Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 09:12 AM

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030...1208-9162r.htm

While it may not be politically correct, you can't turn a blind eye to what has happened, and what could happen.

AutoJC · Sep 25, 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030...1208-9162r.htm

While it may not be politically correct, you can't turn a blind eye to what has happened, and what could happen.

_It has always been common for soldiers to consider it their duty to defend God and country. In most cases, it was taken for granted that men in uniform believed the two were on the same side. The question now is what to do when some in the military think God and country are opposed. The recent arrests of Muslims serving in the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay mean the Pentagon will have to tackle the problem of conflicting loyalties. There is no sense of national security if our soldiers cannot even be sure that their brothers with them in the foxhole are on the same side.

The article is essentially right, and I'm inclined to agree with it.

It should, however, also point out that we pay our men in uniform to defend our country, and they are sworn to do so. This recent rash of traitorism is all the more inexcusable.

The Pentagon has to deal with the muslim version of Benedict Arnold.

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by AutoJC:
The article is essentially right, and I'm inclined to agree with it.

It should, however, also point out that we pay our men in uniform to defend our country, and they are sworn to do so. This recent rash of traitorism is all the more inexcusable.

The Pentagon has to deal with the muslim version of Benedict Arnold.

I agree. If these people are traitors and are not willing to defend their country, they don't need to be living here either.

Sounds like some want make their cake and eat it to.

lil'babykitten · Sep 25, 2003, 10:00 AM

I tend to disagree with most of this article. The authors solution is to basically bar Muslims from joining the army. IMHO, this is not just about 'political correctness' it is about the rights of the individual-whatever religion he/she is, under the Constitution.

I'm not sure how easy it is for someone to quit the army if they are unhappy? (is it?, anyone with experience know?) but that would be my suggestion, quit before you get in to such difficult circumstances. Maybe it's not that simple, but let me explain. Look at the recent arrests in Guantanimo. I don't think these guys were terrorists. I think they were interacting with the prisoners at the camp, hearing the stories, which are probably very persuasive considering the extent these terrorists go to. They may have started to feel quite regretful for the circumstances their Muslim brothers were in, leading them to aid them etc etc.

It's a difficult situation. I think it would be a hard decision to open fire on someone in the first place, add to that a person who shares your faith and on the soil of a country populated predominately by people of your faith and it makes things worse.

I don't think there is an easy solution to this one. But barring a whole religious group from joining the army is not a good idea.

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I tend to disagree with most of this article. The authors solution is to basically bar Muslims from joining the army. IMHO, this is not just about 'political correctness' it is about the rights of the individual-whatever religion he/she is, under the Constitution.

Ah so should we just keep it this way, and execute the traitors?

I'm not sure how easy it is for someone to quit the army if they are unhappy? (is it?, anyone with experience know?) but that would be my suggestion, quit before you get in to such difficult circumstances.

They signed up knowing what they would have to defend. If they just wanted a job, or money that is their fault.

It's a difficult situation. I think it would be a hard decision to open fire on someone in the first place, add to that a person who shares your faith and on the soil of a country populated predominately by people of your faith and it makes things worse.

Then those people had NO business at joining the military. More than likely the traitors already had plans at sabotage or being a traitor. Either that, or they are extremely dense.

I don't think there is an easy solution to this one. But barring a whole religious group from joining the army is not a good idea.

I agree to a point. But if it gets any worse than it is now, and muslims have a habit of doing it. You better be sure it will happen. And it wont just be the military.

sanity assassin · Sep 25, 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I agree. If these people are traitors and are not willing to defend their country, they don't need to be living here either.

Sounds like some want make their cake and eat it to.

One wonders what would happen if a Christian, who was born and raised in the States was to become a traitor. What happens if said traitor is a Muslim, but had been living in the US since birth? Should the Muslim be deported to the country of his parents, grandparents country? What of the Chrisitan, or Jew? Would they be deprted back to Europe, or elsewhere?
This article reeks of paranoia.

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
One wonders what would happen if a Christian, who was born and raised in the States was to become a traitor.

He gets the Death Penalty. Remember the Oklahoma bombing?

What happens if said traitor is a Muslim, but had been living in the US since birth? Should the Muslim be deported to the country of his parents, grandparents country? What of the Chrisitan, or Jew? Would they be deprted back to Europe, or elsewhere?
This article reeks of paranoia.

Not paranoia if it is happening.

lil'babykitten · Sep 25, 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

They signed up knowing what they would have to defend. If they just wanted a job, or money that is their fault.
Then those people had NO business at joining the military. More than likely the traitors already had plans at sabotage or being a traitor. Either that, or they are extremely dense.
I agree to a point. But if it gets any worse than it is now, and muslims have a habit of doing it. You better be sure it will happen. And it wont just be the military.

Not really interested in arguing with you, I posted my opinion on the matter that is all.
I tend to agree that these guys probably shouldn't join the military in the first place, particularly with the way American Foreign policy is heading. I think these guys have probably been in the military for a long time, but circumstances have made things difficult for them. So I don't agree that they joined up solely to sabotage.

Your last paragraph tells me that you seem to feel the best thing America could do is to remove all Muslims. Another reason why I'm not interested in arguing with you.

Troll · Sep 25, 2003, 10:15 AM

Best idea Zimbecile has had all year. Scrap the US Constitution. It's become a bit of a joke having it anyway!

sanity assassin · Sep 25, 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

He gets the Death Penalty. Remember the Oklahoma bombing?
[/b]

Of course, I'm slightly on the sidelines when it comes to the death penalty, but I'd agree with you that something would have to be done. However, I was remarking on what you said about the traitor not being allowed to live here. I was taking that to men they should be deported somehow.

Not paranoia if it is happening.

No, I agree. It's the timing, and the scope of the article, and what it's intentions are. It seems the Muslim community are being singled out again. If this was someone from another faith, I just wonder how much this rhetoric would be used.

It is a problem for any nation, espionage is a dirty game, which every nation likes to play at.

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Not really interested in arguing with you, I posted my opinion on the matter that is all.
I tend to agree that these guys probably shouldn't join the military in the first place, particularly with the way American Foreign policy is heading.

See now you are trying to blame foreign policy with their actions.

I think these guys have probably been in the military for a long time, but circumstances have made things difficult for them.

They can get discharged. And I don't believe this is the case.

So I don't agree that they joined up solely to sabotage.

We don't really know.

Your last paragraph tells me that you seem to feel the best thing America could do is to remove all Muslims. Another reason why I'm not interested in arguing with you.

No, that isn't what I am saying. That isn't the best thing America can do. I am saying if it continues that might happen. I never said I agreed with it.

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
Best idea Zimbecile has had all year.

I would come up with a equally "witty" name for you... but your name already suits.

dreilly1 · Sep 25, 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I tend to disagree with most of this article. The authors solution is to basically bar Muslims from joining the army. IMHO, this is not just about 'political correctness' it is about the rights of the individual-whatever religion he/she is, under the Constitution.

The author really said nothing of the sort. The only concrete solution he offered was for the Pentagon to update their "clearance processes". That doesn't necessarily mean to bar all Muslims from the military. The article gave an example of an organization that "approves" Muslim clerics for the Military being suspected of having ties to terrorism. Ignoring for the moment whether or not the suspicion is justified, I'm sure there are Muslim groups that don't carry this baggage that the military can use.

It also cites some examples of Muslims in the military who clearly have other loyalties. The article doesn not extrapolate that to all Muslims, but does state that the number of incidences is high compared to the small number of Muslims in the military. That's a documented fact, according to the article. Does it mean anything?

eklipse · Sep 25, 2003, 10:39 AM

Traitors are traitors regardless of race, color, creed or any other defining characteristic - deal with them as the law states.

Discrimination by race, color, creed or any other defining characteristic is wrong and should not be accepted or condoned under any circumstances.

lil'babykitten · Sep 25, 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by dreilly1:
The author really said nothing of the sort. The only concrete solution he offered was for the Pentagon to update their "clearance processes". That doesn't necessarily mean to bar all Muslims from the military.

From the Article:

While some conservatives have criticized the White House for being too politically correct in its treatment of Islam, the Bush administration was staying true to the fundamental American value of freedom of faith. Before deciding whether it is necessary to compromise the principle of equal protection in the interest of national security, we should first give the Pentagon a chance to quickly � but materially and realistically � upgrade its clearance processes.

I think that this author left such a statement open to interpretation deliberately. To me it reads as though the solution is as I said. You may be right. But then he criticises the Bush administration for acting in a 'politically correct' manner rather than in the interests of security. To me this implies that the author thinks more stringent methods need to be used regarding Muslims-in particular- when they join the army. That is not acceptable IMHO.

Troll · Sep 25, 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I would come up with a equally "witty" name for you... but your name already suits.

... and here I was thinking it was your limited intelligence that stunted your wit!

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by dreilly1:
The author really said nothing of the sort. The only concrete solution he offered was for the Pentagon to update their "clearance processes". That doesn't necessarily mean to bar all Muslims from the military. The article gave an example of an organization that "approves" Muslim clerics for the Military being suspected of having ties to terrorism. Ignoring for the moment whether or not the suspicion is justified, I'm sure there are Muslim groups that don't carry this baggage that the military can use.

It also cites some examples of Muslims in the military who clearly have other loyalties. The article doesn not extrapolate that to all Muslims, but does state that the number of incidences is high compared to the small number of Muslims in the military. That's a documented fact, according to the article. Does it mean anything?

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
... and here I was thinking it was your limited intelligence that stunted your wit!

That says a lot from someone that thinks calling people names is "witty"

Troll · Sep 25, 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That says a lot from someone that thinks calling people names is "witty"

You mean like calling muslims prone to treachery?

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
You mean like calling muslims prone to treachery?

When did I say that?

macvillage.net · Sep 25, 2003, 11:28 AM

I think we should cover all our bases:

Jews could easily just be gathering weapons to kill muslims

Whites to kill blacks

Black to kill Asians

All are possible... all have happened. All will most likely happen in civilian life at some point today.

We should ban them all.

Unless your a Jewish Muslim of a white father, and black mother (whose part asian)... you should be flogged.

BTW: The next terror attack will most likely be a white male like this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/peop...r/profile.html

The United States aknowledges there are other Americans like him, missing and believed to have attended these camps.

Sad thing is... he will bypass most national security.

And several people (including a few in this forum) will defend his actions as being "OK", because his parents were upper class white Americans.

IMHO lets persecute everyone. Weed out the bad. Not the Muslim, not the Jewish, not the Asians, not the blacks.

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 11:31 AM

macvillege when there is a group of people constantly causing the same problems they are going to be singled out. This is just logical. Don't like it? Stop these people from doing it.

thunderous_funker · Sep 25, 2003, 11:31 AM

It has always been common for soldiers to consider it their duty to defend God and country. In most cases, it was taken for granted that men in uniform believed the two were on the same side. The question now is what to do when some in the military think God and country are opposed.

I think I've isolated the problem:

believing that God and country are on the same side

Muslims, Christians, Agnostics, Athiest, whomever is honest and smart enough to realize that war plans are not being issued from God through a Political mouthpeice should be the only people allowed in the military.

Anyone who thinks God is Commander in Chief of the US military should be immediately discharged regardless of the race, creed, color or faith. Oh, and they should never be allowed to own a gun either.

Troll · Sep 25, 2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
When did I say that?

Guilty consciensce? I didn't say you had done it. I did however find this gem of bigotry a few posts back:

Originally Posted by Zimphire:
"But if it gets any worse than it is now, and muslims have a habit of doing it."

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
Guilty consciensce? I didn't say you had done it.

You were implying by quoting my post.

I did however find this gem of bigotry a few posts back:

LOL yes, you are right. Muslims and terrorist attacks being put together is pure bigotry!

It's not like this group isn't known for doing such things. NEVER!

Some people live in a idealistic world I guess.

Troll · Sep 25, 2003, 11:39 AM

I just did a little research. A shotgun approach on treason trials over the last 50 years in the USA. We've got to wake up ladies and gentlemen. Christians are involved in 90% of the cases. We have to ban Christians from the military immediately!

christ · Sep 25, 2003, 11:40 AM

I liked this bit of the article:

"The military is confident in checking with the Vatican to confirm the character of a Catholic priest"

The military may be confident in the Vatican, but most parents of young children shouldn't (apparently) be. The Vatican is not above turning a blind eye in the references stakes.

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
I just did a little research. A shotgun approach on treason trials over the last 50 years in the USA. We've got to wake up ladies and gentlemen. Christians are involved in 90% of the cases. We have to ban Christians from the military immediately!

Christians in the military are not involved in treason usually. Though if you think you can support that reasoning with facts, I will be more than glad to give it a read. But it sounds like that 90% number came out of your lower orifice.

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by christ:
I liked this bit of the article:

"The military is confident in checking with the Vatican to confirm the character of a Catholic priest"

The military may be confident in the Vatican, but most parents of young children shouldn't (apparently) be. The Vatican is not above turning a blind eye in the references stakes.

Heh the Catholic church has no more child molestation cases than any other place that deals with kids. But some want you to think it does. More dishonesty.

Troll · Sep 25, 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

LOL yes, you are right. Muslims and terrorist attacks being put together is pure bigotry![/B]

I see, so what you meant is "If TERRORISM get's any worse, and Muslims have a habit of committing terrorism, then they should be banned from the military." Because if one thing is clear from the terrorist attacks so far it's that muslims leverage their membership of the armed forces to commit terror attacks.

We should of course not allow any people of Irish descent into the military either given THEIR habit of committing terrorism. May as well turf any Spanish speakers too - look at ETA. What religion was the Washington Sniper, Una bomber? Let's ban those religions too. And woe betide he who accuses us of bigotry.

sanity assassin · Sep 25, 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

You were implying by quoting my post.

LOL yes, you are right. Muslims and terrorist attacks being put together is pure bigotry!

It's not like this group isn't known for doing such things. NEVER!

Some people live in a idealistic world I guess. [/B]

What do you make of the Christian terrorists in Sudan, Nigeria, etc?

christ · Sep 25, 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Heh the Catholic church has no more child molestation cases than any other place that deals with kids. But some want you to think it does. More dishonesty.

I didn't say that it did.

Who are these 'some' that you refer to? Are they the same as the ones that are out to get you?

The article (that this thread is about) indicated that the military checks with the Vatican to confirm the character of a Catholic priest, and is confident of the result of that check. This appears to be unwise, based upon the Catholic Church's history of not accurately portraying the character of their priests.

You appear willing to overlook this, and even impute that there is some agenda promoting this, while continuing to advance your anti-Muslim tirade.

Oh well, if that's what you are good at, you may as well stick to it.

thunderous_funker · Sep 25, 2003, 11:57 AM

Don't Feed The Trolls

Troll · Sep 25, 2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Christians in the military are not involved in treason usually. Though if you think you can support that reasoning with facts, I will be more than glad to give it a read. But it sounds like that 90% number came out of your lower orifice.

You obviously have a comprehension problem. I did not say that Christians in the military are involved in treason usually (as you so clumsily put it). I would not make a bigot comment like that. What I said was in 90% of the treason trials that have taken place over the history of the USA, the accused was a Christian.

christ · Sep 25, 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Don't Feed The Trolls

Where does debate end and 'Troll Feeding' start? Just so that I know for future reference.

daimoni · 06:59 PM

.

deedar · Sep 25, 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think I've isolated the problem:

believing that God and country are on the same side

Muslims, Christians, Agnostics, Athiest, whomever is honest and smart enough to realize that war plans are not being issued from God through a Political mouthpeice should be the only people allowed in the military.

Anyone who thinks God is Commander in Chief of the US military should be immediately discharged regardless of the race, creed, color or faith. Oh, and they should never be allowed to own a gun either.

Or hold an elected office.

macvillage.net · Sep 25, 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
macvillege when there is a group of people constantly causing the same problems they are going to be singled out. This is just logical. Don't like it? Stop these people from doing it.

But when there are multiple groups. Why can't we single each one out?

lil'babykitten · Sep 25, 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by daimoni:
Absolutely none.

Exactly.

daimoni · 06:59 PM

.

Troll · Sep 25, 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by christ:
Where does debate end and 'Troll Feeding' start? Just so that I know for future reference.

I think as I rule of thumb, it ends where the post starts with the word "Zimphire." Although I seem to be a slow learner on this score too.

dreilly1 · Sep 25, 2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I think that this author left such a statement open to interpretation deliberately. To me it reads as though the solution is as I said.

I guess there is some wiggle room in that statement from the article. But lets face it: the only way that the military can ban adherents of a particular religion and still have it be square with our Constitution is if they make the determination that there is no possible way for someone of that religion to be loyal to the U.S. at the same time. I don't think that is where the Author is driving this. Pointing out an increased number of incidents is far different than condemming the whole religion. (Maybe it warrants some increased scrutiny instead of an outright ban.) It would be like condemning Catholics for pledging "loyalty" to a "foreign" pope (which has happened in the past, IIRC).

Now, it appears that Zim has already made that determination, which is a shame. I don't know many Muslims, but the ones I do know seem to be able to reconcile their faith with loyalty to the US. At least here, you can be loyal to the country even if you don't agree with all its policies.

lil'babykitten · Sep 25, 2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I guess there is some wiggle room in that statement from the article. But lets face it: the only way that the military can ban adherents of a particular religion and still have it be square with our Constitution is if they make the determination that there is no possible way for someone of that religion to be loyal to the U.S. at the same time. I don't think that is where the Author is driving this. Pointing out an increased number of incidents is far different than condemming the whole religion. (Maybe it warrants some increased scrutiny instead of an outright ban.) It would be like condemning Catholics for pledging "loyalty" to a "foreign" pope (which has happened in the past, IIRC).

Now, it appears that Zim has already made that determination, which is a shame. I don't know many Muslims, but the ones I do know seem to be able to reconcile their faith with loyalty to the US. At least here, you can be loyal to the country even if you don't agree with all its policies.

Agreed.

nonhuman · Sep 25, 2003, 01:28 PM

Why is it that all the arguments for keeping Muslims out of the military/sensitive areas sound startling like the justifications that have historically been giving for things like pogroms in Russia and similar activities in various other countries?

lil'babykitten · Sep 25, 2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Why is it that all the arguments for keeping Muslims out of the military/sensitive areas sound startling like the justifications that have historically been giving for things like pogroms in Russia and similar activities in various other countries?

History has a knack for repeating itself.

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Troll:
You obviously have a comprehension problem.

When someone starts a post like this, you know you've got the best of them.

I did not say that Christians in the military are involved in treason usually (as you so clumsily put it).

Well that is what I was talking about. So it's my fault you go off in a tangent in the middle of the conversation?

What I said was in 90% of the treason trials that have taken place over the history of the USA, the accused was a Christian.

And that is somehow less bigoted? LOL! The difference is, they aren't in the military.

BTW care to back that up?

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by daimoni:
Well, if they're Christian, then they must be doing Gods Work, right (just like Zimphool is doing right now).

You guys with your cute nicknames.

You do know it makes you look 8 right?

Troll · Sep 25, 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
When someone starts a post like this, you know you've got the best of them.

Yes, quite. And that's your real purpose isn't it. To "get the best of people." You're not interested in a real discussion or debate or even in understanding the other person's post - are you?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And that is somehow less bigoted? LOL! The difference is, they aren't in the military.

That last sentence makes no sense!

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW care to back that up?

Ho hum. OK, here's the original statement: Christians are involved in 90% of the treason trials over the last 50 years. In fact it goes back much further than that: Thomas Paine, Thomas Spence, Daniel Isaac Eaton, Thomas Hardy, John Horne Tooke, John Thelwall - all Christians. At a federal level, there have only been around 30 guilty verdicts in 200 years. Among them, Aaron Burr, son of a Christian reverend, Max Haupt, Anthony Cramer, Christians, Benedict Arnold, Thomas Dorr both Christians too. Iva Toguri D'Aquino was a Christian too. Then there are the Rosenbergs who weren't Christians, but jews. I couldn't find a single case of treason against a Muslim.

lil'babykitten · Sep 25, 2003, 05:04 PM

Seriously guys. We are all capable of discussing things without the attacks.

Zimphire · Sep 25, 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Troll:
OK, here's the original statement: Christians are involved in 90% of the treason trials over the last 50 years. In fact it goes back much further than that: Thomas Paine, Thomas Spence, Daniel Isaac Eaton, Thomas Hardy, John Horne Tooke, John Thelwall - all Christians. At a federal level, there have only been around 30 guilty verdicts in 200 years. Among them, Aaron Burr, son of a Christian reverend, Max Haupt, Anthony Cramer, Christians, Benedict Arnold, Thomas Dorr both Christians too. Iva Toguri D'Aquino was a Christian too. Then there are the Rosenbergs who weren't Christians, but jews. I couldn't find a single case of treason against a Muslim.

Care to show me the source?