• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top US military officer calls pastor over film

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Top US military officer calls pastor over film | News by Country | Reuters

WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) - General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke with Pastor Terry Jones by phone on Wednesday and asked him to withdraw his support for a film whose portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad has sparked violent protests - including one that ended with the death of America's envoy to Libya. "In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause," Dempsey's spokesman, Colonel Dave Lapan, told Reuters. "He asked Mr. Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film." U.S. military officials are concerned that the film could inflame tensions in Afghanistan, where 74,000 U.S. troops are fighting. The Taliban earlier on Wednesday called on Afghans to prepare for a fight against Americans and urged insurgents to "take revenge" on U.S. soldiers over the film.

This is of absolutely no concern to the US military, or even the US government.

The concern of the US military and and the US government is to make it possible for people to have the freedom to do these kinds things, no matter how distasteful they may be.

So, the job of the government, and of the military, is to say, outwardly, to these people who are offended, "yeah? Freedom's a bitch, and we defend her."
 
Does the general not also have the right to simply request something of a pastor, that may benefit the men under his command... In this case being the entire US military.

No force involved, simply a request, which I think is fair enough.

No ones rights violated here.
 
Does the general not also have the right to simply request something of a pastor, that may benefit the men under his command... In this case being the entire US military.

No force involved, simply a request, which I think is fair enough.

No ones rights violated here.

In his official capacity no....as a private citizen I do not see any conflicts of interest.
 
This is of absolutely no concern to the US military, or even the US government.
It certainly is the military's prerogative to attempt to ease tensions in the area, especially when US lives could be at stake, especially when considering an excerpt such as this:
The Taliban earlier on Wednesday called on Afghans to prepare for a fight against Americans and urged insurgents to "take revenge" on U.S. soldiers over the film.
I would personally remove large numbers of diplomats from the region in haste, or seek to provide an excess of armed security for the embassies themselves. It's quite easy to make proclamations of bravado and inflamatory statements from the peanut gallery, but when lives are on the line, actions that may avoid an all out conflict or increased rioting are in our best interests.
 
So, the job of the government, and of the military, is to say, outwardly, to these people who are offended, "yeah? Freedom's a bitch, and we defend her."

That should be their job. But we are a nation of politically correct pansies. Pure and simple.

Outrage at a guy for making a film, outrage at a guy for supporting that film. You can agree with them and the film or disagree. It can be truthful or 100% false. Doesn't matter, the 1st amendment allows them to make such a film.

The outrage should be aimed at zealots that threaten and kill people over such things. The further we dig into this 'apology mode' and fear offending anyone, the more such zealots are proven that their tactics of fear and terror work.

Not only should we be telling them 'tough crap', we should be hunting down the murderers with ammo that has been soaked in pigs blood. Show strength, show balls...
 
Almost anyone can ASK almost anyone else to do ALMOST anything... if it is legal.

ASK is fine. I don't get too worried until we start getting to order coerce or threaten.
 
He should be standing up for the pastor's rights to free speech, not trying to restrict them to appease violent barbarians (those who attacked US embassies and killed individuals).
 
Why are so many people acting as if our 1st amendment is under threat here? No one is stopping this film from being made or release, nor stopping anyone from backing it. Simply asking someone to not support something is not a violation of your 1st amendment.

You know if you were a Romney support and someone asked you to not be one because they believe it will have a negative impact on our troops, is your 1st amendment being violated? No of course not, so stop being so silly and acting like the nazis are marching down Pennsylvania Ave
 
It certainly is the military's prerogative to attempt to ease tensions in the area, especially when US lives could be at stake, especially when considering an excerpt such as this:

Nothing that is the exercise of a constitutionally-guaranteed freedom here at home is the concern of the military. Nothing. It is not the military's place to tell private citizens how to exercise their rights in order to make the military's job easier. The military works for us, not the other way around, and seeing it any other way is scary.
 
Exactly. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's smart or moral.

If the General wants to ask to reduce the harm to those serving in the field, why wouldn't we all support that?

Almost anyone can ASK almost anyone else to do ALMOST anything... if it is legal.

ASK is fine. I don't get too worried until we start getting to order coerce or threaten.
 
Why are so many people acting as if our 1st amendment is under threat here? No one is stopping this film from being made or release, nor stopping anyone from backing it. Simply asking someone to not support something is not a violation of your 1st amendment.

You know if you were a Romney support and someone asked you to not be one because they believe it will have a negative impact on our troops, is your 1st amendment being violated? No of course not, so stop being so silly and acting like the nazis are marching down Pennsylvania Ave

Again, it is not the role of the military to tell people how to exercise their freedom. It is the role of the military to make sure the freedom is secured.

As for the top military brass calling a private citizen and, er, suggesting that he exercise his freedom in a different way, well, the Supreme Court has a term for it: "chilling effect."
 
Almost anyone can ASK almost anyone else to do ALMOST anything... if it is legal.

ASK is fine. I don't get too worried until we start getting to order coerce or threaten.

If the general had done so as a private citizen, then there wouldn't be an issue.
 
Again, it is not the role of the military to tell people how to exercise their freedom. It is the role of the military to make sure the freedom is secured.

As for the top military brass calling a private citizen and, er, suggesting that he exercise his freedom in a different way, well, the Supreme Court has a term for it: "chilling effect."

The term I'd use is "extreme over reaction"
 
He should be standing up for the pastor's rights to free speech, not trying to restrict them to appease violent barbarians (those who attacked US embassies and killed individuals).

As a general, yes, that's his job.
 
No ones rights violated here.

It's not about a right being violated; it's about appropriateness. It was inappropriate.

Let's put it another way -- if they were this upset about American women walking around with a lot of exposed skin, and demanding that the government do something about it, would it be the place of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ask women to cover up?

Exactly the same principle at play here.
 
Nothing that is the exercise of a constitutionally-guaranteed freedom here at home is the concern of the military. Nothing.

It is not the military's place to tell private citizens how to exercise their rights in order to make the military's job easier.

The military works for us, not the other way around, and seeing it any other way is scary.
Nonsense. They do not have a right to curb the exercise of speech itself, but to claim that films that may instigate violence against US military and unarmed personnel in the region are of "no concern" to the military is brazen naivety.

Surely you recognize such a request would be formulated due to safety concerns and the potential bloodshed that may ensue, not simply due to the military wanting an "easier" way out? Besides, since when has casualty avoidance not been an concern of the armed forces?

Who said otherwise? (Although "working for "us" is a rather crude manner of phrasing.) Does this fact somehow prohibit the military from exercising their right to speech as well?
 
Nonsense. They do not have a right to curb the exercise of speech itself, but to claim that films that may instigate violence against US military and unarmed personnel in the region are of "no concern" to the military is brazen naivety.

Surely you recognize such a request would be formulated due to safety concerns and the potential bloodshed that may ensue, not simply due to the military wanting an "easier" way out? Besides, since when has casualty avoidance not been an concern of the armed forces?

This is just repeating what you said before.

And does this fact somehow prohibit the military from exercising their right to speech as well?

"The military" HAS no such right.
 
Nonsense. They do not have a right to curb the exercise of speech itself, but to claim that films that may instigate violence against US military and unarmed personnel in the region are of "no concern" to the military is brazen naivety.

Surely you recognize such a request would be formulated due to safety concerns and the potential bloodshed that may ensue, not simply due to the military wanting an "easier" way out? Besides, since when has casualty avoidance not been an concern of the armed forces?

Who said otherwise? (Although "working for "us" " is a rather crude manner of phrasing.") Does this fact somehow prohibit the military from exercising their right to speech as well?

If a general calls a private citizen to tell him to moderate his behavior in a certain fashion then he is not doing it as a private citizen. Otherwise the term "general" would not appear. It is obviously being used to intimidate.

Secondly, why should US Forces, the mightiest in the world, be made nervous by a bunch of Afghan misogynistic religious freaks?

I doubt this would have created a fuss at all during WWII if people had criticized those who were attacking them.
 
The sitting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff surely does.

As a citizen. But not in his capacity as such Chairman. That's what he acted in.
 
If a general calls a private citizen to tell him to moderate his behavior in a certain fashion then he is not doing it as a private citizen. Otherwise the term "general" would not appear. It is obviously being used to intimidate.

Secondly, why should US Forces, the mightiest in the world, be made nervous by a bunch of Afghan misogynistic religious freaks?

I doubt this would have created a fuss at all during WWII if people had criticized those who were attacking them.
According to whom?

Al qaeda's influence is obviously not limited to Afghanistan.

WW2 was decades ago, and the two situations are simply not comparable.
 
If a general calls a private citizen to tell him to moderate his behavior in a certain fashion then he is not doing it as a private citizen. Otherwise the term "general" would not appear. It is obviously being used to intimidate.

Secondly, why should US Forces, the mightiest in the world, be made nervous by a bunch of Afghan misogynistic religious freaks?

I doubt this would have created a fuss at all during WWII if people had criticized those who were attacking them.

Have you been paying attention at all during the last ten years? Thousands of Soldiers are dead and hundreds of thousands wounded, also the attacks in Libya and Egypt are a long way from Afghans live so I think you should take a look at a map too.

Four people have already been killed as a result of this film, perhaps more will die in the future. That isn't going to destroy or defeat the US military, but thats no reason to simply right off all the deaths. What General Dempsey is asking this man to do is reconsider his position because his position is getting people killed by giving the enemy a huge propaganda tool.

However NO ONE is suggesting he has no right to hold that position and produce this film, but for the life of me I can't understand why people think the top US General is wrong for asking someone, again simply ASKING, this pastor to change or tone down his position because its getting US citizens killed.

Four people are dead and some of you all are thinking asking someone to reconsider their position is an extreme reaction?
 
According to whom?

According to me.

Al qaeda's influence is obviously not limited to Afghanistan.

No, it's not.

WW2 was decades ago, and the two situations are simply not comparable.

Certainly wars are comparable. Why wouldn't they be?

The biggest difference between the two wars is leadership. Then they went to win a war and would continue fighting until there was victory.

Now they need a withdrawal date.
 
According to me.

No, it's not.

Certainly wars are comparable. Why wouldn't they be?

The biggest difference between the two wars is leadership. Then they went to win a war and would continue fighting until there was victory.

Now they need a withdrawal date.

How narcissistic do you have to be? "According to me" what kind of explanation is that, what makes your personal opinion the end of any need for explanation
 
Have you been paying attention at all during the last ten years? Thousands of Soldiers are dead and hundreds of thousands wounded, also the attacks in Libya and Egypt are a long way from Afghans live so I think you should take a look at a map too.

Yes, thousands of soldiers are dead and many more wounded over the past 10 years but why has it taken 10 years? What is it about the US Military and its leadership that can drag a war on for 10 years? Do they not want to win?

Four people have already been killed as a result of this film, perhaps more will die in the future. That isn't going to destroy or defeat the US military, but thats no reason to simply right off all the deaths. What General Dempsey is asking this man to do is reconsider his position because his position is getting people killed by giving the enemy a huge propaganda tool.

Far from writing off their deaths I think the Americans should do something about it. But we both know they won't, and the Islamists know it as well.

However NO ONE is suggesting he has no right to hold that position and produce this film, but for the life of me I can't understand why people think the top US General is wrong for asking someone, again simply ASKING, this pastor to change or tone down his position because its getting US citizens killed.

The top US general should be figuring out how to get those murderous bastards responsible for the murder of American citizens rather than calling an obscure Florida pastor to control his opinions.
Four people are dead and some of you all are thinking asking someone to reconsider their position is an extreme reaction?

I did not say it was an extreme reaction. But I would say it was the action not befitting a general. Instead i is the behaviour of a wuss, and that weak attitude is being reflected in American foreign policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom