc 2005-05-06 01:30|| 2005-05-06 01:30|| Front Page Top

#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 2005-05-06 06:40|| 2005-05-06 06:40|| Front Page 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.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-05-06 06:55|| 2005-05-06 06:55|| Front Page Top

#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 2005-05-06 06:56|| 2005-05-06 06:56|| Front Page 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.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2005-05-06 07:57|| 2005-05-06 07:57|| Front Page Top

#6 Shoulda, coulda, woulda is right.

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.

Posted by nada 2005-05-06 09:41|| 2005-05-06 09:41|| Front Page Top

#7 Jihadi writing? Hell more resembling a MSM editorial policy handbook than anything out there.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2005-05-06 09:59|| 2005-05-06 09:59|| Front Page 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?

''Too complex''?? Sounds like PC-babble to me...

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-05-06 10:37|| 2005-05-06 10:37|| Front Page Top

#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...

Posted by Pappy 2005-05-06 11:17|| 2005-05-06 11:17|| Front Page Top

23:57 3dc
23:46 Sobiesky
23:43 Tibor
23:33 Alaska Paul
23:33 tu3031
23:29 AJackson
23:29 Frank G
23:22 tu3031
23:18 BH
23:12 SR-71
23:10 Fred
23:10 ex-lib
23:07 Alaska Paul
23:03 Frank G
23:01 Alaska Paul
22:56 SR-71
22:47 Alaska Paul
22:45 Stephen
22:30 Witt
22:29 Spot
22:25 Stephen
22:18 Silentbrick
22:17 Witt
22:15 Pappy