# obama will apply sharia law to the military



## Katzndogz (Mar 2, 2012)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/w...rning-in-afghanistan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all


KABUL, Afghanistan  Five American service members and an Afghan-American linguist may face disciplinary action in the burning of Korans at a NATO base, an event a week ago that plunged Afghanistan into days of violent protests, according to the preliminary conclusions of a joint military investigation. 

All six will be referred to the proper U.S. authorities for further action, said an official familiar with the joint Afghan-American investigation into the Koran burnings, who was not authorized to speak about it publicly


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/w...rning-in-afghanistan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
> 
> 
> KABUL, Afghanistan  Five American service members and an Afghan-American linguist may face disciplinary action in the burning of Korans at a NATO base, an event a week ago that plunged Afghanistan into days of violent protests, according to the preliminary conclusions of a joint military investigation.
> ...



They should not be punished BUT your claim is simply wrong. If they get charged it will likely be disobedience of a lawful order or dereliction of duty. Possibly conduct unbecoming.


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 2, 2012)

Punished for an action that deserves a medal.

Life UNDER an Islamic sympathizer.  But you'll get used to.....or DIE, infidel!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/w...rning-in-afghanistan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
> 
> 
> KABUL, Afghanistan &#8212; Five American service members and an Afghan-American linguist may face disciplinary action in the burning of Korans at a NATO base, an event a week ago that plunged Afghanistan into days of violent protests, according to the preliminary conclusions of a joint military investigation.
> ...



Not a single mention of Sharia Law.  I disagree with them being punished, but you don't have to be intellectually dishonest about what the Obama administration is doing.


----------



## copsnrobbers (Mar 2, 2012)

The ladies in the USA will be screwed.. a good one.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 3, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/w...rning-in-afghanistan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
> ...



They can't be prosecuted at all unless they are prosecuted under sharia law.   It doesn't have to be mentioned and it would be absolutely shocking if it were.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Hey fuckstick...........ever serve in the military?

I'm guessing no, as you appear to have zero clue.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 3, 2012)

He can't prosecute these men without applying sharia law.  Now if you want to equate military service with undying loyalty to the treasonous vermin now crawling around the white house, you are the one with the zero clue.


----------



## Colin (Mar 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Clearly you have a political agenda that requires you to distort the facts as reported. Where does it say anything about Sharia law and where does it state that anyone will be prosecuted? They may face DISCIPLINARY action. That is something entirely different to prosecution in a court of law.


----------



## Luissa (Mar 3, 2012)

Gee I wonder why they are doing this? Oh! I don't know, maybe so 6 more military men are not killed and 30 afghan citizen. Get a fucking clue people.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 3, 2012)

They can't even face disciplinary action without applying sharia law.  Without applying sharia law, these men did nothing wrong.  If there was no action taken against the military that burned the Bibles, there is none able to be taken against these men either.   The only difference is, mistreating a koran is prohibited only by sharia law.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 3, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Gee I wonder why they are doing this? Oh! I don't know, maybe so 6 more military men are not killed and 30 afghan citizen. Get a fucking clue people.



That kinda makes sacrifice of 6 military careers all worth it right?   It's called surrender.  Do it and get it over with, stop rationalizing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Wrong, if there was a standing order NOT to burn or mistreat Korans then they could possibly be charged with disobedience of a lawful order, dereliction of duty and or Conduct unbecoming. All legit charges if they violated a standing order depending on how they violated it.


----------



## Colin (Mar 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> They can't even face disciplinary action without applying sharia law.  Without applying sharia law, these men did nothing wrong.  If there was no action taken against the military that burned the Bibles, there is none able to be taken against these men either.   The only difference is, mistreating a koran is prohibited only by sharia law.



Sorry, but you're wrong. Military disciplinary action does not require the law as its guide. It is subject to its own rules and regulations. I agree that any form of punishment is uncalled for, but let's face it, you're twisting the facts simply to justify your personal political agenda.


----------



## Warrior102 (Mar 3, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Hey fuckstick - "First Class for Life"

Ever make Chief?

Of course not.

Miserable failure.

And don't give me your CREO group, tight rate shit asshole.

When I made Senior, I was #2 of 2 FLEETWIDE.

Grow a set, perform like a man, and get back to us. 

Shut the fuck up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 3, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Ya know I hate defending liberals but you guys are wrong. As to the personal attack on Abiker, LOTS of people retire at that pay grade. And not because they are incompetent either. Simply because there was no slot to get promoted INTO.


----------



## Warrior102 (Mar 3, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya know I hate defending liberals but you guys are wrong. As to the personal attack on Abiker, LOTS of people retire at that pay grade. And not because they are incompetent either. Simply because there was no slot to get promoted INTO.



You guys?
Who is "you guys?"
Chill out Gunny.
I've read Gay-"Bi"keys gay-loving trash for months now on this forum. He was a PN (Personnel "Man" (latter questionable) who the he claims the "gays confided in" aboard ship. I tell ya - in 8.5 years at sea, I didn't know the "gays" checked in with anyone.

And "lots" of miserable failures do indeed retire at E6. Some even E5! Some call themselves GySgts and wear medals they haven't earned!

Can you believe it??

What a shocker


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 3, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



From the phony koran mistreatment cases of a few years ago, I recall that there is training on how to treat a koran, but no rules against mistreatment.  Rules which would, of course, come right out of sharia law.  If they had any rules against holy book maltreatment it would apply to all holy books, not just the koran and we know that's not true.


----------



## Jos (Mar 3, 2012)

*Support our 'oops*


----------



## Colin (Mar 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



When are you going to man up and admit you distorted what the article said for your own puposes?


----------



## Luissa (Mar 3, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Ya know I hate defending liberals but you guys are wrong. As to the personal attack on Abiker, LOTS of people retire at that pay grade. And not because they are incompetent either. Simply because there was no slot to get promoted INTO.
> ...



I hope you are not making a dig at him. I don't get along with Retired, but he doesn't deserve to have his service questioned.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 3, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Ya know I hate defending liberals but you guys are wrong. As to the personal attack on Abiker, LOTS of people retire at that pay grade. And not because they are incompetent either. Simply because there was no slot to get promoted INTO.
> ...



Actually, like I told you, I wasn't one of those bigoted assholes like you were, so people did actually talk to me and confide in me.  As far as "checking in"?  Might wanna try again stupid, because unlike you, people on the ship actually liked me, which is why I said they trusted me.

And yeah.........some "miserable failures" DO retire at E-5, but by and large, many people retire at E-6, so no......there's no shame in that.

Especially since the last 2 tours I did were BOTH independent duty billets, one was an MSC vessel and the second was the head dude in charge of the Amarillo MEPS Navy office.  

Both billets I relieved a Chief and both billets I was REPLACED by a Chief.

But........if you want to spew shit all over the boards about someone you've never met, and wish to denigrate my service, feel free.

Expose yourself for being a shitheel all ya want, makes no difference to me.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 3, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Actually Luissa, he's trying to make stupid comments about me.  Retired was just defending me (and I thank him for that).


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 3, 2012)

Not only does the linked article not contain the word sharia, but nowhere does it state that sharia law will be applied to military cases. Moreover, Obama doesnt even have the authority to make such a change. 

That the OP should make such an unsubstantiated claim comes as no surprise, of course, as hes demonstrated long ago to be a partisan hack and liar.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 3, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Not only does the linked article not contain the word sharia, but nowhere does it state that sharia law will be applied to military cases. Moreover, Obama doesnt even have the authority to make such a change.
> 
> That the OP should make such an unsubstantiated claim comes as no surprise, of course, as hes demonstrated long ago to be a partisan hack and liar.



Under the UCMJ, soldiers can be disciplined for lack of good order and discipline, which this may fall under.

But.........to their defense, they didn't know what they were doing.  If the Afghan workers had actually been doing their jobs, they would have pointed out exactly what those books were so they didn't get desecrated according to their customs.

Me?  I don't blame the soldiers, they were just doing their job.  I blame the Afghan workers for not bringing it to their attention until it was too late.

I don't really know many people who are fluent in reading and speaking Arabic.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 3, 2012)

An Afghan translator is one of those being "disciplned" for koran abuse.  A term that does not exist in our current terminology and there is no way to get it there except through application of sharia law.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> An Afghan translator is one of those being "disciplned" for koran abuse.  A term that does not exist in our current terminology and there is no way to get it there except through application of sharia law.



Ever hear of the UCMJ?  How about good order and discipline?  That's NOT Sharia law, it's US Military law, and the military falls under it, and in some cases, a military person can suffer double jeopardy for the same crime, because if they get caught with a DUI out in town, they not only have to answer to the state, but in many cases they will also go to Captain's Mast for the same crime.

BTW.........most of the Afghan translators that the US Military has with them are Afghan nationals, and if they're Afghan, of course they're going to fall under Sharia law, they're native to that country.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 4, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > An Afghan translator is one of those being "disciplned" for koran abuse.  A term that does not exist in our current terminology and there is no way to get it there except through application of sharia law.
> ...



Under sharia law mistreating a koran is a punishable offense.  ONLY under sharia law.  There is no broad military prohibition against mistreatment of religious icons because the miitary itself destroyed thousands of Bibles without even a mention that this might not be acceptable.   Once a military person leaves the base, that member is subject to all the laws, rules and prohibitions of the host country.   That is why female US military has to wear a hijab when they leave the base.   This did not happen "in town".  It happened on the base.  On American grounds.   It happened because these korans were used to pass messages between prisoners.     IF indeed this happened off base I would tend more to agree with you, it was an unnecessary provocation.  But it didn't.  It happened in a place subject to Ameirican law not sharia law.  The only way there can be any punishment whatsoever is by applying sharia law.  Give in here, and it is a guarantee that more "offense" will follow.

If you have ever been stationed in the middle east surely you know how many local laws don't exist on a military base.  Women drive cars, they do not cover their heads, there is no five time a day call to prayer.  Men are not required to have beards.  There is music, alcohol, and even a dance now and then.  The mess serves bacon and pork.   Female medical personnel must wash their hands.  Even MUSLIM female medical personnel must wash their hands.   Once the American military starts applying sharia law it won't stop.  The same sort of violence that controlled here can be used anywhere.


----------



## Peach (Mar 4, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


What is First Class?


----------



## Peach (Mar 4, 2012)

Peach said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...


No, it has not been suggested they appear before any tribunal except that of the military, ON a base we operate.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Mar 4, 2012)

While I don't agree that the military is necessarily implementing Sharia law on this, I have to disagree with those calling the OP a flat out liar on this one.  At its furthest removed, any hard-and-fast rule against burning Korans seems like it could only be in place to refrain from committing a deep offense toward those who do practice Sharia.

That said, given the justification for the burning (I've heard Afghan detainees were inscribing messages in the books to communicate, which is in and of itself a defacing of the Koran, but that's another argument), any suggestion of punishing the US troops responsible is, aside from being a perfect example of appeasement (regardless of what Obama says about pulling the trigger on Bin Laden after knowing his whereabouts for over 6 months), playing right into the hands of those detainees that used this tactic.  Think about it from their perspective:  you pass messages through a source that, no matter how the US reacts to shore up the information leak, can be used to play the situation up into a giant PR fiasco.  At this point, the world is aware how hypersensitive most of the West is about offending anybody or disrespecting their culture, so if they even took the Korans away it could be played up like they're preventing those detainees from practicing their religion.  They used a divisive tactic that, if it were defeated, could be used to F things up for the people who defeated it, and now we're handing them the W on this one.

Next, WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT BURNT HOLY BOOKS?  These are American troops we're talking about here, guys who were brought up believing that no doctrine source is so special that it trumps their right to free speech.  In our country, we can burn any holy book for any reason.  Maybe I just like seeing how leather bible bindings curl in the flame.  The only culture who's core values we could be construed to be insulting is one that says that burning printed words in a particular form (and not Nazi, let's burn ALL of that book style, just a few offending copies) is cause for WAR.  Does nobody see anything wrong with that?  I disagree with this new political correctness concept that every culture has to be respected on the grounds that it is someone's culture.  Just because a lot of people agree with something doesn't mean it isn't an abomination (at one point, most of the world was participating in the slave trade).  So get this.  I have NO respect for a cultural imperative that says that if a few guys burn a few copies of a widely regarded holy book, everybody involved with them, anybody from the same country, and anybody who looks like them is fair game for violence.  If the UN is making statements about how evil the action was and that these troops need to be punished for offending people with this ridiculous viewpoint, we should really be telling them to go F themselves.  Let 'em kiss up to some other world power next time they wanna borrow a military to throw into UN blues and use them to dick around with someone's civil war.  Maybe Iran or Egypt.  You know, one of those sympathetic, freedom loving nations on the Human Rights council.

If Obama is calling for these soldiers to be punished, he needs to take a f'in hike too.  These guys have their lives on the line out there and did what they felt was necessary to prevent a plot from coming to fruition ON THEIR BASE.  I don't care who killed Osama, punishing these guys would be appeasement at its most basic.  Perhaps the worst thing about it is that it reinforces the idea that terrorism is a good way for the whacked out sects of Islamic Fundamentalists to get their way.  "Look, we started killing US troops like it was the thing to do, and BAM!  Obama punishes the guys who pissed us off!"  That's why it's always been US policy not to negotiate with terrorists.  If we bow to their ridiculous cultural impositions to avoid violence, we're encouraging more violence.

So, in closing. . . those people inciting and condoning violence toward the US for this. . . fuck them and their upside down culture.  Those people suggesting that we punish those soldiers responsible for doing what they felt was necessary to maintain the security of their base, fuck them and -their- upside down culture.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 4, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Apparently, you've never heard of the SOFA, or Status of Forces Agreement that is negotiated with each country we're in.

Like I said, unless you've actually been in the military and know how things work, shut the fuck up because you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 5, 2012)

This is exactly how all of our laws will be replaced with fundamentalist sharia law.  Its use will be rationalized and explained away, until we are all its subjects.  Sad really that no one will stand up for our military.


----------



## Colin (Mar 5, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> This is exactly how all of our laws will be replaced with fundamentalist sharia law.  Its use will be rationalized and explained away, until we are all its subjects.  Sad really that no one will stand up for our military.



Distorting reality to suit your personal agenda again. Get a life saddo.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 5, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> This is exactly how all of our laws will be replaced with fundamentalist sharia law.  Its use will be rationalized and explained away, until we are all its subjects.  Sad really that no one will stand up for our military.



What part of they fall under the UCMJ, which has articles concering good order and discipline do you keep missing?

The UCMJ is NOT Sharia law.

But like I said, if you'd actually served rather than just blustering talking points you get from FAUX Nooze and your own deluded rantings, you'd know better.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Mar 5, 2012)

katzndogs must be a plant.


----------



## High_Gravity (Mar 7, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/w...rning-in-afghanistan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
> 
> 
> KABUL, Afghanistan  Five American service members and an Afghan-American linguist may face disciplinary action in the burning of Korans at a NATO base, an event a week ago that plunged Afghanistan into days of violent protests, according to the preliminary conclusions of a joint military investigation.
> ...



If he applied Sharia law to the Military these men would be beheaded for burning the Qurans.


----------



## High_Gravity (Mar 7, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> He can't prosecute these men without applying sharia law.  Now if you want to equate military service with undying loyalty to the treasonous vermin now crawling around the white house, you are the one with the zero clue.



There was a Soldier who used the Quran for target practice in Iraq under the Bush Administration, he was punished and sent back Stateside immediately, did the Bush administration apply Sharia law as well?


----------



## High_Gravity (Mar 7, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> They can't even face disciplinary action without applying sharia law.  Without applying sharia law, these men did nothing wrong.  If there was no action taken against the military that burned the Bibles, there is none able to be taken against these men either.   The only difference is, mistreating a koran is prohibited only by sharia law.



Thats not necessarily true, whenever you are deployed you have to follow the rules in whatever AOR (Area of Operations) you are serving, when I deployed to Kuwait things like having sex and drinking were against the rules and you could be punished for them, even though those things are not against the rules back home, in the case of these men burning the Quran may be one of those rules they broke.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 7, 2012)

Koran abuse is punishable anywhere.  It's the punishment.  I don't know the particulars of punishment for shooting a koran, but if that was the only rule broken, it was an application of sharia law.  If there is a rule against mistreatment of the koran, but not a rule against mistreatment of any other iconic holy book, that can only come out of sharia law.   For instance, where did the shooting incident take place?   Examine it.  IF the rules and laws of the host country are followed even on an American base, then every female military member would have to cover their heads and none would be able to drive even on a military base.   If they leave the base, they are required to follow all local laws while in the cities and towns.  Even Nancy Pelosi was required to wear a headscarf when he toured the middle east.  

obama started it by apologizing.  He should never have done that, but he'll do anything to betray an American or a friend of America.


----------



## Peach (Mar 7, 2012)

ABikerSailor said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > This is exactly how all of our laws will be replaced with fundamentalist sharia law.  Its use will be rationalized and explained away, until we are all its subjects.  Sad really that no one will stand up for our military.
> ...


Thank you SAILOR!


----------



## High_Gravity (Mar 7, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Thats not true, it depends on the country. I deployed to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and in both places we were forbidden from drinking alcohol and having sex, anyone who did so and was caught would face Non Judicial punishment.


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 7, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/w...rning-in-afghanistan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
> 
> 
> KABUL, Afghanistan  Five American service members and an Afghan-American linguist may face disciplinary action in the burning of Korans at a NATO base, an event a week ago that plunged Afghanistan into days of violent protests, according to the preliminary conclusions of a joint military investigation.
> ...



You obviously know nothing about the military.


----------



## Peach (Mar 7, 2012)

Peach said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...


I did not intend to ask WHAT IS FIRST CLASS; I know. I intended to thank GRS for THIS:

As to the personal attack on Abiker, LOTS of people retire at that pay grade. And not because they are incompetent either. Simply because there was no slot to get promoted INTO.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 7, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



On base or off base?

Are the koran burners facing non-judicial punishment?    obama started it by apologizing.  As commander in chief he should have stood up for the military not excuse the murders that followed.


----------



## High_Gravity (Mar 7, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



On or off base, same rules applied, we were rarely allowed off base in Kuwait or Saudi. A male and a female airman in Kuwait got a hold of a vehicle and parked it right outside the base and she gave him a blowjob, someone spotted them and reported them and they were in trouble even though it happened technically off the base. As far the Quran burners I don't know what type of punishment they will ne facing, but I would imagine for anyone deploying to Afghanistan they would be briefed to respect religious texts since it is a very religious country.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 7, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Whether or not it is a religoius text is where obama fell off the rails.  Had he maintained that the korans had been defaced by the muslim prisoners themselves and were no longer religious texts there would have not been the protests that there were.

Since the couple in your example were off base, parked right outside, they were no doubt breaking several local laws.

A married couple vacationing in Dubai are now in prison for the crime of kissing in public.  They should have kept it to the hotel room.


----------



## High_Gravity (Mar 7, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



I agree Obama should have mentioned the Qurans were vandalized and defaced by the Muslim prisoners before they were burned but its hard to say if that would have stemmed the outrage, as far as Dubai goes its a pretty lenient Muslim country but they still follow Islamic law, its easy to forget that when you go there and see how modern the country is, its easy to get swept up and forget where you are, I have been to Dubai and it is beautiful.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 7, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Like I said, you have no understanding of the military, so therefore, you are not qualified to speak on this subject.


----------



## High_Gravity (Mar 7, 2012)

What I found strange about my deployment to Saudi Arabia was we were briefed having sex would not be allowed, however there were free condoms everywhere in the clinic, common rooms, Airmans lounge etc etc, thats a bit hyprocritical no?


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 8, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Ya know I hate defending liberals but you guys are wrong. As to the personal attack on Abiker, LOTS of people retire at that pay grade. And not because they are incompetent either. Simply because there was no slot to get promoted INTO.
> ...



LMAO!

You turned your PM's off?  Oh yeah, you are a real tough guy.

What a little bitch.

To think, I used to have some respect for you, you waste of bandwidth.


----------

