Petreus is out of line

[G.T.]

I think of it as more like "Stop being morons and acting like the stupid jackassess that we are fighing."

And I agree with the notion, whole-heartedly. Problem is, coming from our General it makes our position look weak no matter what.

I don't think so at all. It shows respect for their religion. The Quran isn't "just a book."

In my opinion, all Bibles are just books but that's neither here n'or there

He's not showing respect for their Religion, he's showing Respect to the abilities of the Radicals' Propoganda, aka "recruiting."

 

[MaggieMae]

Nosmo, unfortunately our Country operates by doing whatever the fuck it wants, with any book.

I see this exactly the same way I see the illogic behind banning guns.

I can still kill someone with a potato-gun, (made with hair-spray and pvc pipe), but Banning potato guns isn't going to stop me from being a killer. The killer kills, the weapon of choice is a moot point.

If someone's fucking nutty enough to suicide bomb themselves, then THEY'RE FUCKING NUTS! End of discussion.

What you're failing to recognize is that extremists (terrorists in particular) don't use logic in their actions, by saying to themselves "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

 

[G.T.]

Nosmo, unfortunately our Country operates by doing whatever the fuck it wants, with any book.

I see this exactly the same way I see the illogic behind banning guns.

I can still kill someone with a potato-gun, (made with hair-spray and pvc pipe), but Banning potato guns isn't going to stop me from being a killer. The killer kills, the weapon of choice is a moot point.

If someone's fucking nutty enough to suicide bomb themselves, then THEY'RE FUCKING NUTS! End of discussion.

What you're failing to recognize is that extremists (terrorists in particular) don't use logic in their actions, by saying to themselves "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

I don't fail to recognize that at all. My point is that ILLOGIC is not what should be a driving force, in any decision making.

The book burning itself is illogical, because Islam didn't cause 9/11................but the answer to that is not "don't do it because it will cause illogical murderers to murder".........................the answer is "this is America, so........if you REALLY feel you must!"

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I still don't think Islam is very compatible with Western Democratic beliefs and traditions. That's just my opinion though and probably another discussion for another day. If you have to panic about losing "Hearts & Minds" over this completely insignificant issue,then it really is time to come home. The Afghans themselves will have to decide their own destiny. Personally i just don't think that Islam can really be compatible with Western Democratic ideals. This kind of issue only reinforces my feelings on that. It's time to come home.

 

[MaggieMae]

Burning the Quran would probably create "material and substantial disruption" for the generals trying to fight the bad guys in Afghanistan (and elsewhere), in my opinion.

Abject Failure!

How your brain even knows to tell your lungs to breath is a mystery.

It always helps when assholes don't cut off half a posting they're responding to. But I'm wondering where you got your law degree, among your other, er, "talents."

For your information, genius, the USSC has never determined except on a case-by-case basis exactly what constitutes a blanket interpretation of the First Amendment. I gave a perfect example which has relevance. So fuck off, moron.

 

[manifold]

Burning the Quran would probably create "material and substantial disruption" for the generals trying to fight the bad guys in Afghanistan (and elsewhere), in my opinion.

Abject Failure!

How your brain even knows to tell your lungs to breath is a mystery.

It always helps when assholes don't cut off half a posting they're responding to. But I'm wondering where you got your law degree, among your other, er, "talents."

For your information, genius, the USSC has never determined except on a case-by-case basis exactly what constitutes a blanket interpretation of the First Amendment. I gave a perfect example which has relevance. So fuck off, moron.

Complete and total Fail


You're the dipshit arguing that a few knuckleheads burning a book in Florida is not protected by the 1st Amendment because in your completely uniformed and wholly retarded "opinion," it constitutes a "material and substantial" disruption of military operations on the other side of the globe. And I'm the moron.

Oh the irony.

 

[manifold]

I've disagreed with several people about this but Maggie Mae here is the only dipshit I've seen so far that actually thinks this isn't covered by the 1st Amendment. Hell, even the wingtards that got their panties in a bunch over the ground-zero mosque knew better than to suggest it wasn't a protected right.

Congrats Maggie...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Free Speech is Free Speech. Muslims don't seem to like this idea. We're not like them and they're not like us. We don't belong there. "Hearts and Minds?" Yea i'm pretty sick of hearing that chit. F*ck that. Lets get the H*ll out of there.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I still don't think Islam is very compatible with Western Democratic beliefs and traditions. That's just my opinion though and probably another discussion for another day. If you have to panic about losing "Hearts & Minds" over this completely insignificant issue,then it really is time to come home. The Afghans themselves will have to decide their own destiny. Personally i just don't think that Islam can really be compatible with Western Democratic ideals. This kind of issue only reinforces my feelings on that. It's time to come home.

I agree. Our constitution and sharia law are not compatible.

 

[loosecannon]

The Ultimate Obligation is to Defend the Constitution.

I don't want Americans to stop practicing their rights on account of Murderous Psychos. Do you?

what if Americans just stopped practicing them foolishly?

Patraeus and our troops are risking life and limb to protect quackpots who make useless political statements that undermine our mission itself.

 

[manifold]

The Ultimate Obligation is to Defend the Constitution.

I don't want Americans to stop practicing their rights on account of Murderous Psychos. Do you?

what if Americans just stopped practicing them foolishly?

Patraeus and our troops are risking life and limb to protect quackpots who make useless political statements that undermine our mission itself.

If you truly value freedom, you must be willing to accept the bad with the good.

Period.

 

[gautama]

I think of it as more like "Stop being morons and acting like the stupid jackassess that we are fighing."

And I agree with the notion, whole-heartedly. Problem is, coming from our General it makes our position look weak no matter what.

I don't think so at all. It shows respect for their religion. The Quran isn't "just a book."

RELIGION ?!?!?

That is where you are wrong.

It's NOT a RELIGION in the accepted meaning of the word.

The Qur'an is a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY .....LIKE FASCISM with god or allah thrown in to make the cheese more binding.

This is NOT to say that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the NON-MID EAST MUSLIMS are not interpreting the QUR'AN is a positive, "RELIGIOUS" way.

The REVERSE IS TRUE for the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the MID EAST MUSLIMS ( and the overwhelming majority of them are in America) who are trained by the CRAZED FANATICAL IMAMS who CORRECTLY INTERPRET THAT POS QUR'AN.

This "RELIGION'S" stated goal.....IN THE QUR'AN....is to make the World into an ISLAMIC CALIPHATE, i.e., an ISLAMIC STATE preferably by word......BY SWORD IF NECESSARY !!!!

This ain't no "RELIGION" in the accepted meaning of the word, you Obamarrhoidal LIEbturd stooge !!!

 

[Jarhead]

I mean, what is the guise our Red White and Blue fights under? Defending the Constitution?

I don't support the 9/11 burning of the Quran; however, opposing it on the grounds that it will create more Terrorists is an absolute contradiction to the Mission of our Armed forces.

Yes, it will put those who Volunteered to Defend the Constitution in presumably more danger. But these are the very hard-line ideals they're doing it for........The Freedom to think and express how you feel, no matter how distasteful or who doesn't like it. I think the General is out of line on this one.

He had the right to say it and the responsibility to his soldiers to say it. He does not have the right to try to prevent the burning from happening.

This is similar to the Mosque thing. People have a right to feel it is insensitive and have the rght to articulate it. Sadly, many feel they dont.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Constitution allows Patraeus free speech also.

 

[manifold]

The Constitution allows Patraeus free speech also.

That didn't work out so well for his predecessor Gen. McChrystal.

 

[MaggieMae]

Abject Failure!

How your brain even knows to tell your lungs to breath is a mystery.

It always helps when assholes don't cut off half a posting they're responding to. But I'm wondering where you got your law degree, among your other, er, "talents."

For your information, genius, the USSC has never determined except on a case-by-case basis exactly what constitutes a blanket interpretation of the First Amendment. I gave a perfect example which has relevance. So fuck off, moron.

Complete and total Fail


You're the dipshit arguing that a few knuckleheads burning a book in Florida is not protected by the 1st Amendment because in your completely uniformed and wholly retarded "opinion," it constitutes a "material and substantial" disruption of military operations on the other side of the globe. And I'm the moron.

Oh the irony.

If some of the Afghan tribes that have already helped ferret out Taliban strongholds suddenly turned against Patreaus (or any other military operation) using an event such a burning of their sacred book, yes, I would certainly classify that event occuring on THIS side of the globe as having been material and substantial. I wasn't implying that the court case would be used as precedent; merely pointing out that the USSC would quite possibly make another unique judgment if it came to that.

If you don't get that, then duh...yes, you are.

 

[Charles_Main]

I mean, what is the guise our Red White and Blue fights under? Defending the Constitution?

I don't support the 9/11 burning of the Quran; however, opposing it on the grounds that it will create more Terrorists is an absolute contradiction to the Mission of our Armed forces.

Yes, it will put those who Volunteered to Defend the Constitution in presumably more danger. But these are the very hard-line ideals they're doing it for........The Freedom to think and express how you feel, no matter how distasteful or who doesn't like it. I think the General is out of line on this one.

Why do you people always equate speaking out against something as wanting to stop it.

he said it would put our troops in danger. He in no way said we should stop them from doing it. We all have the right to call a stupid thing stupid. We all have the right to oppose a mosque at ground zero. Just because we exercise that right does not mean we are forcing anyone to do anything.

 

[MaggieMae]

I've disagreed with several people about this but Maggie Mae here is the only dipshit I've seen so far that actually thinks this isn't covered by the 1st Amendment. Hell, even the wingtards that got their panties in a bunch over the ground-zero mosque knew better than to suggest it wasn't a protected right.

Congrats Maggie...

Omg, what would Sarah say about that^? I'd say it's fairly clear where you might stand on many issues.

And I never said it IS NOT covered by the First Amendment, liar. I tossed out some information that might give rise to such an event POSSIBLY being excluded from First Amendment protections.

 

[Charles_Main]

I've disagreed with several people about this but Maggie Mae here is the only dipshit I've seen so far that actually thinks this isn't covered by the 1st Amendment. Hell, even the wingtards that got their panties in a bunch over the ground-zero mosque knew better than to suggest it wasn't a protected right.

Congrats Maggie...

Omg, what would Sarah say about that^? I'd say it's fairly clear where you might stand on many issues.

And I never said it IS NOT covered by the First Amendment, liar. I tossed out some information that might give rise to such an event POSSIBLY being excluded from First Amendment protections.

Not that I agree with you much Maggie, But I see the point of your argument. Though I do not think this case would rise to such a level. her point is not all speech is protected, especially not in a time of war. On that point she is not wrong.

 

[MaggieMae]

And I agree with the notion, whole-heartedly. Problem is, coming from our General it makes our position look weak no matter what.

I don't think so at all. It shows respect for their religion. The Quran isn't "just a book."

RELIGION ?!?!?

That is where you are wrong.

It's NOT a RELIGION in the accepted meaning of the word.

The Qur'an is a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY .....LIKE FASCISM with god or allah thrown in to make the cheese more binding.

This is NOT to say that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the NON-MID EAST MUSLIMS are not interpreting the QUR'AN is a positive, "RELIGIOUS" way.

The REVERSE IS TRUE for the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the MID EAST MUSLIMS ( and the overwhelming majority of them are in America) who are trained by the CRAZED FANATICAL IMAMS who CORRECTLY INTERPRET THAT POS QUR'AN.

This "RELIGION'S" stated goal.....IN THE QUR'AN....is to make the World into an ISLAMIC CALIPHATE, i.e., an ISLAMIC STATE preferably by word......BY SWORD IF NECESSARY !!!!

This ain't no "RELIGION" in the accepted meaning of the word, you Obamarrhoidal LIEbturd stooge !!!

I see it's that time of the month when you're allowed out of your cage for an hour or so.