• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Citadel punishing cadet for leaking story about Muslim cadet possibly getting uniform exemption

Apr 28, 2016 12:34 am By Robert Spencer

Cowards trying to cover the tracks of their abject surrender by punishing the one courageous man left at The Citadel.

Citadel

“Citadel cadet punished after leaking hijab story,” by Paul Bowers, Post and Courier, April 21, 2016:

A cadet at The Citadel said he is being punished with 33 hours of marching after he revealed in a Facebook post that the school was considering allowing an incoming cadet to wear a hijab in uniform.

The cadet, senior political science student Nick Pinelli, said officials at the public military college originally sought to charge him with behavior “unbecoming to a cadet,” a Class I offense that can lead to dismissal under the school’s disciplinary code. Instead, he said the school reduced the charge to “gross poor judgment” and handed him the maximum punishment: 40 “tours,” each consisting of 50 minutes of silent marching with a rifle in a barracks quadrangle. Pinelli, who has also been working as an intern for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, must complete the tours before graduating on May 7.

Pinelli’s April 13 Facebook post led to national media coverage and sparked heated debate among Citadel cadets and alumni about the issue of the hijab, a head covering worn by some Muslim women. The Citadel is considering accepting a Muslim freshman who has asked to be able to wear the head scarf — an exception to the school’s military dress code. No final decision has been made on the issue.

“If I valued liberal ideology, I would go to UC Berkeley,” Pinelli wrote in the post….

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: academia, Featured, free speech, Useful idiots Tagged With: Nick Pinelli, The Citadel


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Jackson03 says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 12:53 am

    ” he revealed in a Facebook post that the school was considering allowing an incoming cadet to wear a hijab in uniform.”

    ” he said the school reduced the charge to gross poor judgment ”

    One has to wonder how stating a fact (I assume the report is accurate) can be translated into gross poor judgement. I’d sure like to hear the schools answer to that.

    • jayell says

      Apr 28, 2016 at 1:08 am

      Looks like the school feel they have something to hide. The stupidly exaggerated reaction towards Mr. Pinelli smacks of the hysteria of the crook caught red-handed.

      • Rob says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 6:19 am

        Muslims whine and their enablers do too.

        • Lanya LaPunta says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 7:34 am

          This entire country is controlled by islamophiliacs and their mohammedan masters.

    • Rev g says

      Apr 28, 2016 at 1:36 am

      This is not problematic. “Loose lips sink ships”. Anyone who has ever attended a security briefing understands this. The cadet is soon to graduate, and become a military officer.
      This type of corrective punishment is common, even at our federal service academies. They are not blots on one’s record.
      Was this cadet empowered to divulge the Citadel’s internal decision making to the public? Most military groups have a public relations officer for such things.
      The Citadel may not be affiliated directly with our military, but trains officers as part of ROTC, and former and reserve officers are members of the faculty. It styles itself as a military institution. The cadet made a poor decision. Cadets have received similar punishments for much more trivial offenses.

      • Lee says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 2:49 am

        @Rev G – “Loose lips sink ships” “The cadet made a poor decision” – garbage. Why would bringing in hijabis be a top-level secret? Unless the Citadel are *ashamed* of bringing in hijabis, what could be the problem?

        Either the Citadel are proud of Islamizing their institution, in which case they should thank the cadet for publicizing it, or they are Islamizing their institution in secret shame, in which case those responsible should be fired.

        • rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 3:06 am

          Obviously you have never served in the military, nor attended a military academy.

        • rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 4:10 am

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/15/citadel-mulls-muslim-hijab-uniform-exception/

          Such public criticism of his superiors is easily “conduct unbecoming a cadet”. The cadet is a senior, he knows this, decorum and conduct are taught as a freshman course.
          No decision has even been reached. Once a decision has been announced by the Public Affairs Officer, cadets will be free to opine about the decision.
          I agree with the cadet’s opinion, such accomodations are problematic. However, in the actual military itself, the concept is hardly new.
          His punishment could have been much more harsh.

        • BC says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 9:17 am

          Those in charge of the college are clearly ignorant of the situation re hijabs and the number of girls who have been bullied harmed and even killed for refusing to wear this badge of female inferiority imposed by males. This has been well documented here and on Pamela Geller’s site and elsewhere so it is not hard to research the information.
          the Muslim should be told that in a military college and why does she want to be there anyway, she can conform to the uniform rules or go elsewhere. Will she also be exempt from swimming classes because of her religion I wonder?

        • Carolyne says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 9:38 am

          Sorry Rev—You are wrong. Someone is guilty of “Conduct unbecoming” but it isn’t this young reporting cadet. I suspect his real crime, in the eyes of his superiors, is being a volunteer for Trump. This is not the rag-tag group of patriots who freed our country from British rule and had no uniforms. This is a young woman who wants the rules changed for her. Unacceptable.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 10:32 am

          Try again. Maybe you should pick up a set of the rules of conduct for the Citadel, which, by the way, is very conservative and staffed mainly with active, reserve, and retired military officers and ncos.

        • Peter Charles says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 6:41 pm

          Very true, the Cadet did nothing wrong.

        • Fessitude says

          Apr 29, 2016 at 2:11 pm

          “the Citadel, which, by the way, is very conservative and staffed mainly with active, reserve, and retired military officers and ncos.”

          No doubt; and most of whom are likely blithering idiots about the problem of Islam — as, for example, just to pluck from an ASU dress blue service cap one of thousands one could adduce:

          General George W. Casey, Jr. — Silver-haired Anglo-Saxon 4-Star General and Chief of Staff of the United States Army (2007-2011) — who, in an interview on Meet the Press on November 8, 2009 (three days after the Ford Hood massacre), Casey iterated his PC MC spasm:

          “Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

          http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2009/11/08/general-casey-diversity-shouldnt-be-casualty-of-fort-hood/

      • ScottM says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 5:28 am

        What a load of crap. Let’s hope that you are never in any position where sound, discretionary judgement – affecting others is required. Our countries are being subverted.

        • rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 5:39 am

          Sorry if sound judgement bothers you, ok, I am not sorry. First, the Citadel is NOT the US military. Second, the US military ALREADY makes similar accommodations regularly. It has for decades.
          Get it?
          The cadet was not disciplined for speaking about hijabs, he was disciplined for his criticism, publicly, of his superiors. He commented on something he should not have. Pretty simple. If you cannot fathom this simple idea, it is a good thing you are not in a leadership position such as you described.
          By the way, the point of the military making accommodations for certain religious restrictions is a sound one, it allows our citizens of certain devotions, i.e. Sikhs, to be able to serve their country without betraying their religious beliefs. This is a sound idea, within reason.
          I do not disagree that this can be used subversively.
          The Citadel, not being a federal academy, can hold to tradition, and should. It also should uphold its traditions of discipline for misconduct.

        • PRCS says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 6:44 am

          rev g:

          As a military retiree, I must disagree.

          I am reminded of Martha McSally’s situation in Saudi Arabia, the absolutely egregious Gitmo white gloves policy, the B-52 crash at Fairchild AFB, the idiotic “diversity” policies which abetted the Fort Hood shootings, rampant FWA, and a raft of other stupid “leadership” decisions which fully deserved—though too late in some cases—a public vetting.

          (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/09/20050609-092940-3178r/)

          PRCS
          USN (Ret)
          1968-1989

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 12:28 pm

          You disagree that when a cadet violates his code of conduct, he should face discipline?

          Is the Cadet Code of Conduct an improper order? Was there imminent danger that caused him to need to disobey it? You should see where I am going with this?

          Regardless your feelings on allowing the hijab (I am against it!), one cannot allow cadets to act out. He got a slap on the wrist.

        • PRCS says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 1:08 pm

          “Is the Cadet Code of Conduct an improper order?”

          Don’t know. Not familiar with it.

          But as they are civilians, at a taxpayer supported school, I applaud what he did.

          And, I remain disgusted by the failure of active duty Army officers to do the right thing before Nidal Malik Hasan carried out his jihad.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 1:33 pm

          They are not exactly civilians. Regardless, agreeing to abide a code is binding.

      • Isabellathecrusader says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 8:58 am

        That’s okay Rev G, the hours of walking will give Cadet Pinelli lots of time to contemplate what to do about the Muslim invader problem and how he is going to solve it. Fifty years from now everyone will remember the daring exploits of General Pinelli while the little Muslima who was put forward to cause this situation by her male Muslim puppeteers will be forgotten, except in the Muslim world where she will be lauded for all the sons she produced who turned out to be jihadis.

        • Carolyne says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 9:42 am

          Actually, in fifty years, if things continue as they are, there will be no one to remember this incident and recognize it as one of many warning signals of Islam’s intention. They will all be Muslims and this reporting cadet will be erased from Muslim history of their conquering of the US.

        • Isabellathecrusader says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 10:10 am

          I disagree. The tide is turning on people waking up and understanding the problem. Of course the idiots, leftists and fellow travelers aren’t going to do anything about it but there is a seething going on under the surface and eventually it will blow.

        • Angemon says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 6:20 pm

          I concur, isabella. The problem is, where is their political representation?

        • Budvarakbar says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 5:23 pm

          Amazing that people are so dam slow — Iran hostages – 37 years ago, First WTC 1993, 9/11 – 2001, Ft Hood, Boston, San Bernadino – JUST WHAT THE HELL IS IT GOING TO TAKE TO WAKE THE SH–THEADS UP???? Ann Barnhardt – 5 years ago!!!

        • Isabellathecrusader says

          Apr 29, 2016 at 12:21 am

          I think, Angemon, it hasn’t arisen yet. Someone is coming. It may not be in the coventional way, maybe no one will recognize him when he comes, only those of us who know history, know the truth and know to not give up.

      • Rob Porter says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 12:01 pm

        RevG
        You are part of the cowardly capitulation to Islam problem. At least this cadet has exposed that the college is willing to submit to someone of a foreign ideology who is not willing to accept the colleges rules and wants to change them in order to win an Islamic victory. However small it may appear to you, it is huge and significant to her and those behind her. If she won’t wear the uniform then tell he she is not welcome.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 12:12 pm

          Wow. Myopic much? The cadet broke the rules, period. He got slapped on the wrist for it.
          Knowing that makes me a coward and panderer to islam? Damn, now I guess I should put on one of my “infidel” t-shirts and ride across town to shop in Dearborn.
          If my commentary on the cadet’s actions makes me a coward, your insinuation about me makes you an idiot. I’m no coward, but your reasoning ability is still suspect.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 12:19 pm

          By the way, the muslima would still be wearing the uniform, albeit with accommodation. The military regularly makes such accommodations, the Citadel has not. I hope they decline to allow it. Still, she has asked, rather than disobey the rules. The cadet who leaked the story just broke the rules. Get it?

      • St. Michael Defend Us says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 1:14 pm

        The Citadel is a public university receiving state and federal funding. This issue is of interest and concern to all taxpayers.
        “Americans’ tax dollars should be directed to institutions free of symbols of hatred,” said Clyburn.
        This is a quote from Jim Clyburn on another issue.
        It seems to me that the hijab is a strong symbol of hatred – of non-muslims.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 2:42 pm

          Calling a hijab a symbol of hate is your opinion.
          Nobody here seems to be able to decide for sure if it is a paramilitary school or a mere public school.
          Let us examine both possibilities.
          If it is a public school, then the senior cadet is free to disobey his code and say what he wants. Similarly, something as trivial as adding a hijab to the traditional school uniform should be no big deal, not even worth asking permission.
          If,on the other hand, it is a “military” school, then rules regarding proper uniform should be enforced, and exceptions granted on a case by case basis, like in the actual military. Similarly, the student body (cadets) should be expected to live within the code they agreed to abide, and expect discipline when they fail to do so.
          You can’t mix and match those possibilities. Be glad the female muslim asked instead of demanded. Hope that the command staff has a love of tradition. Nothing there to complain about, yet.

        • St. Michael Defend Us says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 4:12 pm

          I am offering some information to rev g- the person who wears a hijab is identifying herself as a muslim, a person who follows the Islamic faith and believes in sharia law. According to the Islamic faith, non-muslims are inferior to muslims, their figure allah hates non-muslims, and, demands that muslims hate non-muslims. That is not merely my opinion, but I have learned this through reading the quran and learning more about islam.

          http://www.citadel.edu/root/giving This is a page from the Citadel website. They seem to think they are a public college. They cite how much money they receive from the state.
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/confederate-flag-citadel_us_57211ffee4b01a5ebde45971 Huffpo seems to think they receive federal funds.
          I can’t find anything prior to 2009 about religious exemptions for uniform code in the military. Can you direct me to your info?

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 10:45 pm

          Thanks for the lesson on what a Muslim is, I had no idea! (Sarcasm heavily implied)
          Since there are muslims in the military, even Muslim “chaplains”, that is irrelevant. By the way, Christians believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus, yet even other so-called Abrahamic religions deny His status. All service members swear or affirm their commitment to the USA, Constitution, etc.
          “Since 1948, Sikh men had served in the military with uniform policy waivers that allowed them to follow their faith group requirements for beards and long hair, with the hair covered by turbans, until the army eliminated such religious accommodation policies in 1984”
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_symbolism_in_the_United_States_military
          wiki, I know, but it is a quote.
          Even when absent a distinct allowance, commanders were still empowered to grant exceptions.
          I also have personally seen such accommodation, but not,as far back as that quote covers.

      • Vic says

        Apr 29, 2016 at 10:54 am

        Rev G, you are completely missing the point here. Organizations that put themselves above public criticism, such as the military, make easy targets for well-organized groups who would work their way in, slow and steady, to promote an agenda that serves foreign interests at the expense of the nations well-being. You saw it in Fort Hood, where not only an Islamic supremacist was allowed to serve as an officer, but even after he murdered people in the name of Allah the superiors saw fit to classify it as “workplace violence” rather than as a Jihad attack.

        And this brings us to the code of conduct which disallows the cadets to publicly criticize their superiors – I’m well familiar with it, as while I didn’t serve in the US army I did serve in the IDF where there are similar rules. However, any soldier, let alone an officer, should always remember that his or her duty to their NATION supersedes any “code of conduct” if following it blatantly betrays said duty. “I was just following orders” does not stand as a defense when those orders are criminal – and while most people know this well when the crimes said orders call to commit are against foreign civilians, many, yourself included as it would seem, forget that the same applies when the crimes are against your own country.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 29, 2016 at 11:13 am

          Then you also should understand that the idea of keeping muslims out of a publicly funded university, or even refusing to consider reasonable accommodation for religious attire, could have serious legal ramifications . The Citadel only went coed 20 years ago, so they are likely quite aware of how these things play out.
          The IDF, that is one group I do not envy. I know there are Druze in the IDF, aren’t there a couple thousand bedouin Muslims in the IDF as well? Pot, meet kettle.

        • Vic says

          Apr 29, 2016 at 1:29 pm

          Rev G, as for non-Jews in the IDF – there is yet to be a single case where one of those would act in favor of any foreign ideologies against Israel or its citizens in a murderous manner. Apparently, the people running the show here manage to vet them fairly well (something we should start doing with the Jewish recruits as well, given some recent developments). You guys should try it too.

          But that’s besides the point. I’m not saying that accepting Muslims into the US military is wrong altogether (though I will say that if a Muslim is devout enough to Islam to be wearing a hijab that’s a big warning sign), only that accommodating specific Muslim religious needs in ways that require change of the uniform code is a big no-no – especially when it is done in secret. The cadet in question didn’t act to physically stop this from happening, as that would indeed be well beyond his authority – but as this authority actually belongs to the American people, it was well within his duty to call public attention to it.

          As for the legal issues you mentioned, I will not pretend to fully know the legal issues in your country concerning such questions. What I do know is that if some law or another contradicts a valid need of the military, it should be brought to public attention and challenged, rather than followed quietly and secretly – that would actually be one of the responsibilities of the people in charge of the Citadel. in failing to do so, they passed the responsibility to lower ranks, all the way down to the cadets as it would seem.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 29, 2016 at 1:39 pm

          Ah, so your”vetting” makes it ok. So far.

          Besides the legal issues, the uniform is not being altered. It would still be there, in it’s entirety.

          The Citadel is not the military, though all students participate in the ROTC and will commission in some capacity . It’s dual public/military nature makes it even more subject to criticism. Also, public universities have no problem with a hijab, and the military has a history of similar accommodations, as exemplified by Sikhs in service.

        • Vic says

          Apr 30, 2016 at 4:08 pm

          So basically you’re maintaining that for the purposes of determining whether headgear that symbolizes a faith which is hostile to the country should be allowed the Citadel is a public school, and as such it is bound by the overly “liberal” laws you have installed, yet for the purpose of disallowing its attendants to publicly voice any criticism of the decisions its managing body makes, it is part of the military and hence not bound by those very same liberal laws that would otherwise protect free speech and promote transparency. English is not my first language – did I misunderstand the definition of ‘hypocrisy’ in the dictionary, Mr. Rev?

        • Rev g says

          Apr 30, 2016 at 9:42 pm

          I said no such thing. I said if on considers it as a public institution, there would be no need to ask before donning the hijab Thus the cadets complaint would be moot. Yet the cadet still violated a code he voluntarily entered into.
          If one considers it military, his breach of conduct is even more serious and yet the female still has done nothing wrong in asking for accommodation. The military has been known to grant such a thing.
          The hypocrites are the ones crying foul for her asking, or the school considering, both are the correct thing to do.

      • Scarlett says

        May 3, 2016 at 12:23 pm

        Nick Pinalli did the right thing expressing the issue public. I hope other ones at the Citadel think as independently should an issue need public expression.

    • aaron mrand says

      Apr 28, 2016 at 9:03 am

      not standing up for the school ….but, a MILITARY school is diff from a regular public school or other
      educational institution,,,,there are rules and regs that MUST be followed…and that applys to how
      one thinks not only how one behaves……that is a part of becoming an officer and a gentleman,,,,
      I am against the non conformity pf any individual in such an institution and can only believe that
      to allow such will open the door to various other types of …”bend the rules”…THAT can only lead
      to a lessening of character in the students……

      • Budvarakbar says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm

        So — you think that the rules and regulations at a public school should NOT be followed?

      • Lm says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 11:38 pm

        But what rules were broken, considering he was telling the truth?

    • Lord Wrath says

      Apr 29, 2016 at 4:02 am

      “Gross poor judgment” would be admitting a Muslim student to The Citadel…

  2. madmemere says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 12:56 am

    Shame on the Citadel; their policy SHOULD BE “no muslims OR non-Americans allowed”! As for an uniform exceptions – – NO and H— NO!

  3. Charli Main says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 2:39 am

    What a Muslim woman marching around with kaffir men wearing only a hijab. !!!!!!
    She should be DEMANDING to be allowed to wear a full Burqa. Obviously a slut for publically exposing herself to men. Allah will be very angry with her.

  4. Angemon says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 7:25 am

    “If I valued liberal ideology, I would go to UC Berkeley,” Pinelli wrote in the post

    Indeed.

  5. mortimer says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 8:25 am

    Silencing opposition to the school policy is an unreasonable suppression of the freedom of speech. Parents and students in a school are joint partners and not merely pawns in the running of the school.

    While the board of directors of an establishment make decisions according to the rules of their board, those who pay their salaries and use their services have a right to give feedback.

    The Citadel is wrong to impose censorship on students who disagree with school policies. Students have a constitutional right to freedom of speech as well.

    • Rev g says

      Apr 28, 2016 at 11:12 am

      You really need to learn more about your freedom of speech. Your employer can negate it, if you wish to continue to be employed. So can schools. You might want to start reading the fine print on contracts you sign

      • mortimer says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 11:32 am

        Pinelli is not an ’employee’ of The Citadel. He’s is not a soldier. He’s a civilian and a student with the same freedom of expression as anyone else.

        What is the school teaching? Fascism? Or the importance of defending FREEDOM?

        When do you start learning about freedom? In school.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 12:01 pm

          I am sure the cadet signed an acceptance of the code of conduct of the Corps of Cadets.
          The cadet also has a military status as an enrollee in ROTC, though it is not credited service time.
          Interestingly, private citizens can’t be required to enroll in ROTC, but cadets at the Citadel must do so. Funny how that works.

  6. mortimer says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Nick Pinelli is a brave and clear-thinking young man and I admire him. He may be a politician some day. This is an issue of freedom of expression and it is worth fighting for.

    The Citadel is not ‘The Army’ and cannot impose censorship in the same heavy-handed way ‘The Army’ does.

    The polite, democratic and orderly expression of dissent should be taught by The Citadel…not fascist censorship.

    • Rev g says

      Apr 28, 2016 at 11:08 am

      The Citadel can definitely impose what it desires upon cadets, whether more or less stringent than actual service.
      For instance, all undergraduates must be participants in ROTC.

      • mortimer says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 11:33 am

        Parents who pay the tuition or not will make that decision.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 11:55 am

          Nope. The school decides it’s rules, the cadets comply, or go elsewhere.

        • St. Michael Defend Us says

          Apr 30, 2016 at 7:05 pm

          Rev G said-The school decides it’s rules, the cadets comply, or go elsewhere

          But, NOT if the cadet is a muslim woman who wants to be exempt from the rules!

          Are you dizzy yet, from twisting and turning from side to side?

        • Rev g says

          Apr 30, 2016 at 9:12 pm

          You are wrong. The cadet willfully violated a code he agreed to abide. The female has requested… .got that…..requested, permission to alter her uniform appearance.
          Big difference. Willful disobedience versus making a request. Big difference.

  7. pennant8 says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 9:01 am

    The only reason this Muslim woman applied to this 99% male infidel military academy is because she is on a Muslim Brotherhood sanctioned mission in keeping with “bringing down Western civilization from within,” Otherwise she would be risking serious backlash from the Islamic community.

  8. rappini says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 9:11 am

    The Cadet was absolutely correct in releasing the information on the raghead. They are trying to destroy our way of living by accepting theirs, eventually Sharia.

  9. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 9:34 am

    I remember years ago when the Philadelphia Police Dept exempted Moslems from the no-beards rule out of respect for their deep faith. The rule was to ensure that gas masks would be properly sealed, so why not exempt Moslem cops, given that any gas release would likely be done by some activists from their deep faith, the Moslems cops would die in the Jihad when the gas crept under the masks, and they’d go to Jannat, the Islam porno heaven. Meanwhile the elected officials and bureaucrats took on the sheen of tolerance. The move was a win-win for the politicos and the Moslem cops.

    My first thought then was that the military.would fall to this nonsense. Then there was Ft Hood, now there’s this.

    • Rev g says

      Apr 28, 2016 at 10:49 am

      Religious accommodation by the military goes back decades. Back to WWII anyways, for the USA.

      • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 12:42 pm

        I don’t recall an exception made to the military uniform in order to exhibit the supremacy of a God over military command itself, and against the U.S. Constitution to which the commanders and troops are sworn. Give me an example of this and I’ll concede your point.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 2:08 pm

          Your question is very subjective. Most religions recognize that their God is supreme, even over nationalism.
          Who is the judge of when the conflict is significant enough?
          http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/pentagon-religious-clothing_n_4651050.html

      • PRCS says

        Apr 28, 2016 at 12:47 pm

        And, per a phone call to The U.S. Army Chaplain Center and School (USACHCS) at that time, this was considered “reasonable accommodation”.

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/09/20050609-092940-3178r/

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 1:47 pm

          That article, as crazy as the outlined procedure is, has no relevance to the reasonable accommodation of religious attire or grooming of actual service members. Gitmo prisoners are not service members, nor is the Quran an article of clothing.

        • PRCS says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 3:00 pm

          I didn’t say it was a “reasonable accommodation”, an Army chaplain did.

          And the accommodation–as the article makes clear–was forcing filthy, unbelieving U.S. military personnel to don clean, white gloves in order to handle Gitmo detainees’ taxpayer provided Qur’an’s.

          That idiotic CENTCOM directive accommodated Muslims, not military personnel.

          Another PC “leadership” decision that truly deserved public attention.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 3:15 pm

          Reasonable accommodation can entail entirely different meanings in different scenarios. Like “captain” in the Navy or Coast Guard, versus the other service components.
          The link wasn’t relevant to the discussion.

        • PRCS says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 3:33 pm

          You’re the one who brought it up:

          “RELIGIOUS accommodation BY the military goes back decades. Back to WWII anyways, for the USA.”

          That white gloves “religious accommodation” was mandated BY a military command–for one religion, and one religion alone.

          The link is entirely relevant, as that regulation might have continued without challenge had it not been made public.

          Military rank, without regard to service, is not an “accommodation” of any sort.

        • Rev g says

          Apr 28, 2016 at 4:08 pm

          I didn’t bring it up. I brought up religious accommodation for service members to wear garb and or grooming in accordance with their religious beliefs.
          Two totally different subjects. I apologize if it confused you.

    • Lord Wrath says

      Apr 29, 2016 at 4:11 am

      Alarmed Pig Farmer… I live in Philadelphia and the only gas released will be by the police using it
      against anti Islam protesters!!!

  10. Larry Bates says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 9:35 am

    Who exactly does the Citadel belong to? The American people or a group of elitist thought police who connive behind our backs to submit our way of life to politically correct ideologies that offend many Americans. If the leaders of the Citadel wish to contemplate accommodations to Sharia law, they should do it with courage and honesty.

    • Rev g says

      Apr 28, 2016 at 10:36 am

      The Citadel is not a US military academy. It is a state college.

  11. sam says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 9:40 am

    And how are we different from Europe.Canada. Australia in enabling Islam?
    We still dont see that America is full of liberal citizens who hate America and allow Islam to florish without any resistence. It will take 2 3 generations to raise a nation who understand freedom and love it.

    I am not optimistic. Look at our current politics. Nobody talks about Islam. And we will fight it? With who?

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Apr 28, 2016 at 12:47 pm

      Look at our current politics. Nobody talks about Islam.

      Trump and Dr Ben Carson MD talked about Islam, and did so by making accurate truthful statements. True, they only talked about it a little bit, but that was something. The bad part was that the media and the Liberals and RINOs castigated each for the truth in no uncertain terms. Rep Paul Ryan, to take the most egregious example. That’s not who we are! said Paul. Really? Are we not Infidels? I don’t think he gets the difference.

  12. John A. Marre says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 9:48 am

    In the military you have to obey. You are not allowed to think for yourself.

    I’m not in the military, so I can say the truth. There should be no exceptions. The rules must apply to all, or to none. Special privileges for some undermine troop morale.
    The military is wrong here.

  13. Carolyne says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Trump mentions it very often.
    But the most immediate critical situation is preventing a Democrat from nominating and seating a Supreme Court Justice to replace the late Justice Scalia. If Obama or Clinton is allowed to do so, we will lose our First and Second Amendment rights and will not be allowed to even discuss this issue of the hijab, . nor will we be able to defend ourselves from the advancing hordes.

  14. Keys says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 10:09 am

    I would like to know if, and to what extent, the Saudis, or any other Muslim group, are financial supporters of the Citadel. Buying influence “on campus” is a Muslim “modus operandi” throughout the Unitd States.

    Also, how did the courageous Cadet Pinelli, even become aware that allowing a Cadet to wear a hijab was even being discussed by his superiors? Did a superior leak this fact? Are Cadets not to have an opinion about anything and everything they discuss?

  15. Florida Jim says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Why cave in to someone whose goal is to behead you eventually. I say throw them out with the garbage while we can.It was an enormous mistake to begin taking every pervert and malcontent from every hellhole in the world as immigrants as the Kennedy’s wanted in their “Immigration Act of 1965” which began the Boston Marathon murder sequence, there will be many more I fear.The Kennedy’s thought once in every immigrant would only vote democratic just as FDR said when he introduced the “free
    Social Security” which is now strangling us just as the immigrants are doing.Obama is doing the same with open borders “let them all in even if it bankrupts us because they will vote for us, if voting is allowed ever again”., says Obama and Hillary. and Satan.

  16. Rev g says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 11:03 am

    I didn’t attend the Citadel, but imagine it’s cadet code is similar to that of other military academies. Facebook didn’t exist in the old days, but talking to a reporter, or similar airing of academy business was definitely a no-go.
    I can agree with the cadet’s opinion, but still, his airing of his opinion, and dragging the school into public contoversy, is conduct unbecoming.

  17. John says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 11:18 am

    More cow-towing to Islam and another crack in the First Amendment. For Shame, Citadel!

    • Rev g says

      Apr 28, 2016 at 11:28 am

      I am confused. Which part of the first amendment are you concerned about? Free speech, or freedom of religion? The military, military schools, private businesses, etc, limit both. You want to exercise the right, quit.
      Interesting dichotomy. You want to protect a students imaginary first amendment rights to discuss a student going through proper channels to attempt to get religious accommodation? Read the whole amendment.

  18. Jay Boo says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 11:43 am

    So this must be what Obama means by — Islamic Exceptionalism.

    Accommodating Muslims by making special exceptions

  19. Salome says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    After reading the comments, it appears to me that some of us are falling into the habit of the left, of supporting or condemning not the principle, or the conduct, but the side. What the cadet articulated was a concern that most of us share–and indeed it goes with many of us to the point of being nervous that we have muslims in our armed forces at all, given their divided loyalties. Nevertheless, if the cadet had, say, been a muslim who’d criticised his superiors in similar fashion when they were still considering some measure to restrict religious accommodation, would we be sticking up for his rights to do so? Freedom of speech isn’t the right to talk out of turn in class, to shout down those you disagree with, to publish confidential information that belongs to others or to make comments in violation of voluntarily accepted codes (or, I expect, in the case of conscripts, of codes that are about as voluntarily accepted as the conscription itself–but that’s not the case here). It would seem the cadet spoke out of turn. He takes his medicine. The fact that what he said suggests that he’s on our ‘side’ doesn’t go to whether he had a right to say it when he did and in the way that he did. We’ve got to be above that. It’s the principle, not the side. Let’s not be tribal. There was a recent case in Australia of an ex-serviceman living in a tower block of apartments who was forbidden to hang an Australian flag on his balcony. The patriots went ballistic. Now, I’m a patriot, too, but it wasn’t the content of what was hanging on the balcony that was offensive, but the fact that he was violating a ‘don’t hang anything on or from the balcony’ rule of the building’s owners’ corporation. It was actually indicated that this could be relaxed for specific national holidays. It’s not the side, and it’s often not the content of what is said or displayed, that is at issue. It’s the principal that counts. Let’s not be tribal. Lefties do that. Muslims do that. We’re rational. We have to be in order to maintain sanity in the world.

    • Rev g says

      Apr 28, 2016 at 10:02 pm

      Thank You.

      • Salome says

        Apr 29, 2016 at 12:00 am

        You’re welcome.

  20. Budvarakbar says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    You are really cute — aren’t ya?

  21. Budvarakbar says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    He has plenty of time!

  22. bridgette says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    If you see something, say something. – He saw a gross injustice done to the American way of life and he spoke out. There is a uniform rule there and ALL including the moslems should conform or be turned away. What they were considering is absolutely not American and I find it disgusting. Perhaps that woman should seek other employment. Trust a moslem in our military? Absurd.

    • Rev g says

      Apr 28, 2016 at 9:49 pm

      Injustice? Asking permission to do something is unAmerican?

  23. jewdog says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    As part of my morning routine I often run aound the Citadel, as I did this morning. I noticed that the memorial to alumni fallen in various wars lists “The War On Terror”. Now, we know that it really should read “The War On Islamic Jihad”, but I’m afraid the establishment mentality is firmly ensconced there. Maybe some day I’ll be forbidden to wear shorts when I run around the football field. .

  24. kestrel says

    Apr 28, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    No doubt the punishment will serve to make Cadet Pinelli’s brave decision to reveal this information shine even brighter. Perhaps, in understanding the consequences of his actions, he considered it worth the sacrifice. I do not dispute the issue of military discipline within a military school. I merely find it somewhat contradictory for those in authority to even consider such a ridiculous and demeaning concession which cannot fail to be detrimental to morale, respect, and good order.

  25. madmemere says

    Apr 29, 2016 at 12:29 am

    It would be lovely if “sensible” people would get over the idea that islam is a religion- – it is NOT. It IS a murderous, fascist political ideology intended for “crowd control”. Then again, their quran is NOT a holy book – -it IS the “imaginary product” of the same heathen minds that dreamed up “muhammad”. There is NO “religion” that teaches people to murder, rape and torture and if there ever was a “muhammad” then he was the “son of lucifer”!

  26. Newy says

    Apr 29, 2016 at 2:06 am

    The ones who should be punished, if not kicked out of the Military altogether , are those who cowardly agreed to go ahead with the punishment of a true American. Shame on those in authority for allowing the Muslim’s to win once more, and if they allow this then no one can be questioned when they refuse to enlist in the new Muslim style armed forces.

  27. Heather says

    Apr 29, 2016 at 6:16 am

    Tip of the iceberg. Slippery slope. Can disabled people be in the Military? If not, why not? If they can make an exception for one, they must make it for all. Seems their motto is that Rules are there to be broken. Pretty undisciplined for a Military academy or for any organisation. Stick to the dress code, no exceptions. Muslims are stirrers. Imagine joining a Bowls Club or a Cricket Club and then demanding to wear street clothes. And if persons can’t or don’t want to fit it, and wear the Uniform… NO ENTRY. It’s really that simple. Should be a rule that stirrers are not welcome. She could join the military in a muslim land, if she is allowed.

    • Rev g says

      Apr 29, 2016 at 11:14 am

      Then you also should understand that the idea of keeping muslims out of a publicly funded university, or even refusing to consider reasonable accommodation for religious attire, could have serious legal ramifications . The Citadel only went coed 20 years ago, so they are likely quite aware of how these things play out.
      The IDF, that is one group I do not envy. I know there are Druze in the IDF, aren’t there a couple thousand bedouin Muslims in the IDF as well? Pot, meet kettle.

    • Rev g says

      Apr 29, 2016 at 11:24 am

      Disabled people have been known to serve. Typically, persons who were injured in the line of duty. If they can perform their duties they can obtain reasonable acconmodation as well.
      As far as a disabled person applying to enlist or seek commissioning, I don’t think so. Of course there is a lot of difference between not being able to meet physical qualifications and wanting to wear a scarf with the uniform.
      To that end, it is quite common to see soldiers in battle dress wearing some type of head scarf anyways. Blowing sand, winter cokd, jungle bugs, all favor some type of head wrap.

  28. Goddess says

    Apr 29, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    The basic premise of even allowing muslims entry, shows us the integrity of the Citadel is DEAD. This system I refuse to dignify with the term religion, encourages lying, in addition to their other barbaric tenets to justify jihad. Just how tragically stupid we are will soon be revealed.

  29. Alexander Steel says

    May 20, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    Rev g,

    How many exceptions for other faiths have been allowed by the Citadel?

    As reported (I admit I have not contacted the Citadel, for whom you are an apologist:

    1. Jews – yamaka – NONE

    2. Observant Orthodox Jews – side curls – NONE

    3. Christians – crosses displayed on uniform, or not under clothing – NONE.

    It seems that the Citadel, in its pandering to the Islamists, is choosing to honor only one religion.

    • Rev g says

      May 21, 2016 at 5:09 pm

      Comprehension must not be your strong point.
      Actually, the Citadel said no to her request.
      The point is, they considered the request.
      So, can you outline for me when the requests for the other denied exceptions you mentioned were made?
      Then we could vilify those requesters for daring ask for an exception as well.
      How dare people ask questions!

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • iconoclast123 on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law
  • gravenimage on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Brando on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • gravenimage on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • Boycott Turkey on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.