Tag Archives: Fort Hood massacre

New U.S. Army manual forbids our soldiers from criticizing Islam

The evidence is mounting that the Obama regime at best coddles radical Muslims, at worst it’s actively supporting and arming them. To wit:

  • The Obama regime refuses to call US Army psychologist Nidal Hasan, who perpetrated the worst shooting ever to take place on a U.S. military base, at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009 — an Islamic jihadist. Despite eyewitness testimonies that Hasan had shouted “Allahu Akbar! (Allah is Great!)” before opening fire, killing 13 and wounding another 29; and regardless of internal Army reports indicating Hasan’s fellow officers had reported his outspoken sympathy with radical Islam since 2005.
  • In August 2011, afraid of offending the delicate sensibilities of Muslims, the U.S. Marine Corps banned Marines serving in Afghanistan from — I kid you not — audible farting.
  • In Sept. 2012, a highly-decorated 18-year veteran Army officer, Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, was fired from teaching a course on Islam because he had the temerity of actually teaching “negative aspects” the truth about Islam. (More evidence at the end of this post.)

The latest is a new U.S. Army handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East, forbidding our soldiers from making derogatory comments about the extremist Taliban, pedophilia, or Islam in general, as well as any comment approving of rights for women.

Aren’t we fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan? So if the Obama regime were in power then, U.S. soldiers in the Second World War would have been barred from making “derogatory comments” about Hitler and the Nazis.

What lunacy.

1

The non-partisan public interest organization Judicial Watch reports Dec. 11, 2012:

Here is a strong indicator that the Obama Administration’s crusade to appease Islam has gone too far; a new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other outrageous things.

It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

The soon-to-be-released Army handbook is still being drafted, but [The Wall St. Journal] … got a sneak preview and published an article [for subscribers only] that should infuriate the American taxpayers funding the never-ending war on terror. The manual is being created because someone with authority bought the theory that cultural insensitivity is driving insider attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

More than three dozen insider attacks have killed 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year, according to the article, and some blame “American cultural ignorance.” The bottom line is that troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with Afghan security forces, the new military handbook says. “Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence.”

The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”

At least one high-ranking military official had the backbone to publicly criticize the new manual, albeit through a spokesperson. U.S. Marine General John Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan, doesn’t endorse it and rejected a proposed forward drafted by Army officials in his name. “He does not approve of its contents,” according to a military spokesman quoted in the story.

Earlier this year the Obama Administration changed the way federal agents are trained to combat terrorism and violent extremism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims. Under White House orders, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) destroyed instructional material that characterizes Muslims as prone to violence or terrorism in a government-wide call to end Islamophobia.

Under Obama practically every major federal agency has been ordered to participate in Muslim outreach initiatives, including the Justice Department with a special program to protect Islamic civil rights, Homeland Security meetings with extremist Muslim organizations and the nation’s space agency (NASA) with an unprecedented mission to focus on Muslim diplomacy.

Additionally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S. and the administration sent an America-bashing mosque leader (Feisal Abdul Rauf) who blames U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on a Middle Eastern outreach mission. The Obama Administration even ordered a government-funded meal program for home-bound seniors to offer halal cuisine prepared according to Islamic law.

About U.S. Marine General John Allen who has refused to endorse the new Muslim-appeasing military manual: This is the same Gen. Allen whose previously-announced promotion is now indefinitely postponed, and who will soon be replaced by Gen. Joseph Dunford as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. See “Obama purges U.S. military command (Part 1),” Dec. 3, 2012.

See also:

H/t Eyes Wide Shut

~Eowyn

Army officer fired for teaching truth about Islam

Remember that jihadist US Army psychologist Nidal Hasan who perpetrated the worst shooting ever to take place on a U.S. military base?

On November 5, 2009, armed with a pistol and a revolver, Hasan entered his workplace — the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, where personnel receive routine medical treatment immediately prior to and on return from deployment — shot and killed 13 innocent people and wounded another 29.

Despite internal Army reports indicating Hasan’s fellow officers had reported his outspoken sympathy with radical Islam since 2005, and despite eyewitnesses saying that Hasan had shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire, the U.S. Army and the POS’s administration refused to call the shooting an Islamic terrorist act or even a hate crime.

Now we have more evidence that the U.S. Army is infested with politically-correct “tolerance” fear of offending Islam. An 18-year veteran Army officer was fired from teaching a course on Islam because he had the temerity of actually teaching the truth.

Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley

Chad Groening reports for OneNewsNow.com, September 20, 2012, that Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley — a highly-decorated 1994 graduate of the US Military Academy who has been deployed to Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq for 6 combat tours — was relieved of a teaching assignment because he discussed negative aspects of Islam in an elective course entitled “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism” at the Joint Services Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia.

Richard Thompson, President and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, says a letter sent out by 57 Islamist groups to several government agencies, including the Pentagon, had demanded that action be taken against Lt. Col. Dooley’s teaching. “All information that is offensive to Islam is to be removed,” Thompson summarizes the letter. “And any instructors [of the course] should be disciplined.”

Thompson concludes that the U.S. Army’s dismissal of Dooley was a direct result of the Pentagon bending to Muslims’ will: “the Department of Defense is following the instructions they got from these Muslim organizations.”

To please Muslims, the Army has chosen to scapegoat Lt. Col. Dooley. Thompson says Dooley’s career is being adversely affected: “He was slated to become a colonel and assume a command position. But because they did not like the way he taught the class and the way he portrayed Islam, they have stopped this whole procedure. They decided they were going to give him a negative evaluation and red-flagged his promotion.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a law firm that specializes in the defense of the civil rights and liberties of Christians, is considering a federal lawsuit aimed at vindicating Dooley’s rights to free speech and academic freedom.

H/t FOTM’s Christy

~Eowyn

Too Many Whites and Men in U.S. Military

That’s exactly what we need for the U.S. military — more PC.

Political correctness has already poisoned the well of politics, education, public and private discourse, and the one institution that should not let political considerations interfere — the U.S. military.

On December 22, 2010, Obama signed the bill repealing “don’t ask don’t tell,” thereby ending the 17-year-old ban on openly gay men and women serving in the Armed Forces.

Then there is the Muslim jihadist, Army psychologist Nidal Hassan, who went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood in November 2009, killing 13 and wounding 30? Although Hassan made known his jihadist views in speech and writing, the Army did nothing.

Hassan’s murderous rampage prompted a feeble response from the Department of Defense (DoD) — a directive issued on November 27, 2009, restricting servicemembers’ free speech by forbidding them from actively advocating “supremacist doctrine, ideology, or causes,” including writing blogs or posting on Web sites. But it remains unclear how the DoD defines “extremist” and “supremacist”:

  • Does “supremacist doctrine, ideology, or causes” include groups such as Jewish groups who believe that Jews are the Chosen People, or Muslims who believe that Islam — and by extension Islamists — is supreme?
  • Do ”hate groups” include Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam that calls white people “blue eyed devils”; the Hispanic La Raza who advocates the retaking by the “brown race” of the American southwest as Reconquista; liberals who demonize conservative tea partiers with false accusations of racism; and gay rights activist groups such as Act Up, which describes itself as “a diverse, non-partisan group of individuals united in anger“? 
  • Or do “extremists” and “hate groups” mean Christians, pro-lifers, and pro-gun rights Americans? That’s what a leaked 2009 internal memo of Obama’s Dept of Homeland Security said. Despite the controversy generated by the leak, the DHS to this day has not repudiated its identification of Christians, pro-lifers, and pro-gun rights Americans as “extremists” and “hate groups.”

Now comes news of more PC poisoning of our military.

Yesterday, a report ordered by Congress deems the military to be too white and too male at the top, and calls for changing recruiting and promotion policies and a lift on the ban on women in combat.

Pauline Jelinek of AP reports, March 7, 2011, Report says too many whites, men leading military” (H/t fellow Anon):

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.

The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.

Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, “despite undeniable successes … the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve.” “This problem will only become more acute as the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of the United States continues to change,” said the report from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, whose more than two dozen members included current and former military personnel as well as businessmen and other civilians. Having military brass that better mirrors the nation can inspire future recruits and help create trust among the general population, the commission said.

Among recommendations is that the military eliminate policies that exclude women from combat units, phasing in additional career fields and units that they can be assigned to as long as they are qualified. A 1994 combat exclusion policy bans women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level even though women have for years served in combat situations.

“If you look at today’s battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s not like it was in the Cold War, when we had a defined battlefield,” retired Air Force Gen. Lester L. Lyles, the commission’s chairman, said in an interview. “Women serve — and they lead — military security, military police units, air defense units, intelligence units, all of which have to be right there with combat veterans in order to do the job appropriately.” Because they are technically attached to, but not assigned to, combat units, they don’t get credit for being in combat arms, something important for promotion to the most senior ranks.

Lyles said the commission consulted a panel of enlisted women on the issue. “I didn’t hear, `Rah, rah, we want to be in combat,’” Lyles said. “But I also didn’t hear, `We don’t want to be in combat.’ What they want is an equal opportunity to serve where their skills allow them to serve.”

Stretching the definition of diversity, the report also said the military must harness people with a greater range of skills and backgrounds in, for instance, cyber systems, languages and cultural knowledge to be able to operate in an era of new threats and to collaborate with international partners and others.

An acquaintance of mine (and Anon’s too) who had served for many years in the military and still has his ears to the ground sent us this:

Promotion boards are already directed to ensure that a certain number of promotions go to minorities and women. [This is Affirmative Action on steroids, otherwise known as the racial/gender Quota System. ~Eowyn] That has been the case since the Clinton administration.  I expect that the Obama administration will demand that general officer promotions be restricted to women and minorities until the proper ratio is achieved.”

~Eowyn