Last November a Muslim military bloke slaughtered a bunch of his “bothers in arms” at Fort Hood. When the massacre happened, I was struck by the information that immediately came out as the military tried to manage the event—seeking to make it less about the dual loyalty a Islamic member of the military may feel and this guys hate for America and the Judeo-Christian heritage. Thereafter, I read that the guy was on-line communicating with radical Muslims—information that seemed fairly important and the type the military could and should known about. Anyway, 13 Americans were killed and dozens more injured by this hateful zealot and I wonder if more had been known, if the result could have been different.
This past week, the final report following the investigation into the event was released. One of the reported findings was that supervisors would be better served if they had access to personnel records—DUH. And also the report made clear military policy “lacks clarity necessary to help commanders distinguish appropriate religious practices from those that might indicate a potential for violence or self-radicalization. Wait a minute, I remember his colleagues reportedly complained about his hateful anti-American rhetoric and radical Islamic rants. Wait-why didn’t the military intellegence monitor his on-line radical Muslim’s involvement? Were they nervous about appearing real and preferred to be PC? OUCH-tell that to the families of the dead and maimed.
Are you kidding me.
Building an Information Management Factory
1 year ago