MSWA: Muslim soldiers with attitude

Status
Not open for further replies.
The article is intentionally inflamatory and overblown. However, it does highlight some legitimate stupidity on the military's part. How in the world do you let a guy who is a KNOWN troublemaker, America hater, and obviously unstable, hang around the 101st Airborne's rear CP unsupervised? His adherence to a fruity brand of Islam is just icing on the idiotic cake. He should have been court-martialed for his previous offenses and never allowed in the battle zone.

This might be a real case of not wanting to throw the book at him so as to not look like you are persecuting Muslim soldiers. :rolleyes:

Fortunately, a close reading of the UCMJ indicates that, if convicted, Akbar is guilty of several different death penalty offenses. For instance, he is subject to the death penalty for merely offering violence to a commissioned officer during time of war (Article 90); every officer that was merely threatened (not actually injured) by the attack constitutes a separate death penalty offense. Of course, premeditated murder = death. Misbehavior before the enemy = death. Forcing a safeguard = death. Aiding the enemy = death. And so on...
 
...Bahadur

Naturally, apologists for Islam-gone-awry are hard at work dismissing this traitorous act of murder as an "isolated, individual act and not an expression of faith." But such sentiments are willfully blind and recklessly PC.
Click to expand...

So far it IS an isolated, individual act. We have not seen other such fratricide in this campaign.
Click to expand...

Not to burst your bubble, but re-reading the Malkin article, and the other cases, it DOES NOT seem like an isolated individual act.

Whats that phrase...

Once is an accident
Twice is a coincidence
Thrice is an enemy action
 
If a man or woman joins the US services and professes that another country is his or hers -- then they are a traitor and should have been removed from service-- They obviously swore a false oath upon enlistment-- regardless of their religion or previous nationality or heritage--
 
I don't know about physical violence, but there have been Christians and Jews who have treasoned against the US because of their religious/ethnic affiliations. Of course, there was only a very small number - certainly not nearly enough to represent the vast majority of such groups who remained and remain loyal to the US.
Click to expand...
That is why I specifically asked about military people and murder.

Do you happen to recall which military people "treasoned against the US because of their religious/ethnic affiliations."

I don't recall any. And to clarify, my original question was about religion, not ethnicity. That is especially important here, since Muslim isn't an "ethnicity".

Do you know of any Japanese-Americans that deserted their enlistments/commissions to leave and fight against us? I don't.


______________________________________
Diversity has indeed tourned into a dirty word for some conservatives. When they say "diversity", they say it with disgust, because what they really mean to say is "spicks, fags and *******".
Click to expand...
That may be true for some, but that isn't why I find the perversion of the word troubling. For 99.999% of the liberals that I know, diversity means encouraging every faction in this country to maintain a sense of dis-unity no matter what the cost. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if a person is Latino, Gay, or Black. It doesn't make them special one way or the other.

In short, diversity is used as an excuse to bash anything that non-minorities want and/or do. It is also used as a wedge to divide us. So we are all from different backgrounds, SFW?
 
Repeated comments like "so-called religion of peace" totally sour the article and distract from whatever point she is trying to make.
Click to expand...
lens,

I think the writer is pointing out the fallaciousness of the politically correct position that there is absolutely no correlation between these traitorous soldiers and the religion of Islam. Remember where the "Religion of Peace" phrase came from? It was repeated ad naseum after 9/11. It was like the elephant in the living room. The President is on TV repeating that phrase like a parrot when the rest of America knew it was bunk. There is a correlation, all these terrorists adhere to an extremist form of Islam. The fact that many, maybe even most, Muslims don't doesn't mean that a sizable number do. And ignoring this fact, pretending that it doesn't exist, is simply stupid and very dangerous.
 
"One quetion I have is, regardless of religious background, if these folks are all
deemed troublemakers before the incident, why are they allowed to be around
guns and grenades. Why aren't they detained? I mean, two muslim sympathizers
in two muslim-related actions, both judged to be 'no good'... why weren't they
locked up?"

Apparently it's easier, in some circles, to look the other way than to buck the party line.

Something to think about when the war is over maybe.
 
I thought I recognized the cadence to that particular piece of offal...

I've seen Malkin on the O'Reilly Factor a couple of times. Physically, she's good looking, but her idealogy makes her a hag as far as I'm concerned. No one on the left would dare point out that she is a virulent racist because she isn't white, and all the gin-swilling good ol' boys on the hard right love her because she's practically getting away with murder by saying all the sort of stuff they can only think.
I think the writer is pointing out the fallaciousness of the politically correct position that there is absolutely no correlation between these traitorous soldiers and the religion of Islam.
Click to expand...
So? Should we draw a correlation between Christianity and Timothy McVeigh? Maybe there's a correlation between guns and violence, and if we took away all the guns, there wouldn't be any more violence.:rolleyes:

If the guy was indeed a troublemaker beforehand, that's when he should have been stuffed.
 
"Besides, it's already been pointed out that our borders are anything
but open. Those who bemoan the illegal immigration problem at the southern
border invariably fail to address just how they'd go about fixing that issue, short
of the old "military at the borders" thing."

You say Our borders are anything but open? Are you kidding? De facto we have no borders. Yeah, there are ways to deal with the issue. although addressing becomes harder when it's obvious that a lot of people--like yourself?--seem not to want to solve it. The "miltiary at the borders thing" is one option, and though you may consider it extreme it may in fact come to that at some point. Cutting off public monies to illegals would be a good step one, coupled with sanctions against employers who violate hiring prohibitions.
 
"Diversity has indeed tourned into a dirty word for some conservatives. When they
say "diversity", they say it with disgust, because what they really mean to say is
"spicks, fags and *******". Truth is, diversity is the motto of this country, and the
source of its greatest strength. "E Pluribus Unum": From many, One. It means
that anybody can make their way as an American and pursue happiness in their
own way, by leaving everybody else alone to do the same. It means that you can
worship, dress, speak, and act any way you want, as long as you don't harm
anyone or take their stuff. This nation is a giant quilt of colors, religions, and
backgrounds, the only nation in the world where five hundred religions and skin
colors can live next to each other without constantly waging war against each
other."

The "unum" in that motto makes clear that in some things all "real Americans" must be in agreement. We do have a Bill of Rights that lays out our inalienable rights. Perhaps in your puffed-up defense of Islam you can explain to us how that faith is compatible with the principles of freedom that we have enshrined in our seminal documents? As for "diversity" as the new ideological flag, some of us are able to find diversity in every individual who is a citizen of this nation and don't have to look for it in the broad demographic categories of sociologists and social engineers. I think the right to be left alone is indeed important, but frankly I find it hard to reconcile that with "submission" and religious law that would supplant civil law.
 
The "unum" in that motto makes clear that in some things all "real Americans" must be in agreement.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I already said that "real Americans" must respect their neighbors' right to do and believe as they please, as long as they're not infringing on someone else's rights. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about. I do not care what religion my neighbor adheres to, as long as he leaves me alone to believe as I wish.

We do have a Bill of Rights that lays out our inalienable rights. Perhaps in your puffed-up defense of Islam you can explain to us how that faith is compatible with the principles of freedom that we have enshrined in our seminal documents?
Click to expand...

I am not "defending Islam", just the right of people to be Muslims if they want to be, as long as they harm no one. I don't believe that Muslims should have to explain themselves to self-appointed Guardians of Freedom. If you harm people in the name of your faith, you should go to jail or be killed, and it doesn't matter to me whether you call yourself Muslim, Christian, or Great Pumpkin worshipper. If you don't harm people, you should be able to believe as you please, without having to answer to the Patriotism Police.

That is, in fact, one of the principles we have "enshrined in our seminal documents", right in the first amendment to the Constitution.
 
Besides, it's already been pointed out that our borders are anything but open. Those who bemoan the illegal immigration problem at the southern border invariably fail to address just how they'd go about fixing that issue, short of the old "military at the borders" thing.
Click to expand...

Life on the border...

Or you can go camping down near the border & see for yourself how "secure" our borders are... :scrutiny:
 
Cutting off public monies to illegals would be a good step one, coupled with sanctions against employers who violate hiring prohibitions.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm a libertarian. You won't ever find me in favor of public money going to anyone, legal or not. No welfare, no free health care, nada. Nobody has the right to loot their neighbors' wallet for whatever noble cause.

Do we have an illegal immigration problem? Sure! But guess what: as long as the world's richest nation is right next door to one of the world's poorest, you will always have illegal immigration, no matter how much barbed wire you put up.

But what to do about it? Illegal immigration is already against the law. Hiring anyone without proper work documentation is already against the law. What are you proposing to do, make all these acts even more illegal?

That leaves the whole "military at the borders" thing. Never mind the fact that the worst thing you can do to troop morale is garrison duty, how do you propose we close a desert border that's almost 3,000 miles long? That's more land than you can cover with every single fighting division in the U.S.Army and Marine Corps. Even if you could do it, what are we going to do with people who still try to hop the fence...machine-gun them?

How do we close that porous border of ours and manage to not turn into East Germany? Are you willing to shoot women and children? And if not, why would you ask some 19-year-old private to do it for you? The inner-German border was the most heavily guarded border in the history of the world, and it was still leaking, because people were determined enough to get through, even with snipers and mine fields in place.

Listen, a free country cannot ever be hermetically sealed and remain a free country. If you have a workable solution that doesn't turn us into a gigantic concentration camp with McDonald's and Six Flags, let's hear it.

I am all for stopping government handouts, though. I just wouldn't limit it to illegals.
 
Yeah, saying we need to "seal our borders" is basically an appeal to magic. It is also way off topic. :D
 
And he wasn't for precisely some of the reasons that she outlined.
Click to expand...
That's purely speculative conjecture on the part of the author, someone who, I might point out, has an obvious axe to grind.
Not saying it isn't a likely possibility, but it's not like this sort of thing is uncommon. The institution of the military is willing to cover for their own, right or wrong. (As an example, look at the current scandal in the Air Force Academy.)
 
The institution of the military is willing to cover for their own, right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Oh. You must have served in a different military than the one I served in. The one guy in my unit that used potentially deadly force (he hurled a sledge hammer at our leading Petty Officer's head) against his superior, got his *** handed to him at a Court Martial. OTOH he was a white Christian. :rolleyes:
 
Look, I'm not trying to go on a big 'The Military is Evil' rant, because I know better. Every organization does this to one extent or another. When my brother was in the Army, there was a guy (E7, I think?) who got busted with a pile of cocaine. They knocked him back to E1 or E2, within 3 months he was back up to being an E6.
 
Justin...

"The institution of the military is willing to cover for their own, right or wrong. (As an example, look at the current scandal in the Air Force Academy.)"

I think that you could say that same thing about ANY institution, including your own. People are generally prone to resist having their own kind tarnished unless it is so much in the open that in the words of the Borg, "Resistance is futile.". Look at how the members of Congress turn the other way when one of theirs (or a sitting President) is accused of mis-deeds.

Your use of the current AFA problem as an example can also be looked at as being rather self-serving. I am sure that it provides quite a bit of material for your station.
 
for those who believe nothing can be done about illegal immigration

The situation will change when:

a) The economy in California gets so bad--soon enough--that middle-class parents can no longer keep their daughters in cellphones and Civics.

b) Lawyers used to spewing forth boilerplate for 200 fazools an hour find that English-speaking gents in India and Hong Kong can do their job better for $20 an hour and can hire another American lawyer to bypass any legal hurdles involved in the farm-outs.
 
I generally agree with and enjoy Michelle Malkin's columns.

But in the past several years of visiting TFL and THR, I've yet to disagree with my fellow libertarians Tamara and lendsringer. I guess that's one of the good things about a political philosophy based on timeless principles, rather than pragmatic political expediency.

But I'm willing to cut Malkin some slack; it's probably hard to have to write a good column several times a week. And one of the main points of a column is to get people thinking, to provoke them somewhat. And this she has obviously done, as evidenced by the above.
 
So far it IS an isolated, individual act

Um, yeah, except for the other four examples she gives (not in this conflict).
Click to expand...
Not to burst your bubble, but re-reading the Malkin article, and the other cases, it DOES NOT seem like an isolated individual act.

Whats that phrase...

Once is an accident
Twice is a coincidence
Thrice is an enemy action
Click to expand...
Okay. Let's say four blacks, in SEPARATE incidents, killed white women. The first one did so, because he hates whites. The second one did so, because he hates women. The third did so, because he wanted money from her (and she refused). The fourth did so, because he raped her and didn't want her to testify against him.

When apprehended, all claimed that they are being prosecuted "because they're black. This is a white man's witch hunt."

Is the causal factor for ALL the killings in this scenario that the perpetrators are "black." Or is "black" merely a NON-CAUSAL correlation?

If you can answer that, you can tell what I am going to say about Malkin's "four examples" which she uses to suggest that Islam is the causal factor.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about physical violence, but there have been Christians and Jews who have treasoned against the US because of their religious/ethnic affiliations. Of course, there was only a very small number - certainly not nearly enough to represent the vast majority of such groups who remained and remain loyal to the US.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is why I specifically asked about military people and murder.

Do you happen to recall which military people "treasoned against the US because of their religious/ethnic affiliations."

I don't recall any. And to clarify, my original question was about religion, not ethnicity. That is especially important here, since Muslim isn't an "ethnicity".

Do you know of any Japanese-Americans that deserted their enlistments/commissions to leave and fight against us? I don't.
Click to expand...
Yes, but now you are fashioning the criteria to fit your chosen solution. Meaning, what is the point of your question about Islam seeming to be unique in causing treason? That Islam pre-disposes someone to be anti-American and treasonous?

Here is an alternate explanation. Maybe the few Christians and Jews who were treasonous never made it past the screening process to be in the military in the past (so they became treasonous in other ways, for example, give up citizenship and join enemy military - which happened with the Japanese-Americans - or work in Intel and siphon information to the country of your correligionists - which happened with Jewish-Americans). And perhaps that screening process is now so weakened that treasonous people (Muslim or no) can get past it. In that case, the responsible factor is the failure of the screening process, not Islam.
I think the writer is pointing out the fallaciousness of the politically correct position that there is absolutely no correlation between these traitorous soldiers and the religion of Islam.
Click to expand...
Correlation, perhaps. Causation, yet to be proven. You know the difference, right?
There is a correlation, all these terrorists adhere to an extremist form of Islam. The fact that many, maybe even most, Muslims don't doesn't mean that a sizable number do. And ignoring this fact, pretending that it doesn't exist, is simply stupid and very dangerous (my emphais)
Click to expand...
I don't ignore the fact that extremist Islam can foster terrorism. But that's a different thing than an argument that Islam - as a whole - fosters terrorism. The crux of the matter seems to be "EXTREMIST" as you put. It's all a matter of emphasis. I see no reason why what the President stated is in conflict with what I just wrote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the writer is pointing out the fallaciousness of the politically correct position that there is absolutely no correlation between these traitorous soldiers and the religion of Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So? Should we draw a correlation between Christianity and Timothy McVeigh? Maybe there's a correlation between guns and violence, and if we took away all the guns, there wouldn't be any more violence.
Click to expand...
There IS a correlation between guns and violence. However, there is NO established causation - that guns CAUSE violence.

Put another way, people who are drawn to violence are often also drawn to guns (weapons). But that does mean that people who are drawn to guns are also necessarily drawn to violence (If A, then B does NOT mean If B, then A - which is rudimentary logic)?

Similarly, people who are prone to terrorism (in Islamic societies) are drawn to Islam (particular a radical form). That does not mean that people who are drawn to Islam are necessarily drawn to terrorism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
U.S. fears attacks from Muslims in armed forces
Replies
0
Views
303
2dogs
2
F
  • Locked
Pentagon Jihadis
Replies
0
Views
286
FRIZ
F
2
  • Locked
Homegrown Jihad
Replies
0
Views
304
2dogs
2
2
  • Locked
GI held in base attack made anti-U.S. remarks
Replies
17
Views
604
coonan357
C
2
  • Locked
Army: U.S. Soldier Acted Out of Resentment in Grenade Attack
Replies
6
Views
505
Leatherneck
L
Back
Top