Family of soldier accused in grenade attack says that soldier was pushed to attack

[clk]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/World/iraq_GMA030325Akbar_family_exclusive.html

"Asan was pushed to this. We've got that clear," William Bilal told WBRZ, ABCNEWS' affiliate in Baton Rouge, La. "Everybody's got a breaking point, to put it that way. Everybody's got a breaking point. If he did this, he was driven."

It wasn't Akbar's fault that he threw grenades and killed one of his OWN MEN. It was everyone else's fault. I love it when people try to justify murderers :rolleyes:

[Martin]

They're his family. What did you expect?

[clk]

Originally posted by Martinm
They're his family. What did you expect?

If he were in my family, I'd disown him.

[Martin]

Originally posted by clk


If he were in my family, I'd disown him. Then I'm very glad we're not family.



We're not, are we?

[clk]

Originally posted by Martinm

We're not, are we?

If you haven't killed any American soldiers, then we are
:D

[Martin]

American soldiers? No.

[Richard G]

If he were in my family, I would shoot him.

He will be executed for this.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Richard G
If he were in my family, I would shoot him.

He will be executed for this.
Hopefully not by being shot but rather by being hung.

[schplurg]

According to the Los Angeles Times, soldiers who witnessed Akbar's arrest said that Akbar yelled out: "You guys are coming into our countries, and you're going to rape our women and kill our children."

Can't find the LA times article. Of course most articles I've read so far steer clear from this possible reason. It's much nicer for us at home to believe that it was the fault of the military for not promoting blacks (one of his alleged claims), rather than the fact that this guy may have had religious issues, and that Islam, not just Iraq, is the enemy. I'm not saying this is true (the Islam/enemy thing), but there are those who do believe this, and this part of the story seems to be played down in the U.S. press.

This would open up a can of worms for the military, and the liberals who want to allow anyone at all into the military. Maybe that sounds pretty radical or paranoid, but I'm certain people will jump on this for whichever cause they choose to embrace. I'll bet this story gets bigger as time goes on.

[renata]

How was this guy allowed into the unit? LA Times Story (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-war-soldier24mar24004422,1,7250402.story)

The soldier, who rolled a grenade into each of three tents of sleeping officers and senior noncommissioned officers of the 101st, shot at least two fellow soldiers as they raced from their tents, the witnesses said.

Outside the charred and blood-splattered tents Sunday, soldiers recalled hearing the suspect say as he was being led away by armed soldiers: "You guys are coming into our countries and you're going to rape our women and kill our children."



Attacking people while they are asleep, shooting them in the back. What a brave man.

I wonder whether the other Muslim soldiers will not be treated with suspicion and hostility because of this idiot. I thought most people in combat units would get a psychiatric evaluation before shipping out to dangerous duty.

[clk]

Originally posted by renata
How was this guy allowed into the unit?

Yeah, that's what I'm wondering as well. I thought that all of our soldiers were very well trained and disciplined. I was surprised to hear that one of them went postal.

[schplurg]

And if the military suggested this guy not be allowed in the unit, or to go to Iraq, or whatever, imagine the public outcry! "The racist military won't let a Muslim fight in Iraq! Boooo! I'm calling my lawyer!"

I think the military has their hands tied on this one, thanks to the bleeding hearts who think the military should be a social club. It sounds as if it was known that this soldier had issues in the past - at least with his superior officers, claims of racism. Perhaps if the military didn't need to worry so much about being politically correct, they would have done something earlier. Perhaps not.

[renata]

Another victim of this attack died today, Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone, 40

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030326/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_101st_attacked&cid=716&ncid=716


What is the punishment for something like this? I assume military has special courts to deal with this. I also assume that as this was done during war, there will be additional charges, and penalties will be stiff. Can someone explain the procedure to me? Apparently, there have been no military executions since 1961.

[a_unique_person]

lets not forget that as recently as WWII, the US military was segregated.

[Baggle]

Sorry, no sources for this, but I recall reading that this soldier had been reprimanded(as you've probably read) before the attacks for insubordination, and that he actually had been denied heading into Iraq if/when the rest of his unit went. He was to stay behind in Kuwait.

As far as the penalty for this, it is surely death. A civilian in America with no extinuating circumstances, like this guy has, would be put to death for this act. 1st degree murder of 2 and attempted murder of 11 more? The guy will die for this.

AUP, I think the point you are trying to make is not there. I am not sure when the military in the USA was desegregated, but if it was any time before the civil rights movement, and I am pretty sure it was, then you don't have a point(your point being that the military is or was racist, demonstrated by it's segregation policies up to WW2, right?), since parts of the entire country were segregated before that time. If the military desegregated before all states in the nation did, then I'd say that it actually defeats your point, and proves that the military was pretty progressive about racial relations. If you have better facts than this, though, let me know, please.

-Baggle

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
lets not forget that as recently as WWII, the US military was segregated.
'recently' - over 50 years ago?
AUP - you must have some point to make. Maybe if you started with the Civil War...?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
lets not forget that as recently as WWII, the US military was segregated.

Hey dumbass,

Every state in the South was segregated before WWII. The military was the very first place that segregation was challenged in the US. The integration of the armed forces was the first success story in the US Civil Rights movement. You're attempting to cast aspertions upon the first and best example of racial integration in American history. You have to reach back more than 50 years to attempt to make your point.

Live in the now man.

-zilla

Originally posted by rikzilla


Hey dumbass,

-zilla

Except for this part, Rik is perfectly correct. The integration of the U.S. Army is seen as a dramatic step forward in integration in the United States. The Army was one of the very FIRST American institutions to integrate.

The man's race has nothing whatsoever to do with this - his religion does.

I agree he should be hung as a traitor.

The military is more racially harmonious than the civilian population. It comes from the knowledge and the comfort that the man next to you is responsible for your life, and you are responsible for his.

While I was in the Navy it was one of the things of which I was most proud.

That isn't to say there aren't any racial problems. There are. There are always one or two guys who think every bad thing that happens to them is because of some racial conspiracy against them. These characters almost never take responsibility for their own actions, and when they do wrong, feel their punishment is racist. As if they should be able to get away with something because their ancestors really were discriminated against.

Fortunately, there are minorities in senior positions in the military now who come down harder on these folks than anyone else.

And there are white people who are racist in the military, just as in the civilian world. But racism is not tolerated. The zero tolerance for drugs in the Navy was nowhere near as total as the zero tolerance for racism.

I would say the pecking order from worst to least worst in the Navy as far as who was punished the hardest was 1) thieves 2)racists 3)drug abusers.

When your ship is on fire, you don't give a crap what color or what origin the guy in the firesuit next to you is.

As for this guy in the 101st being executed, I would be very, very surprised if he was. Life in Leavenworth, most likely.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


Except for this part, Rik is perfectly correct. The integration of the U.S. Army is seen as a dramatic step forward in integration in the United States. The Army was one of the very FIRST American institutions to integrate.

The man's race has nothing whatsoever to do with this - his religion does.

I agree he should be hung as a traitor.

Sundog,

The "dumbass" comment was rude, but factual. To claim knowledge about something that one obviously knows little about would indeed make one a "dumbass".

Rude, but true. This poster also has a history of such statements and when called on it tends to stand by his erroneous statements regardless of the evidence of error. He is a dumbass indeed, and a dumbass in fact.

-zilla

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sundog,

The "dumbass" comment was rude, but factual. To claim knowledge about something that one obviously knows little about would indeed make one a "dumbass".

Rude, but true. This poster also has a history of such statements and when called on it tends to stand by his erroneous statements regardless of the evidence of error. He is a dumbass indeed, and a dumbass in fact.

-zilla

You know nothing about the intelligence level of his buttocks.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


You know nothing about the intelligence level of his buttocks.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Damn! foiled again! ;)

[subgenius]

I'm kind of surprised we haven't heard that matriarchal totalitarianism drove him to it.

[Victor Danilchenko]

In fact, I read that the military is the only truly integrated institution in USA. I agree race issue had nothing to do with this; I am not sure if it was religion, though -- it sounds like there was a healthy dose of nationalism mixed in.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I am not sure if it was religion, though -- it sounds like there was a healthy dose of nationalism mixed in.

I don't think it's nationalism. Asan Akbar war born Mark Kools, in California.

[subgenius]

Mental illness is the most likely explanation.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
In fact, I read that the military is the only truly integrated institution in USA. I agree race issue had nothing to do with this; I am not sure if it was religion, though -- it sounds like there was a healthy dose of nationalism mixed in.

I don't know. On one news channel, they were saying it was motivated by the fact he is a Muslim. On another, they were saying he wanted to get into the fight, and they wouldn't let him, and that is why he did it.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by LukeT
I don't know. On one news channel, they were saying it was motivated by the fact he is a Muslim. On another, they were saying he wanted to get into the fight, and they wouldn't let him, and that is why he did it.

Akbar made statements indicating he was philosophically opposed to the invasion. His superior officer decided not to let him enter Iraq. I haven't heard anything indicating he wanted to fight in Iraq.

[jj]

Personally, I think it all comes down to aiding the enemy in wartime. I believe the term is "short, sharp shock"

That, at least in spirit, is what he did.

The fellow appears to have had problems before he was shipped out, so I do wonder why he was there, but when you have to move 60,000 people ...

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by subgenius
Mental illness is the most likely explanation.

It wouldn't surprise me if this fellow had a screw loose or two.

It's also the case that mainstream Sunni Muslim muftis have been stating that it is illegal for Muslims to assist the Americans in this war. Opposition to the war effort "by any means necessary" is perfectly legal, per Islamic law.

http://www.islamonline.net/fatwaapplication/english/display.asp?hFatwaID=94006
Date 8/Mar/2003
Dear scholars, As-Salamu `alaykum. We are soldiers in a Gulf country and we are commanded to go to Kuwait during the prospective war on Iraq without any explanation of the nature of our participation. Is it permissible to do this task and what is the ruling on a Muslim's participation in the American campaign? What is the ruling if we are required to protect public institutions and establishments and deal with the prospective overflow of Iraqi refugees? Please explain these issues in your answer. Jazakum Allah khayran.

Dear brother in Islam, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake.

It goes without saying that Islam abhors violence and terrorism in all forms. Being a universal message, Islam calls for peace, cooperation, and maintaining justice, and provides for the happiness and welfare of humanity as a whole. This fact is declared in the Qur'an when Allah says: "Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: He instructs you, that ye may receive admonition." (An-Nahl 90)

Consequently, Muslims are commanded to support and cooperate with others in establishing peace and justice and fighting against oppression, irrespective of where or against whom it is done. In a world where there are many instances of injustice and oppression against the weak and helpless masses, Muslims should have a role and mission. It is their Divinely entrusted obligation to stand by the oppressed regardless of their race, color, religion or affiliation and say NO to the oppressor, deprive him from any aid or support, and ask him to respond to the voice of reason and justice by all possible and legitimate means.

In his response to the question in point, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:

"It is not permissible to use the Arab and Islamic lands, harbors, and airports to assist in attacking Iraq. It becomes an individual obligation (fard `ayn) upon all Muslims, men and women, to confront and resist the invaders if they attack their land. In other words, if the enemy invades a Muslim land, then it is obligatory upon its inhabitants to stand against the enemy until they dismiss them from their land. If the inhabitants of that country are capable of warding off the attack, then this is sufficient, but if they are unable to do so, then the obligation of warding off the attack extends to neighboring Muslim countries and so on.

As for participating in the forces consisting of units from Gulf countries, these forces are allowed to defend Kuwait if it is attacked, yet participating in any military operation against Iraq is undoubtedly forbidden. Any country that assists in attacking a Muslim country is sinful on the basis of the hadith reported by Ibn Majah in his Sunan on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Whoever assists in killing a believer (even) by half a word, will meet Allah (on the Day of Judgment) with ‘no hope in Allah’s mercy’ written on his face."

It is crystal clear that what the US seeks from this war is to seize the Iraqi oil and to terminate the military and human power of this country by destroying its arms and by depriving it from its scientists' contribution, in addition to assisting the Zionist state by sweeping all Arab powers and weakening any power that can possible be used against Israel."

Regarding the ruling on Muslim soldiers’ participation in this war, the eminent Muslim scholar, Dr. `Ali Jum`ah, Professor of the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence at Al-Azhar Univ., states:

"It is not permissible for a Muslim soldier to participate in the prospective American war on Iraq.

Almighty Allah says: “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa': 93)

If a Muslim is compelled and forced to go there he must not participate in fighting even if he is killed for this."

Dealing with the question in much more detail, the prominent Saudi scholar, Sheikh Salman ibn Fahd al-`Udah, adds:

"It is a well-established, undisputable rule in Islamic Shari`ah that Muslims must support and cooperate with one another and that they are forbidden to transgress against one another's self, honor or property, as their blood, property and honor are sacred. In the Farewell Pilgrimage the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) declared, “A Muslim is a brother of a Muslim. He must not wrong him, nor fail him, nor hand him over (to enemies), nor mock at him.”

Killing a Muslim under any pretext is such a grave sin and serious crime that it comes only second to shirk in respect to the seriousness of warning against it in the Qur'an. Almighty Allah says: “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa': 93)

Imam al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Abu Bakrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "If two Muslims meet each other with their swords then (both) the killer and the killed one are in the (Hell) Fire."

Both al-Bukhari and Muslim reported on the authority of Jarir: "Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another."

Al-Bukhari also reported on the authority of Ibn ` Umar: "A faithful believer remains at liberty regarding his religion unless he kills somebody unlawfully."

Abu Dawud reported on the authority of Abu Ad-Darda': I heard Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) as saying: "Every sin is likely to be forgiven by Allah save for a person who dies as a disbeliever (associating partners with Allah) or a believer killing a believer on purpose."

Therefore, a Muslim is not permitted under any pretext to participate in killing or harming his fellow Muslim or in destroying a Muslim country, its institutions or establishments, whether they are military or civil. Moreover, this is unlawful even if it leads to endangering one's own life or personal interest, for a Muslim should not sacrifice his fellow Muslim and kill him to protect himself or for fear that he may be killed if he did not do so; and with greater reason, any danger lesser than being killed makes it unlawful as well.

Based upon this, it is not lawful for an individual, group or country to assist in attacking Iraq, destroying it, and killing its people by any act, word, sign, or any form of logistic support. On the contrary, it is obligatory to work to prevent this attack by all effective means. If this is not possible, then there is nothing less than avoiding participation in all its forms. This what loyalty to Muslims and disloyalty to oppressive non-believers dictates, which is part of our belief in Allah and His Messengers. Almighty Allah says: “O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.” (Al-Ma'dah :51)

It is a shame to assist and support the occupying and colonial powers for the sake of attaining quick worldly gains such as participating in authority. Yet, this is, in fact, a mere cause of humiliation in this world and the Hereafter for him who does not repent to Allah and give up supporting the disbelievers among the American hawks. They are seeking to set a new unveiled colonial era, stress that America is the only power controlling the world, preserve the security of Israel in the Muslim region, threaten the neighboring countries, establish an ideal regime in Iraq – from the American perspective – that will achieve [they claim] material welfare, freedom, democracy and act as a model to be followed by its neighbors and a place for spying and upcoming wars in addition to seizing the oil, gas, and wealth of the region.

As for the participation of soldiers in protecting public institutions and establishments which serve people's interests, preserving their security, arranging the affairs, caring for the prospective refugees coming from Iraq, and in other acts which are in the public interest of Muslims in every country and which contribute to their stability and the lifting or alleviating the hardship from them -- these are required matters which must be achieved and the participation itself is a form of cooperation in what is good and beneficial (which is recommended in Islam). May Allah protect the people of Iraq and preserve its security and unity."

[Nie Trink Wasser]

here is the REAL REAL reason that he was admitted into the unit.


The GUBNIT KNEW that he was fanatic about his muslim and racial beliefs and THEY KNEW that if they LET HIM IN then he would effectively ATTACK HIS OWN PEOPLE and thereby MAKING ARABS AND BLACKS LOOK EVIL.


yep


that's the real story.


no other story is true.


you know that's whats really happening and there is no disputing it.

The majority of americans and the world agree with me.

yep.