Thursday, November 12, 2009

Major Hasan, traitor, defector, murderer, dead man walking?

Officers and enlisted men are evidently coming out of the woodwork now, all describing their own individual run-ins with Major Hasan when they personally experienced this American Jihadist’s pro-suicide bomber proclamations and anti-“War on Islamic Terror” tirades. Evidently, this murdering double-crossing traitor had been spouting off like Bin Laden on Al Jazeera for years now; yet the US Army in all its PC wisdom decided not only NOT to investigate his loyalty and reliability, but to award him with the rank of major.

(Were they trying to modify his obvious questionable allegiance by “giving” him rank? Was it a “bribe?” If so, it didn’t work!)

I can guarantee that along the way to his 100-round shooting rampage (just two buildings away from where my daughter and son-in-law were at the time!) that a lot of troops complained to their superiors about this Islamic nut job. Not only that, but I’d be totally surprised if more than a couple of them subjected to his sickening invective didn’t challenge him from 6 inches from his grill. I’m a hot head, so you can bet I would have.

Hasan’s family (who have described their disgraced family member as a “great American) say that he was under a lot of pressure due to what they term as harassment. Well, no wonder! THAT would have been ME—a harasser—a BIG TIME harasser. I would have “harassed” the Jihadist hell out of him. The wonder is that no one did MORE than harass him. Someone should have knocked him on his treasonous ass.

I have been known to engage in this kind of “harassment” before, if by harassment you mean speaking out against bullshit once identified as such. The last time I did this is while I was on active duty late in 2001 at the Air Mobility Warfare Center located on Fort Dix, New Jersey. As it turned out, I had only a half year left until the end of my 27 year career. Read on:

Not long after 9-11 when I was still in the Air Force I attended a class on terrorism given by one of our security forces sergeants. At the time I was a senior master sergeant with well over 26 years of active service under my belt. The class was pretty predictable. It all went exactly as expected, UNTIL the sergeant flashed up onto the screen his PowerPoint slide entitled “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter!”

‘Uh oh.’

Suddenly, I became extremely wary. This sergeant was regurgitating the kind of moral equivalency crap that so-called progressives love to use when making their typical anti-American invectives. I could feel every muscle in my body abruptly tense up. I held my tongue to see where this was going; but I knew it wasn’t going to take much to set me off. And sure enough, the very next slide did exactly that.

The sergeant’s next slide contained two pictures; the top one was George Washington, underneath that great man was Yasser Arafat. At that, the bile literally leaped into the top of my throat. ‘NO WAY!’

Unbelievably (to me) the staff sergeant actually began to make the argument that there was no real difference between Washington and Arafat, at least as far as how the Brits saw Washington as compared to the way the Israelis see Arafat. (The corrupt Arafat was still alive the time).

I couldn’t take it anymore. I stood up and stopped the lecture.

“Excuse me! Do you know ANYTHING at all about George Washington?”

“Yes senior, I believe I do…”

“NO, I don’t think you DO! How many acts of terrorism did George Washington plan, carry out or encourage? The answer is NONE! Arafat IS a terrorist. He embraces it; to him, it’s a valid political and tactical tool. General Washington was a great man that would NEVER even contemplate such a thing. He never attacked innocents. He was a man of honor…”

With Washington being my favorite American of all time, I was definitely on my high horse by this time and just getting started. I noticed several of the officers attending the class were actually angry with me; they turned in their seats and stared at me as if I was an impertinent petulant child. One of them, I believe he was a major or lieutenant colonel, interrupted my outburst.

“Sergeant, I think he’s got a point. I mean he’s talking about how their people LOOK at THEIR leaders and THEIR heroes. We look at Washington the same way that Palestinians look at Arafat. That’s all he’s saying.”

“Let me get this straight sir. Do you REALLY think it APPROPRIATE in an official US Air Force class on terrorism to make a moral equivalency comparison between the greatest American of all time and THAT contemptible ACTUAL terrorist Arafat? Are you kidding me Sir! Are you really saying that?”

Oops, that made him mad. He turned away, shaking his head disgustedly as if I was some kind of thickheaded moron. I didn’t care.

At that point I turned back to the instructor.

“Tell me this Staff Sergeant, did you come up with this slide arrangement, OR, are these official slides from Command? Because regardless, I intend to make a formal complaint. There’s no way that George Washington should EVER in ANY shape fashion or form be called a terrorist or be compared to one. You tell me ONE act of terror that he or any of his troops was EVER involved in. Just ONE!...”

It was then that the sergeant admitted that he was the one to write in those particular slides. Seeing the depth of my outrage and realizing that I probably had a pretty good point, he became placatory. Either that or he just wanted me to shut up so he could continue his class. He did make me a promise though. Relenting, he held his hands up in supplication.

“Senior, I will definitely take out the offending slides. I will no longer compare Washington to Arafat.”
“Thanks, that’s all I’m asking. I’ll sit down and shut up now.”

I wonder how many times Hasan’s fellow officers had similar “discussions” with him? I hope many. I would bet there were a lot. If so, THAT could be the reason his hatred finally congealed to the point that he sought to kill people like me, who dared to confront and challenge him. The shame is that the army allowed this defective defector to continue to serve in OUR uniform. Someone needs to be fired over this, more than one in fact.


Anonymous said...

Strong piece, darlin'. Timeframe will be off a little, but Happy Veteran's Day anyway. Thank you for you service, you lovable grouchy curmudgeon.

Ed said...

What I've been wondering is how the heck does a guy fire over a hundred rounds, stopping to reload at least two times, not get blown away much sooner and only then by a civilian cop? I would assume a military base preparing recruits for war would be chock full of guns, not to mention more than a few strapped on and readily accessible. I think this whole tragedy is just another result of "diversity" gone amuck.

At the risk of getting you upset at me again, I think I agree with the major who interrupted you. It sounds as if the presenter was trying to present how people see their leaders. You said, "He never attacked innocents. He was a man of honor…” However, I'm sure the French view George Washington's killing French Ambassador de Jumonville and thus starting the French and Indian War as an act of terrorism. It certainly wasn't an honorable act.

PhilippinesPhil said...

No, getting mad at your inane comments is like getting mad at a toddler.

On the shootings of 100 rounds from his semi-automatic handguns: the only people on Ft Hood outside the ranges carrying loaded weapons are the civilian Ft Hood police (and in this case Hasan). The two cops were onsite within 3 minutes of the start of the massacre; even so, he COULD have fired even MORE rounds, but the word is he was taking his time. Hasan did all his killing inside a clinic. You REALLY have not been around a military base before? Most of the people he shot probably do not even have jobs in combat arms. One of the men he killed was a fellow psychiatrist. You imply that these unarmed troops should have been able to "take him down" even as two fully trained and armed policeofficers could not do so without one of them sustaining three hits. My head is shaking in wonder at your bemusement.

So let me get this straight concerning your reference to "the de Jumonville affair": do you really believe that Washington knew that Half King was going to club the Frenchman to death? Crucially, Jumonville was not acting as a legate during the events leading to his capture and death. He was leading a military detachment maneuvering against enemy forces (the British). To this day no one really knows what actually happened, which is usually the case during military engagements. Washington was all of 22 at the time and I'm sure was doing his best (Perhaps the young officer could have maintained better control of his men; THAT would more likely be his ONLY fault here). Unfortunate things happen in combat; YOUR willingness to label Washington's actions during this "affair" as not honorable without truly knowing all the facts and conditions says more about YOU than anything else. Yes, Washington WAS honorable; he had no idea that the Mingo chief was going kill the Frenchmen; and you are willing to take this one nebulous combat action as THE defining moment of Washington's entire life? Ed, it seems YOU are a victim of your anti-American university education.

Those Frenchmen were NOT innocents; they were combatants under arms. On the other hand, Arafat, through his henchmen and intifadas, killed THOUSANDS of civilian noncombatans, including thousands of Palestinians he had rubbed out like the terrorist gangster he was. Again, your willingness to compare Washington to this mass murderer speaks volumes about YOU.

If the instructor had used Custer, Sherman, or Sheridan as examples of the users of terror, as they most certainly did against Indian women and children, I would not have objected (as long as he also spoke of the Indian's use of terror against settlers).

All I can do is shake my head and cluck at you man. And no, not upset, just amazed, just amazed and bemused (as in tolerantly amused).

Ed said...

I haven't been on a US military base. I didn't realize everyone was unarmed. I have been on the PMA many times and there it seems as if everyone with rank is armed. I was just curious as to why on the US base apparently no one was armed and you gave me my answer.

As for Washington, I do know that he didn't kill Jumonville and that it was an Indian guide but still, Washington did make the call to attack the group at night while they were asleep without knowing anything about their mission or who was in the group itself. All is fair in love and war but we weren't yet at war. I'm just saying that I can see how the French would have a different interpretation of the events and have a much different opinion than Washington, i.e. I can understand you might have a different view of Arafat than his countrymen.

I don't think that this was Washington's defining moment as you suggest though I do think he wasn't a great military leader as grade school history books suggest. He did however learn from his many mistakes which in the end helped us win the war with the help of ironically the French. I think our newly created country needed a hero and Washington was our guy. I also think that he became the glue that held our country together in a time when we might have easily fell apart again. Without Washington, I do not think our country would be here in this form. To me, that is Washington's defining moment.

Eutychus2 said...

Philippines Phil & Ed...
I'm really enjoying your conversation; and though I tend to side more with Ed concerning Washington and more with Phil concerning Arafat, I think it would have been wise of the officer giving the lecture to have presented some views from ordinary Palestinians [for there was, and is] a diversity of opinions there.
I've served in the service and I know that war, and even the threat of war, can make us think in ways we normally would not think. Again, thanks for your conversation, now I'll sit back and listen to the continuing conversation.

opass said...

I think a lot of folks fail to realize that a military base is just another community with schools, playgrounds, churches, stores, gas stations, banks, sidewalks, parks and everything else any other community has. There are lots of wives and kids milling around and I might add that they are generally very well-behaved. It's not an armed camp where everybody carries a gun; it is instead just another piece of America. Communities like those are really self-policing and just don't need a lot of police presence. My home town was very much that way; it had just 8000 people and only 11 cops, including the chief. That probably means only two of them on duty at any moment, one in the car and the other at the dispatch desk. If any of us kids got out of line neighbors and relatives would pass the word to our parents long before the cops ever heard of it.

I do understand this perception that officers might carry sidearms, however, because that's the case in many armies. And that's really for personal prestige and to intimidate (by folks with fragile egos to nurture) rather than a real need. Only cops carry guns in US military communities.

Dave D said...

In Response to Ed's Comments:

Actually, IMO Phil you showed great understanding and tolerance towards Ed. Personally I probably would never have been able to summon the inner fortitude not to verbally throttle and abase him personally(probably with ample amounts of gutter vulgarity). I agree with your statements about George Washington and think he was a superior Military strategist, tactician and adroit statesman/politician while maintaining he was a Gentleman throughout his life to the best of my knowledge. When I read this blog I was infuriated with the Staff Sargent who compared George Washington to that scumbag killer of innocent non-combatant women and children yaser arafat and the PLO in general as they are nothing but terrorists plain and simple. There I was able to say it without using vulgarity(barely).

Dave D.

Ed said...


You obviously haven't studied Washington if you think he was a "superior military strategist."

After the previously mentioned blunder he built Fort Necessity which was in a terrible defensive position and forced him quickly to surrender and become a prisoner of war. It also forced his to falsely sign a document saying he assassinated Jumonville. He was eventually released though many of his men were not. He then resigned from active military rather than accept a demotion to captain.

He then was part of the Braddock disaster though he didn't have part in the reason it was a disaster. He did end up with two horses shot and four holes through his coat so because the Indians were bad shots and he was the sole surviving officer, he became the de facto hero and was promoted to colonel.

As commandor of the continental army, he won his first battle by simply getting to the high ground first and never fired a shot. His next battle in New York, he was royally defeated, losing a third of his army and was forced to retreat across the East River. Had the British pursued him, our story as a country would have been over right then before it has begun.

After numerous defeats across New Jersey, Washington finally made one brilliant decision and attacked Trenton, New Jersey on Christmas night and a a few days later at Princeton. However his subsequent battle at Philadelphia was another loss do to a very undermanned flank and actually almost cost him his job by members of Congress.

Then came a horrible winter at Valley Forge that though not Washington's fault, certainly but the American army at the brink of total destruction. He half heartedly attacked the British as they transferred back from Philadelphia to New York but wasn't able to do much damage. After that, Washington pretty much remained outside of New York waiting for the end until the French won the war for us at the Battle of the Chesapeake.

How you or anyone translate that as superior military stategy is beyond me to comprehend. Like I said before, our country needed a hero and he was as close to it as we had. He was a great leader of our country but certainly not of our army.

Unknown said...

Very simple ED, to anyone who has ever served in a military capacity. George Washington was for all intents a citizen soldier as was the entire rag-tag collection collectively called the Army under his control with the exception of a very few Prussians and French Professional Career Military personnel assigned to assist in an advisory capacity as non-combatants to help train the colonies against (at the time anyways) arguably best trained, best outfitted and best armed military fighting force the world had to offer at that time in the form of the British Navy and Army.

Note: the French King Louis XVI and Britain's King George were virtually at a constant state of war with each other for territorial conquest and riches.

Washington did make any number of tactical errors along the way while trying to figure out how to successfully defend the colonies against the British. That is not in question. But, with the assistance of able bodied and willing Professional help from Britain's foes he did learn. Washington soon realized there was no way they could stand in battle across a field and fire volley after volley man for man with the British army with untrained farmers acting as infantry soldiers who for the most part were required to bring all their own arms, ammunition, food and clothing with them for little or no pay and they only volunteered during the time when their crops were growing in the fields only to desert the field of battle when it was time for planting or harvesting their crops as the U.S. Military and their supply system did not exist as such yet until the American Civil War almost 100 years later for all intents and purposes.

The individuals fighting against the British Army were just trying to survive and defend their way of life, their families, their homes and religious freedom from the chains of a foreign born king(i.e. German born, not British)who sat on the thrown of England and did not even speak passable English.

They were trying to defend everything they left England for in the first place. Primarily self determination.

Not unlike the Proud Filipino scouts and volunteers who fought the Japanese Imperial Army here in the Philippines during WWII.

They invented hit and run tactics to harass the British troops and their supply lines to buy the Continental Army time to group,train and attempt to arm themselves for the upcoming battles.

Dave D.

PhilippinesPhil said...

The one constant of war is "stuff happens." To this day no one really knows what happened during the engagement that ended up with the Frenchman dead. As you admit, you've never served, you can't even imagine what it feels like to engage in combat; yet you are ready to think the worst of WAshington (from the standpoint of the French) just to make a very weak point. Read more than one account of what happened and you'll learn that NO ONE knows for sure what happened. The point is, he was NOT acting in the capacity of a terrorist. A terrorist purposely kills civilians as a strategy. Washington NEVER did that, EVEN in this case.

For most of his life Washington was a planter and surveyor, not a professional soldier. There was no West Point yet, and his combat experiences many years before our war for independence before taking on the job of commander of the American army could not possibly have prepared him to take a green bunch of independent minded rustics into war against the most professional army in the world. Its true, he lost most of his battles until the last one at Yorktown, although he gave the Brits a pretty good thrashing at Monmouth.

"The French won the war for us at The Battle of the Chesapeake." My God Abbey, are you FRENCH or something? De Grasse's fleet blocked resupply and evacuation of Cornwallis, which was critical but certainly did NOT win the war for us. I believe that's called hyperbole, or at least overstatement. Even if Cornwallis had escaped its likely the Brits would have eventually declared victory and grudginly "given" us our sovereignty. Washington's TRUE genius was in never allowing his army to be destroyed no matter how many times it got whipped.

Regardless, you guys STILL miss the point. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Remember? General Washington NEVER acted as a terrorist or supported terrorism in anyway; unlike Arafat who was responsible for the "strategic" deaths of thousands of innocents. Let Fatah compare THEIR man to WAshington if they want. There was no way, there IS no way, that ANY US military classroom should EVER intimate that WAshington could or should be compared to ANY terrorist (that implies that he was a terrorist as well). It was and IS inappropriate for a US military instructor to do that; although, you can easily see how our academics would be willing to do so. To them, and to misguided albeit well-meaning folks like Ed, evidently ALL warfare is evil, comparable to terrorism. Put THOSE fuzzy thinking people in charge of our security and you might as well cut your own throat (Oh wait, we already did--we put Barry Obama in charge of our armed forces, a professor who STILL has not made a decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan even as our troops dangle on the proverbial vine).

Ed said...

I hadn't realized that the discussion was still on going until your comment on my blog Phil. Better late than never.

Dave D - I agree with almost everything you stated in your last comment. My beef was only the previous comment about Washington being a "superior military strategist."

Phil - Again you put many words in my mouth that are about as far from my true beliefs as possible. I have never and will never say that George Washington was a terrorist nor do I believe so. I did however say that I can see how the French might believe differently.

I do agree with you on the point that having a military instructor presenting such material to cadets is not the best thing to do. It is definitely more suited for non-military academics who aren't going to behind a gun and having to make a decision that could affect our country. I like the fact that military recruits are extremely focused on the task at hand and don't think twice. That is as it should be.

I have also never said nor will I say nor do I believe that all war is evil. I have always felt that our current was in Afghanistan is a just war. My beef is that the past occupant (using Cheney's new phrase) dithered around too much in Iraq and now it might not be winnable anymore when it once was.

You also lump me with Obama whom I dislike and never voted for. I am however inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt for taking so long for a military strategy in Afghanistan, at least until I see what it is. We've all seen what off the hip leading of a war by Bush has gotten us in Afghanistan, 80% of the country controlled by the Taliban now 25,000 strong and growing. Perhaps a more well thought out plan is in order. However, if I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet that Obama has that well thought out plan. I'm guessing it will be just a scaled back version of Bush's "Surge" strategy.

Anonymous said...

Philippines Phil,
When I was in the Army, many years ago, I had to take a class on the Hague Conventions. Basically, I was taught that it's not just your subjective opinion of a man or the cause for which he fights that determines if he is a legitaimate freedom fighter or a terrorist. There are requirements one must meet to be a fighter rather than a criminal terrorist. He must wear a uniform to distinguish himself from the non-combatant population, he must carry his weapons openly, he must not hide among non-combatants, or place military targets in areas where non-combatants would be hurt when therse targets are attacked, etc. Washington was an honorable man whose actions would be legal today. Arafat was a criminal terrorist.