• 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

Wiseone said:
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
Click to expand...

I express many personal opinions on these boards and I assume you do too. Many others as well.

Do you want me to go to a source to collaborate my opinions?
 
Grant said:
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?



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.



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.


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.
Click to expand...

You assume the only thing being done is talking to this Florida pastor? What basis do you have for that? What makes you so certain he's, or someone else in government, is not involved in figuring out how to solve this problem on the other side of it.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
According to me.

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

The biggest difference between the two wars is leadership.
Click to expand...
Somehow I doubt your an authority on such matters.

A myriad of differing circumstances.

The biggest differences between the two conflicts is the prolonged nature and muddled endgoals that surround the wars in the past decade. Also, the attack on our embassy and our representative occurred in territories in which we play the role of peacekeeper, ally, and moderator, as opposed to the circumstances that led us into WW2.
 
Grant said:
I doubt this would have created a fuss at all during WWII if people had criticized those who were attacking them.
Click to expand...

If it was a film that made fun of the 'christian god' and a christian killed someone and blamed such a movie, the reaction would probably be 180 degrees different from those that continue to support the pussification of our nation and seem to not support the 1st amendment.
 
Wiseone said:
You assume the only thing being done is talking to this Florida pastor?
Click to expand...

Why would a top US General waste his time calling an obscure Florida pastor?

Is that part of his job description? Getting Americans to control their opinions?


What basis do you have for that? What makes you so certain he's, or someone else in government, is not involved in figuring out how to solve this problem on the other side of it.
Click to expand...

How about their lack of success? That would seem to indicate that the world's only superpower is cutting the enemy too much slack while putting ever more restrictions on their own people.
 
Arbo said:
If it was a film that made fun of the 'christian god' and a christian killed someone and blamed such a movie, the reaction would probably be 180 degrees different from those that continue to support the pussification of our nation and seem to not support the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

Sure.

Comedians and the media will attack Christians because they know they will not be bothered but they will remain silent, and even apologetic, toward Muslims.

Claiming Muslims are of a serious religion which should be respected is like suggesting Whoopee Goldberg is a beauty queen. Muslims tend to be ignorant people, we know it, but societal and political pressures strongly suggest we should be silent about it, that this particular religion is somehow worthy of our respect.

That's nonsense of course. It's a backward religion with backward power struck leaders who take advantage of innocent human beings the world over. As always there are exceptions, but in general that is glaringly apparent.
 
Grant said:
Sure.

Comedians and the media will attack Christians because they know they will not be bothered but they will remain silent, and even apologetic, toward Muslims.

Claiming Muslims are of a serious religion which should be respected is like suggesting Whoopee Goldberg is a beauty queen. Muslims tend to be ignorant people, we know it, but societal and political pressures strongly suggest we should be silent about it, that this particular religion is somehow worthy of our respect.

That's nonsense of course. It's a backward religion with backward power struck leaders who take advantage of innocent human beings the world over. As always there are exceptions, but in general that is glaringly apparent.
Click to expand...

This is some serious paint brushing of a whole group of people. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of Muslims in the world mind their own business and live their lives, like most everyone else.

It is those that are extremists that are the problem.
 
How do you see this as being the same thing?

One relates directly to harm to our soldiers. One has no relevance to the military. Truly an apple/orange situation.

Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
The Pastors actions have generated a murderous reaction. Sure, the reaction comes from a bunch of idiots but they can, do and have caused harm by attacking us. Women that are skimpily dressed do not, have not and aren't causing anyone to shoot at anyone. I fact, I rather like semi-nude girls.

So, the General had a reason to ASK for moderation as a possible harm reduction issue. If he had called the pastor about nekkid chicks, he would have been out of line since this is not causing violence.

Hope that answered your question.


Arbo said:
Huh? What does?
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
The Pastors actions have generated a murderous reaction. Sure, the reaction comes from a bunch of idiots but they can, do and have caused harm by attacking us.
Click to expand...

This is such backwards thinking, IMO.

Extremist Muslims have been attacking and killing 'infidels' long before America was ever colonized. It has been a constant throughout history. I frankly don't give a damn what offends them, or anyone else.. but if their reaction is to attack our citizens for it, then the response should be swift and strong. Not capitulation.

And to be honest, if a freaking General calls civilians to try to get them to moderate their speech, then that General is not doing his damn job and should be fired. He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the citizens of this country. That means even if he disagree's with them, his job is to defend their rights to his own death. His actions make him a farce, it makes a mockery of the purpose of the military.

I'm no longer in the military, but I still stand by this, and no matter how much an an a-hole someone is, no matter how ignorant their speech, I will still defend their right to say whatever it is they say, because otherwise, we head down a path of limiting freedom. We've had enough of that over the past couple decades, it's time to halt the creep.
 
Terry Jones is one of the world's greatest living dumbasses. He is pond scum. Does anyone doubt that? In America you are still free to make moronic utterances to about any religion you want. In fact Americans often do that. There's actually nothing wrong with that except that dumbasses on the receiving end of moronic religious utterances become upset and often react like, ah, you know, morons in the name of their deity by lashing out violently at the other morons and dumbasses.

Terry Jones, being a world class dip****, wanted nothing more than to upset his dip**** counterparts who happen to be Islamist who coincidentally have the same amount of education as Jones. What happens? Non-extremists get killed. Happens all the time.

Terry Jones is no more a Christian than the dirt bags who killed Ambassador Stevens are Muslim. Now I know that is a difficult for some Americans to wrap their heads around, but those of us who are not fundies of any religion know that.

It is my desire that fundies could kill each other all they bloody well pleased while leaving the rest of the world in peace. I don't support any fundamentalists of any religion. Fundamentalism kills people.

The General can call whomever he pleases. I wish he hadn't called Jones. Why blow smoke up a pig's ass?
 
You seem to be having difficulty between identifying a REQUEST with an ORDER.

If somebody was calling your wife filthy names in a parking lot, they would technically have the right to do so. If I went over to them and said "look asshole, Arbo is turning red in the face and is probably going to come over and punch your lights out so please stop" would I be violating the guys rights or making a sensible request?

Arbo said:
This is such backwards thinking, IMO.

Extremist Muslims have been attacking and killing 'infidels' long before America was ever colonized. It has been a constant throughout history. I frankly don't give a damn what offends them, or anyone else.. but if their reaction is to attack our citizens for it, then the response should be swift and strong. Not capitulation.

And to be honest, if a freaking General calls civilians to try to get them to moderate their speech, then that General is not doing his damn job and should be fired. He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the citizens of this country. That means even if he disagree's with them, his job is to defend their rights to his own death. His actions make him a farce, it makes a mockery of the purpose of the military.

I'm no longer in the military, but I still stand by this, and no matter how much an an a-hole someone is, no matter how ignorant their speech, I will still defend their right to say whatever it is they say, because otherwise, we head down a path of limiting freedom. We've had enough of that over the past couple decades, it's time to halt the creep.
Click to expand...
 
Arbo said:
This is some serious paint brushing of a whole group of people. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of Muslims in the world mind their own business and live their lives, like most everyone else.

It is those that are extremists that are the problem.
Click to expand...

You can't convince me Islam is a peaceful religion. There are way too many Muslims around the world willing to kill westerners because they insult them.

Wasn't their prophet a warrior?
 
hazlnut said:
That is absolute nonsense.

He is concerned for his men. He made a very controlled and reasoned phone call to sick and deranged religious zealot. Good for him.

Shame on this fake 'man of god'. He's just another Fred Phelps, vomiting hate and calling it Christianity.
Click to expand...

The guy himself is irrelevant. He's not the problem. The whackjobs over there that the general is trying to appease are.

As I said, if they were trying to get the government to make women cover up, no one would accept this phone call as legitimate. I don't expect YOU to see reason, but I'm sure others can.
 
specklebang said:
You seem to be having difficulty between identifying a REQUEST with an ORDER.

If somebody was calling your wife filthy names in a parking lot, they would technically have the right to do so. If I went over to them and said "look asshole, Arbo is turning red in the face and is probably going to come over and punch your lights out so please stop" would I be violating the guys rights or making a sensible request?
Click to expand...

All irrelevant to the discussion.
 
as a citizen he should realize that there are many Americans serving overseas and that this video will endanger their lifes.
 
Harshaw said:
The guy himself is irrelevant. He's not the problem. The whackjobs over there that the general is trying to appease are.

As I said, if they were trying to get the government to make women cover up, no one would accept this phone call as legitimate. I don't expect YOU to see reason, but I'm sure others can.
Click to expand...

After the call, he may have realized it was a waste of time. But before and during the call, he was thinking of his men.

How can you fault him for that?

The pastor's ignorant and hateful actions will be used to recruit terrorists. That's a fact.
 
Harshaw said:
Top US military officer calls pastor over film | News by Country | Reuters



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."
Click to expand...

This gentleman should be reprimanded, if not relieved of his command, for violating the constitutional rights of an American citizen.
 
hazlnut said:
After the call, he may have realized it was a waste of time. But before and during the call, he was thinking of his men.

How can you fault him for that?
Click to expand...

Because it's not the place of the military to tell a citizen what to do.

Why are you even asking? You're not looking for a meaningful discussion.
 
hazlnut said:
After the call, he may have realized it was a waste of time. But before and during the call, he was thinking of his men.

How can you fault him for that?

The pastor's ignorant and hateful actions will be used to recruit terrorists. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

Yeahm because we all know that they weren't recruiting terrorists before this.
 
Higgins86 said:
as a citizen he should realize that there are many Americans serving overseas and that this video will endanger their lifes.
Click to expand...

Will it make the bad guys hate us more than they already do? Is that what you're worried about?
 
Hare said:
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?
Click to expand...

And of course anyone who protested the war in Iraq was a traitor, remem er?

Because it would embolden our enemies.

Embolden = bad

Infuriate = good

Gotta win that election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom