• 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

And that's just what happened.

We should know by now that appeasement never works but it seems the temptation to appease is just too great.

But, But....if we don't appease them, then we would have to fight them, and that would cost to much and endanger our entitlements. (for the lefties out there, yes, this is again sarcasm)
 
Why is it the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's place to do anything remotely like this? Everyone understands the second part, and that's all anyone needs to know, so the third part is just grandstanding for no apparent reason.

That you suggest he should do this runs completely counter to the beginning of your post:



And I also don't think anyone needs to broadcast it for any reason. There does not need to be a national statement about this video.
Regarding the general, I was delivering a little hyperbole. However, I don't see at all how such an action would run counter. I myself would want to make clear that I agree with the Muslims: he is a total ass. I want them to know that our nation might even unanimously agree that he is an asshole for being incendiary, but that even then, our action ought to be to utterly defend both him and all other Americans against intimidation. I want them to know that being an asshole does not somehow dissolve one's freedom of speech.

Letting them think that we don't think he is an asshole causes Middle Easterners to misunderstand our principles. I think it is important for them to understand. If they think we think that what he said was socially acceptable, then they come away with the conclusion that we defend him because we hate Islam. When they know we think he is an asshole, but that we are standing up to them anyway, they understand that we hate oppression and intimidation and that we profoundly believe in freedom. I want them to understand that, and the only way to do that is to short circuit the blindness their butthurt "feelings" are causing.

Which is absolutely why we do need a national statement on the matter. We need a statement which says to them "back down, because we are not going to". But, I don't want that message to be clouded by their demagogues filling in the blank spaces, and making us out to hate Islam.
 
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."

The job of the US Military is to engage and destroy the enemies of the US, nothing else. If saving some US Soldiers and Marines lives means telling a pastor to cut the ****, then so be it.
 
Regarding the general, I was delivering a little hyperbole. However, I don't see at all how such an action would run counter. I myself would want to make clear that I agree with the Muslims: he is a total ass. I want them to know that our nation might even unanimously agree that he is an asshole for being incendiary, but that even then, our action ought to be to utterly defend both him and all other Americans against intimidation. I want them to know that being an asshole does not somehow dissolve one's freedom of speech.

Letting them think that we don't think he is an asshole causes Middle Easterners to misunderstand our principles. I think it is important for them to understand. If they think we think that what he said was socially acceptable, then they come away with the conclusion that we defend him because we hate Islam. When they know we think he is an asshole, but that we are standing up to them anyway, they understand that we hate oppression and intimidation and that we profoundly believe in freedom. I want them to understand that, and the only way to do that is to short circuit the blindness their butthurt "feelings" are causing.

Which is absolutely why we do need a national statement on the matter. We need a statement which says to them "back down, because we are not going to". But, I don't want that message to be clouded by their demagogues filling in the blank spaces, and making us out to hate Islam.

No. By making a national statement, you give the mob reason to think their mob is legitimate. And then you invite them to riot about something else later.

They should not be validated to any degree whatsoever. None at all.
 
The job of the US Military is to engage and destroy the enemies of the US, nothing else. If saving some US Soldiers and Marines lives means telling a pastor to cut the ****, then so be it.

It is NOT their business to tell a citizen what to do with their freedom of speech. Not in the slightest. The Marines are supposed to pledge their lives for the freedom of the asshole to do as he wishes, are they not?

If you don't believe in freedom for the asshole, you don't believe in freedom.
 
It is NOT their business to tell a citizen what to do with their freedom of speech. Not in the slightest. The Marines are supposed to pledge their lives for the freedom of the asshole to do as he wishes, are they not?
Our lives are more valuable than some ass-douche endorsing some video.

If you don't believe in freedom for the asshole, you don't believe in freedom.
The General made a request, he isn't forcing this pastor to do anything. Huge difference.
 
Our lives are more valuable than some ass-douche endorsing some video.

But not more valuable than his freedom.


The General made a request, he isn't forcing this pastor to do anything. Huge difference.

I was referring to you, actually. But I never said he forced anyone to do anything. I said it's totally inappropriate for him to have made the call. Despite your objections, it's none of his business.
 
But not more valuable than his freedom.
It absolutely is. human life>making a cheap endorsement.




I was referring to you, actually. But I never said he forced anyone to do anything. I said it's totally inappropriate for him to have made the call. Despite your objections, it's none of his business.
It's his business if it's going to get his troops killed. The pastor can wait.
 
It absolutely is. human life>making a cheap endorsement.

I don't care what the content of the speech is. The freedom to speak it is more valuable. This is what every Marine vows to protect and lay down his life for, if necessary.


It's his business if it's going to get his troops killed. The pastor can wait.

No. What people do with the freedoms we have as Americans is never, ever the business of the military. We do not work for them. They work for us. They serve us. We do not serve them.

If you disagree, you're wrong.
 
I don't care what the content of the speech is. The freedom to speak it is more valuable. This is what every Marine vows to protect and lay down his life for, if necessary.




No. What people do with the freedoms we have as Americans is never, ever the business of the military. We do not work for them. They work for us. They serve us. We do not serve them.

If you disagree, you're wrong.

I'm sorry, but getting 15 minutes of fame to make a buck is not more important than human life. If you disagree, I pity you.
 
I'm sorry, but getting 15 minutes of fame to make a buck is not more important than human life. If you disagree, I pity you.

See, the problem is, you're purposely refusing to take what I actually said, which is about the freedom, regardless of content, and making it about the content, which I specifically eschewed.

If you're right, you shouldn't have to engage in such mendacity.

No Marine is more important than the freedom of speech. Period.
 
See, the problem is, you're purposely refusing to take what I actually said, which is about the freedom, regardless of content, and making it about the content, which I specifically eschewed.

If you're right, you shouldn't have to engage in such mendacity.

No Marine is more important than the freedom of speech. Period.

I'm addressing the content of the OP. Pastor Jones is a con-man and an open bigot. His right to make a buck is nowhere near the level of importance of my Soldiers lives, and never will be. I couldn't give two ****s if he's endorsing Raisin Bran, if it puts Troops lives in danger, his money making scheme means jack ****. If you feel that we should be dying for some twats ability to scam money out of people, you don't understand Soldiers or Marines at all. Our job is to make sure you don't get your face blown off by a hostile military threat. A Commanding Officers job is to do all he can to prevent that from happening to his Troops.
 
I'm addressing the content of the OP. Pastor Jones is a con-man and an open bigot. His right to make a buck is nowhere near the level of importance of my Soldiers lives, and never will be. I couldn't give two ****s if he's endorsing Raisin Bran, if it puts Troops lives in danger, his money making scheme means jack ****. If you feel that we should be dying for some twats ability to scam money out of people, you don't understand Soldiers or Marines at all. Our job is to make sure you don't get your face blown off by a hostile military threat. A Commanding Officers job is to do all he can to prevent that from happening to his Troops.

All you're doing is repeating yourself and getting hysterical in the process. If you can't address what I actually said on its own terms, then so be it. I won't worry about it and will let you carry on at your leisure.
 
The job of the US Military is to engage and destroy the enemies of the US, nothing else. If saving some US Soldiers and Marines lives means telling a pastor to cut the ****, then so be it.

The job of the U.S. Military is to defend the Constitution. It's in the military oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
 
All you're doing is repeating yourself and getting hysterical in the process. If you can't address what I actually said on its own terms, then so be it. I won't worry about it and will let you carry on at your leisure.

I addressed the issue. The General called the pastor, and that was it, while you're getting "hysterical" over some imaginary loss of freedom.
 
The job of the U.S. Military is to defend the Constitution. It's in the military oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

I know what the oath says, it's also in our creed. It's not our job, or our purpose. If it were, we would be very busy detaining congressmen.
 
I addressed the issue. The General called the pastor, and that was it, while you're getting "hysterical" over some imaginary loss of freedom.

You have problems characterizing what I said honestly. If you're right, as I said, you shouldn't have to make things up. Yet, you do.
 
Then what freedom was lost?

I'm going to make this clear, only for its own sake -- I never said any was, and that was never my objection, which someone honest would understand and acknowledge.

I don't make this clear because I wish you to understand this; I no longer care. If you can't be bothered to extend the courtesy of simple honesty, which you've refused to do numerous times throughout this exchange, even after corrected, you're a waste of time. Toodles.
 
I'm going to make this clear, only for its own sake -- I never said any was, and that was never my objection, which someone honest would understand and acknowledge.

I don't make this clear because I wish you to understand this; I no longer care. If you can't be bothered to extend the courtesy of simple honesty, which you've refused to do numerous times throughout this exchange, even after corrected, you're a waste of time. Toodles.

So you're going to call me dishonest, insult me, then run away. Classy.
 

Another who believes whatever the US President or the Taliban tells them.

Meanwhile, a Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi told BBC that the target was the UK and US soldiers and it was revenge for the anti-Islam film, Innocence of the Muslims.

Why would they target UK soldiers if the person who made the film is a loner in southern California? Any ideas, or do you just swallow this whole?
 
Why would they target UK soldiers if the person who made the film is a loner in southern California? Any ideas, or do you just swallow this whole?

It really doesn't make sense. I do not suspect some conspiracy, but something just is wrong about the whole thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom