Should Muslims be in the military?

[Khornet]

To invoke the Holocaust

in discussing the present situation of American Muslims is to carelessly trivialize the real thing. And it's a good way to ensure another Holocaust, because once it's been trivialized enough no one will fear it anymore.

Sorry, guys, it ain't a new Holocaust every time a screener looks twice at a guy who looks just like the last 19 guys to commit mass murder in America. And if not all Islamist terrorists look like bin Laden, does it follow that we should ignore those who do?

We can either accept extra scrutiny now, or be prepared for the mass hysteria which will follow another 9-11. And let's not forget that there are plenty of Muslims among the many Americans who haven't died in terror attacks since 9-11.

 

[Chuck Dye]

Which one?

To me, the only sensible answer to the question of whether a group should be permitted or barred, allowed or denied this, that or the other right, privilege, or resource is "WHICH ONE?"

And, yes, I really would love to see your data (in this case, evidence) regarding the INDIVIDUAL.

 

[Intune]

Sorry, guys, it ain't a new Holocaust every time a screener looks twice at a guy who looks just like the last 19 guys to commit mass murder in America. And if not all Islamist terrorists look like bin Laden, does it follow that we should ignore those who do?

Most American Muslims DON'T look like Bin Laden. Sheesh! I believe they are Black! Now, let's see you deal with that can-o-worms.

 

[2dogs]

Look at a person's ideas/actions, not their skin or nationality

Gee, I thought that's EXACTLY what I was talking about. Anyway, I don't recall condemning anyone's skin/nationality.

But then.......arrghharrgh......i'm.........all..............twisted up...................aargghrrrhgg........in this.................infernal.......................bed sheet- dunce cap keeps..............slipping over my eyes...........................damn!

 

[Intune]

From the original post-

IIRC there weren't this many Italian Americans, or German American or Japanese American U.S. soldiers in all of WWII that couldn't be trusted.

Wow! A whole THREE people! But they were MUSLIM. (Shudder!)

Somebody do an internet search and see if ANYONE with an AXIS ancestory did anything wrong in WWII.

I WILL NOT paint any group of people with a brush as broad as religion. Carry on.

 

[buzz_knox]

Gee, I thought that's EXACTLY what I was talking about. Anyway, I don't recall condemning anyone's skin/nationality.

No, you were just advocating a ban on those with a particular religion (the clear implication of your very first post). So, I withdraw the statement concerning racism, and replace it with simply discriminatory. The analogy to the bed sheet still works. As for whether it applies to you, only you can decide that. Calling for the prohibition of Muslims from the military is rather telling, though.

 

[Intune]

Before I get up and take a walk to calm down, can anyone GUESS what religion most Arab-Americans (whether they look like Bin Laden or not) belong to? Anyone of you potential "screeners" want to answer?

 

[pax]

To invoke the Holocaust in discussing the present situation of American Muslims is to carelessly trivialize the real thing. And it's a good way to ensure another Holocaust, because once it's been trivialized enough no one will fear it anymore.

That's the problem. Nobody fears it. They think it can't happen here.

They think the Germans just woke up one day and decided to march all their Jews off to concentration camps. It didn't happen that way. There were precursors -- warnings -- signs -- that their country was headed that direction. And the good people didn't speak up, because they were never quite sure that that was where it was headed. They didn't speak up because people called them alarmists. They didn't speak up because what would be the point? -- no one was listening anyhow.

So go ahead and debate. Go ahead and discuss the issue. Go ahead and claim it's not analogous, because we're only discussing denying "them" the civil right to serve in the military, not marching them off to camps. Go ahead and wonder if maybe Americans should pull this civil right away from that group of people within our borders). Go ahead and proclaim that they are the cause of all our current problems.

Go ahead and decide that folks who speak against this mindset are paranoids and alarmists.

But when it is all over, don't stand over their graves and proclaim "never again." Your grandchildren will think you meant it never could happen again.

pax

Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. ...So you wait, and you wait. But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. ... And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self deception has grown too heavy .... You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). -- Milton Mayer, writing about Nazi Germany in They Thought They Were Free

 

[Thumper]

Simple question:

Does the majority of the Islamic world see the U.S. as the Great Satan?

If so, there are millions out there OF A CERTAIN ATTRIBUTE who advocate th downfall of the U.S.

Please convince me that I should remain in Condition White with regards to those of that attribute.

Tell me why it is not prudent to view Muslims with suspicion.

(I'm serious...I really want reasons. My inclination is to be suspicious, and I'd like to change my mind.)

 

[buzz_knox]

Tell me why it is not prudent to view Muslims with suspicion.

I view everyone with suspicion until they prove themselves to me. And even then, I keep an eye on them just in case they snap. Never know when Mom's going to bust a cap in your a$$.

 

[Intune]

YES! Thank you Pax! Cyber applause! As long as "our" group is not the target...

 

[Intune]

The Arab-American Institute (AAI), claims there are 3.5 million Americans who have some Arab heritage, the majority of whom are Lebanese. More noteworthy still, AAI also reports the Christian component to be 75 percent, while the Muslim component is only 25 percent i.e. around 850,000 Arab-Americans.

 

[Thumper]

Ok, buzz...you're always in orange? Never in yellow?

If not, what would constitute a switch to yellow (or red)?

Obvious gang members approaching, perhaps?

 

[Sean Smith]

Slippery Slope

Definition:

In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator.

Examples:
(i) If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.

(ii) You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.

(iii) If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone.

Proof:
Identify the proposition P being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then show that this final event need not occur as a consequence of P.
References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 137

False Analogy

Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to
be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so
also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two
objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether
they both have property P.

Examples:
(i) Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the
head in order to make them work, so must employees.
(ii) Government is like business, so just as business must be
sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must
government. (But the objectives of government and business
are completely different, so probably they will have to meet
different criteria.)

Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the
property which both are said to possess. Show that the two
objects are different in a way which will affect whether they
both have that property.

References:
Barker: 192, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 257, Davis: 84

 

[Preacherman]

Folks, I think that the biggest single mistake being made by many posters - which has dragged this thread rather far off topic, too - is to equate the individual with the group. There are innumerable examples throughout history - and in our own personal experience, if we think about it - to prove that an individual does not and cannot be taken as a representative example of a group. Think about this.

In Catholicism, we have priests who have been tried and convicted of paedophilia. Their actions stink in the nostrils of all faithful Catholics. However, we also have people like a Mother Teresa, who is already regarded as a saint by many Catholics, and has even had temples built to her by Hindus, who already venerate her as a saint! Which one is "representative" of Catholicism? Obviously, neither is - one represents the depths to which a human being can fall, the other represents the heights to which a human being can rise. Most Catholics are at neither extreme, but somewhere in the middle. Does that make them automatically suspect of the depths until they've proved they've risen to the heights? Of course not!

In Judaism, we have people like the Stern Gang (and, in our own time, the leader of the Jewish Defence League out in California) who plotted and (in the former case) carried out terrorist activities, resulting in the deaths of many innocent people. We also have a Yitshak Rabin, who gave his life to the cause of peace. Which is representative of Judaism as a whole? Obviously, neither is.

In Islam, we have fanatical terrorists who gleefully murder thousands of innocent people in the name of their warped, twisted vision of Islam. We also have those who give their lives - literally - in the service of humankind, without thought of race, creed or color. I had the privilege of working with several Muslims like that back in South Africa, trying to help the victims of violence. They were at least as dedicated as I was to trying to help those in such ghastly circumstances - even more so, I daresay. The first time I was shot, it was a Muslim colleague who put his own life on the line to get me out of the danger zone, apply a dressing, and get me off to a hospital. That brother (and yes, I consider him my brother before God) was later killed in another incident, and I had the tragic duty to inform his family of his death. I still mourn him, and look forward to meeting him one day in God's kingdom. How this will happen, I don't know: but I'm as sure of his salvation as of my own, because he "laid down his life for his friends".

So please don't equate the individual with the group - any individual with any group. If Derek has to take to that foxhole, I'll be there with him!

 

[Delmar]

Remember when the bad guys, who didn't have a flag to fly were called guerilla fighters?

In this day and age, it would be suicidal for a country to wave a flag and call us out at high noon. Better get used to this kind of fighting, because it looks like the wave of the future....

Lotsa good points here, but it might be better to call the terrorists something other than Muslim-I don't call Jim Jones or abortion clinic bombers Christians, they're murderers. The people making these attacks have no battlefield rights under the Geneva or Hague conventions, and should be snuffed out like the bad smell they are. Calling the terrorists Muslims IMO, is a bad label. Kind of like calling all those of German decent Nazi's back in the 1940's. Eisenhower would not have been impressed with that label at all.

Putting a religious label on a general group of people is dangerous to all people. As dangerous as race labeling or anything else.

Intel and first class detective work is going to win this war-not which religion we are going to investigate more. If we must tighten up our background checks on military recruits, make it uniform. Who knows what you're going to find? Maybe a budding McVeigh? Follow the leads and follow the money-thats where you are likely to find the bad people.

 

[2dogs]

is it time to question the wisdom of putting Muslims in the military?

What I said.



you were just advocating a ban on those with a particular religion (the clear implication of your very first post)

What psychic ability makes possible.

I'll tell you what will lead to the dreaded cattle cars and barbed wire and camps- it's fighting a war WITHOUT DEFINING WHO THE ENEMY is. The easiest way to figure out who the enemy isn't is to figure out who the enemy is. Now if you want to discount their religion (and thus ideology) and anything else that might set them apart, you better prepare for a whole lot of dead friends and relatives.

Thus my original "implication"- that it may be time to fine tune the discernment process- not start jailing and killing everyone we don't like.

So don't fling such reactionary, liberal, knee jerk do good "oohhh let's not hurt anyone's feelings" bunk.

Whew.

 

[buzz_knox]

Ok, buzz...you're always in orange? Never in yellow?

I think yellow is the condition I was jokingly referring to. Cooper once said that a well-adjusted individual can stay in yellow for life and live normally. That's true, since we should always have our head up looking for danger unless our area is absolutely secure from all possible dangers, natural or intelligent.

As for gang bangers, nah, I don't go to orange. I go somewhere else, if at all possible.

 

[Thumper]

Preacherman,

Of course there are "good" Muslims.

But are you asking us to ignore the ONE attribute those we seek share?

How is that prudent?

 

[Keith]

So please don't equate the individual with the group - any individual with any group.

Do you understand that there are Muslim religious groups devoted to destroying all non-Muslim elements on earth? Wahhab is one such sect and it's blind political correctness not to recognize this fact!

If an individual is associated with Wahhabism they are enemies of humanism, capitalism, Chistianity and Judeaism, period. And nobody wants to recognize this fact - they are inducting Wahhabi chaplains into the military while refusing entry to moderate Sunni Muslims. The whole thing is just insane!

Keith

 

[pax]

Sean,

Slapping a label on an argument doesn't refute it. If you'd like to get busy on the proof, then we can talk.

pax

Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall perish by it. -- Samuel Butler

 

[buzz_knox]

What psychic ability makes possible.

No, just reading comprehension. Or are you disavowing the following from your original post.

Given these two developments (The Muslim chaplain and the interpreter)and the Muslim American soldier who threw a grenade into our GI's tent and killed (a few?) of them- is it time to question the wisdom of putting Muslims in the military?

That is called a leading question, in that it implies an answer.

I don't see anything about particular Muslims, Wahhabi followers, etc. What in your subsequent posts limited this in any way to those relatively few who wish harm against the US?

As for identifying the enemy, it's simple: the enemy is that person who wants to destroy our way of life and our freedoms. That person sometimes shouts "Allahu Ackbar" (pardon the possible spelling errors) and sometimes shouts "we can't trust any of those type of people."

 

[Bill Hook]

Here's an interesting fact; the military chooses it's Muslim chaplains, not from Sunni or even Shiite groups (moderate Islam), but from the same extremist Wahhabi sect that spawned Bin Laden!

If so, then it is roughly similar to letting pastors of "Christian Identity" movement into the ranks.

 

[Preacherman]

Thumper, your question demonstrates the nature of the problem...

- Since Timothy McVeigh was a fundamentalist Christian, are we to regard all fundamentalist Christians as automatically suspect because of the one attribute (their faith) that they share with McVeigh?

- A Presbyterian pastor was executed in Florida a couple of weeks ago for murdering an abortion doctor and his bodyguard. Are we to regard all Presbyterians as automatically suspect because of the one attribute (their faith) that they share with this (now deceased) pastor?

- Catholic priests have been convicted of paedophilia. Are we to regard all Catholics - even all Catholic priests - as automatically suspect because of the one attribute (their faith) that they share with those convicted?

I could go on with page after page of examples, but I think the point is made by these few. You cannot automatically stigmatize the group because of the actions of one or more individuals - it's neither logical, nor rational, nor fair, nor just.

Certainly, in Government work, one should investigate everybody to a greater degree - when I signed on as a prison chaplain, I had to undergo a Federal law enforcement background check, and will have to do so again every five years. I don't object, even though some of it is VERY invasive of my privacy, because I know that in a law enforcement position such as mine, the security requirements for its incumbent are much, much stricter than for a Social Security clerk in a downtown office. The same standards apply - and rightly so - to those in the military, irrespective of their religion.

However, to classify all Muslims as automatically suspect simply because of their religion is to make a mockery of all that America stands for. It's also - as Pax so ably pointed out - to associate ourselves with the philosophies and outlook of Nazism and Adolf Hitler. Sorry, but I will never do that.

 

[buzz_knox]

Wahhab is one such sect and it's blind political correctness not to recognize this fact!

Correct, and it's insane that Whahhabi have any role in choosing chaplains for the military because of its advocacy of illegal actions, regardless of the alleged religious justification. As said above, Christian Identity would never have a role in choosing chaplains, but at the same time, no one is advocating banning Christians from the military just because some alleged Christians have used military training to make explosives, rob banks, etc.