Should Muslims be in the military?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If so, then it is roughly similar to letting pastors of "Christian Identity" movement into the ranks.
Click to expand...

I assume "Christian Identity" is some extremist group...? It would be similar if ONLY Christian Identity chaplains were allowed. Do you follow me? The ONLY Muslim clerics allowed are Wahhabs - a sect devoted to destroying all western elements. Do you not see the insanity here? The military refuses to allow moderate Sunni's or Shiites into the ranks!

I don't think people who preach violence should be allowed to suck on the government teat - whether Muslim, Christian or something else.

Keith
 
Correct, and it's insane that Whahhabi have any role in choosing chaplains for the military because of its advocacy of illegal actions,
Click to expand...

Go back and follow the link to the Washington Times article I posted above. The military only approves chaplains forwarded by three Wahhab groups who are tied to terrorism.

READ the article!

Keith
 
Lone Gunman said:
The only problem with keeping fanatics out, and letting regular Muslims in, is that no one can tell the difference until its too late.
----
Gotta respectfully disagree. This is the same sort of thinking that lets some folks say "he could go nuts at any time, lets take his gun away". It's a way of looking for thought crimes. We have to accept that our laws enforce action against the -actions- of others, not what they might someday do. In the same way, we have to accept that -some- muslims in the military might do bad things in the future. The question would be are they doing bad things because they're muslim. And the answer is no. Islam does not call for attack on us. Some leaders in the Wahabi sect have, and I'd say screening out -those- people makes a lot of sense. Otherwise if someone want's to fight for my country I don't care if they're biting the heads of snakes Sunday mornings or bowing to the east three times a day. On the whole, a lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds serve our military well. just imo
 
What in your subsequent posts limited this in any way to those relatively few who wish harm against the US?

OK, for the understanding impaired, those who could read my other posts but not quite figure it out- no not all Muslims. Just the nasty ones who want to kill us.

Got it now?:rolleyes:
 
OK, for the understanding impaired, those who could read my other posts but not quite figure it out- no not all Muslims. Just the nasty ones who want to kill us.
Click to expand...

Do you recall the post where you discussed the "group 'x' pilots?" Although you talked about particular Muslims, you then went onto to discuss the entire group should be restricted because of the actions of those few.

I'm beginning to think that you really have forgotten the positions you've taken in this discussion.
 
I don't think people who preach violence should be allowed to suck on the government teat - whether Muslim, Christian or something else.
Click to expand...

Nah, I like people who preach violence . . . violence towards our enemies. If we went with people who preach peace . . . I just had a mental picture of a Marine DI with daisies in his hair. Oy vey!
 
Slapping a label on an argument doesn't refute it. If you'd like to get busy on the proof, then we can talk.
Click to expand...

And using the same logical fallacies over and over doesn't make them stop being fallacies. Though, to use the Nazi analogies you like, you can eventually fool alot of people that way. And if you can't wrap your brain around the fact that what is being discussed here is alot different from discussing if all the Muslims should be gassed, then explaining False Analogy to you ain't gonna happen. :rolleyes:
 
Sean,

You are right. False Analogies are bad. But you haven't made any sort of attempt to establish that my arguments are False Analogies. You have offered the label, but haven't shown me that it can stick. That's what I meant by "get busy on the proof."

pax

Convincing yourself does not win an argument. -- Robert Half
 
There has always been and will always be conflict based on religion. The only solutions are to moderate religion or to make all citizens adopt one religion. Adherence to the "religion" of secularism is dying; more and more people are becoming rather vocal adherents of Christianity (following GWB's lead, and there's not much disapproval in congress when the Senate passes a resolution 99-0 condemning an attempt to remove "under God" from the pledge).

If a nation has conflicting religions/belief structures that can't be mediated, the only solution is to eliminate one of them (by conversion to the majority's religion/doctrine, war, or deporation in this case).

What's the goal? To preserve society? To keep most people happy even if society is crumbling? Which people should be kept happy if some must be sacrificed to preserve society? If society is degenerating, and if it can be repaired through intolerance (of Democrats, muslims, bureaucrats, big business, PETA, whatever), is intolerance still the greater evil? Look at Iraq. If the U.S. had a choice between preserving itself and disintegrating, and chose to disintegrate in the hope of forming a better country, would that happen? How are the sources of faction erased just by dissolution of a government? I don't think the people of this country could construct another constitutional republic if it collapsed. Next stop: tyranny. But on the opposing side, would eschewing tolerance to preserve society maintain the republic indefinitely?

Assuming the United States government won't last forever, is liberty really the paramount concern until the moment the nation converts to an empire ruled by some tyrant who means to get the country back on track but is unskilled and manages to bungle things so much that it takes several more rulers for things to get back to normal, at which point nobody remembers freedom anymore?
 
To answer the core question - we cannot discriminate against a religion as diverse in beliefs as Islam is claimed to be.

There is evidence that many Muslims in the USA are loyal and patriotric citizens. It is even their right to state that there one can understand the justification of the 9/11 attacks based on support for Israel.

(However, most scholars don't think this is really the case. Also, even if you understand as a Muslim, you must be ready to give your life to stop any such further attacks, independent of the political process. Nor can you give any comfort to a group who cares out such attacks).

The real issue in my mind is whether there are identifiable subgroups of Islam that preach hate and destruction for the USA and recruit folks to support that cause and subvert our armed forces. It is legitimate to try to determine if someone belongs to that subgroup. If there was a Wahhabist mosque in your town that did preach that way and it was your mosque, it is legitimate to look closely at you. I would do the same to a Christian Identity member also as they might not be able to function within the goals of our armed forces.

I would also agree with Rock Jock that while many Muslims have denounced 9/11, that caveat is always there. I've heard it on talk radio here just to cite one case. I have NOT seen a giant Islamic march for patriotric purposes. It would have been nice.
 
Keith, that article was published today. But the story about the Wahhabi certifying chaplains broke months ago and was the subject of a thread already. That was the article I was referencing. I misspoke by linking today's article.
 
Sure...use them for minesweepers!


Seriously....put the AK down!!!!

Whack jobs and women should not be in the military

Everyone else is fine...and I will at least discuss the women part.
 
Instead of Jews/Nazis, to understand where this idea comes from can be found in looking at how the US treated citizens during WWII. The Japanese, Germans and Italians were all discriminated against during the war.

However, much more was done to those of Japanese decent than German or Italian. Why did this happen?

First, the Japanese directly attacked the US while Germany and Italy steered clear until after Pearl Harbor. This parallels with the attack on 9/11 by fanatical Muslims.

Second, at that time, there were few Japanese in the US compared to other immigrants, and most of those were either in Hawaii or California. Their physical characteristics made them easy to identify relative to those of European decent. At present, outside the large cities, there are relatively few Arabic/Muslims in the local population and they are easily identifiable by their physical characteristics.

Third, during the 40s, most Americans were fimiliar with European history, yet most people had little knowledge of the Japanese. The same can be said of the Arabs and the history of the mid-east. Even today, most Americans know virtually nothing about them other than what they see on TV.

When you combine the fear created in the US by the 9/11 attacks, the lack of knowledge of Arabs and Islam, the fact those of Arabic decent are easily recognized (most, not all), and the first thing people think about is putting restrictions on them and keeping a close eye on their activities. Since you can't tell a "good" Arab from a "bad" Arab just by looking at them, just like they did to the Japanese, the tendency is to go ahead and consider all of them as "bad" until proven otherwise.

Another good analogy is guns. Some moron shoots a bunch of kids with a look-alike machinegun and the nation erupts with an across the board ban on all guns that remotely resemble the one used. Makes no difference that this was an isolated incident. Many were afraid, had no knowledge of firearms and could easily identify an "assault weapon" when they saw one. Their way of dealing with it was to ban or seriously restrict those evil looking guns.
 
I just saw a certain liberal Senator (Chuckie:barf: Schumer) on TV asking how this situation (the possible infiltration of our military by al Queda- his words not mine) could happen. And the answer?

To anyone who thinks my posts are anti Muslim (quite honestly I don't know any Muslims, and I don't make judgements of anyone on any basis other than, to paraphrase MLK, the content of their character) or that I am implying that Muslim Americans generally should be rounded up for the camps- well you can think what you want and you will be dead wrong.

To restate facts:

1. The people who have commited terrorist acts against the U.S. going back at least to the early 80's are, for the most part (excluding lone wackos such as McVeigh or Kozinski) self proclaimed Muslims.

2. These people are, by their own statements, in a war against all infidels- i.e. anyone who is not a Muslim and they proclaim that this is done in service to Allah and their faith.

3. According to Daniel Pipes: "Islamism is a radical, utopian movement that has much in common with fascism and Marxism-Leninism............. estimates 10 percent to 15 percent of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide are Islamists."

Well 10-15% of 1.2 billion is one hell of a lotta folks wanting to kill non believers- and in the last 25 years or so they have gone about doing just that, in countries all around the world, and mostly killing civilians.

So to those who say it's "unfair" to keep Muslims out of the military (or even from working at the local Nuke plant-not rounding them up, not burning them or gassing them ) my qustion then is: how would you propose that we keep one of the 100,000,000 or so who live for the chance to kill as many of us as they can from doing so? Politeness is fine unless many lives are at risk, no?

What is YOUR plan?

Wait until thousands are dead and then try to understand that they WERE all Muslims (weren't the 19 hijackers?) or Islamists, or whatever distinction you want to make and whatever they choose to call themselves, but that we should never consider that in taking precautions. OK fine- tell that to the dead. You tell me how we prevent this- rather than cleaning up after the mess.

You don't want to paint the 1.2 billion Muslims with the same brush- how about the 100,000,000 Islamists? Is that more fair? Fine, now tell me how you determine who is one of the benign Muslims and who is one of the mad dog killer types- ask them? Oh no, we wouldn't want to insult anyone by asking if they are nice folks OR JIHADIST SCUM. (Hey Chuckie- that's how the "infiltration" happens).

Oh I know- let's weed out all 96 year old Presbyterian grandma's and ignore such thorny issues (ewwwwww) as religion or ideology, or any of the things that might actually be beneficial in SAVING LIVES. All because we don't want to be oh so impolite as to suggest that maybe a possible fanatic should be insulted by being asked if he minds sitting this one out.
 
Should Muslims be in the military?
...
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?

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.
Click to expand...

Given that European-stock, "Christian" male soldiers commit assaults and sundry other crimes every damn day, I must conclude that no white, Christian males should be allowed to serve our great country.

SPC John Shirley
A CO 1-5 IN
 
2dogs,

What percentage of communists killed tens of millions of people in the last century? In their own countries?

What percentage of "Christians" killed millions during the Holocaust?

What percentage of "Christians" killed, pillaged, and raped wantonly during the Crusades?

Let's compare the dead. I think you'll find that your "Islamists" are nowhere near the top in the scalp count, if you are openminded enough to consider the logical conclusions of your postulates.

Sure, let's talk about "saving lives". You are just starting at the wrong place.

John
 
J Shirley, there is only one problem with the point you make...

The communists who killed millions last century, the christians who killed thousands during the crusades, and the nazis who killed the jews are all, for the most part, DEAD now, and therefore don't pose a threat.

I would certainly be opposed to any of those groups doing any of those dirty deeds now, just as I am opposed to muslim fundamentalists doing it.

The communists, nazis, and dark age Christians are all laying low for the time being, more or less at least. The current problems seem to be caused by muslim fanatics, so it would seem appropriate to direct attention there.

I don't doubt that atrocities have been commited in the name of any god you might pick. But the current problem is with fundamentalist muslims, and that is what this thread is concerning.

As far as scalp count is concerned, the muslims seem to be doing pretty good since September 11, 2001.

Given that European-stock, "Christian" male soldiers commit assaults and sundry other crimes every damn day, I must conclude that no white, Christian males should be allowed to serve our great country.
Click to expand...

I would submit that assault does not rise to the same level of crime as killing several thousand US citizens, fragging your own troops, or spying for al qaeda.


My opinion, though, is that muslims should be allowed to serve, but they need to be scrutinized more carefully than other groups.
 
Let me see if I have this right:

Either we don't scrutinize at all, or we put 'em all in concentration camps.
 
Neither I

nor any reasonable person has a problem with the concept that we should not blame an entire group for the actions of a few. Likewise the fact that appearances can't be the sole basis for judging people, etc., etc.

But what I'm reading on this thread is that pointing out the fact the holocaust isn't happening here is the same as saying it can't happen here, or even that it's OK if it does happen here. That taking a good close look at the group from which a particular set of mass murderers came leads irrevocably to another Japanese internment. And that, by extension, those of us who find it acceptable to, for example, look closely at Muslim groups in our effort to prevent more terror, are willing to tolerate another holocaust or internment "so long as it's not done to our kind".

Can anybody see how insulting that is? I don't think I'm erecting a straw man here. I'm describing the thrust of the postings, and that thrust is not an argument. It's name-calling dressed up nice.
 
And that, by extension, those of us who find it acceptable to, for example, look closely at Muslim groups in our effort to prevent more terror, are willing to tolerate another holocaust or internment "so long as it's not done to our kind".
Click to expand...

That is essentially the issue in a nutshell. Either we treat everyone as American citizens or we pick out the group we are currently most afraid of and put them behind a guarded fence. There is a strong argument about looking at one group closely and "racial profiling", which is currently politically incorrect. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to make that judgement.

As far as the military goes, everyone gets a background check and as your access requires a higher clearence, that background check gets more intensive. Anyone that can pass that background checks should be allowed to serve if they are qualified.
 
As far as the military goes, everyone gets a background check and as your access requires a higher clearence, that background check gets more intensive. Anyone that can pass that background checks should be allowed to serve if they are qualified.

Background check!? But, but if we ask them (even real nice and polite like) if they are Bin Laden fans, we might hurt their feelings. Might get CAIR all worked up. Nope, much better to just give him those B-1 bomber controls and hope for the best.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

P.S. I guess the Al Queda guys who got in were background checked? Or was that deemed to insensitive?

Yep strong questions like "Do you want to help Bin Laden succeed in killing all infidels" might be a tad, well, distasteful.

Oh my. Could lead to death camps and pogroms.
 
"...All they think about is the Spies, and the war, of course. D'you know what that little girl of mine did last Saturday, when her troop was on a hike out Berkhampstead way? She got two other girls to go with her, slipped off from the hike, and spent the whole afternoon following a strange man. They kept on his tail for two hours, right through the woods, and then, when they got into Amersham, handed him over to the patrols."
"What did they do that for?" said Winston, somewhat taken aback. Parsons went on triumphantly:
"My kid made sure he was some kind of enemy agent__might have been dropped by parachute, for instance. But here's the point, old boy. What do you think put her onto him in the first place? She spotted he was wearing a funny kind of shoes__she said she'd never seen anyone wearing shoes like that before. So the chances were he was a foreigner. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?"
"What happened to the man? said Winston.
"Ah, that I couldn't say, of course. But I wouldn't be surprised if__" Parsons made the motion of aiming a rifle, and clicked his tongue for the explosion.
"Good," said Syme, abstractedly, without looking up from his strip of paper.
"Of course we can't afford to take chances," agreed Winston dutifully.
"What I mean to say, there is a war on," said Parsons.
 
HK is spot on. There are checks & balances already in place. My father had some dealings with an, ahem, "agency" when we were stationed in Tehran. These people were aware that two of my uncles on my mom's side of the family had been affiliated with the Maquis (French resistance) during WWII. The Maquis had communist leanings in addition to resistance duties. Anything "communistic" in the '60s raised a red (sorry) flag.

Color me naive perhaps but I think the conflict over the Occupied Territories is where the majority of ill-will toward anything American comes from. Our "decadence" may grate a bit on their sensibilities, our unflagging support of Israel infuriates them. What if one is a Christian & empathizes with the Palestinians? Fit for duty in the U.S. Armed Forces?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Charges Dismissed Against Muslim Chaplain
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
CarlS
C
R
  • Locked
The "Should Muslims be Allowed in the military" question takes on a new dimension
Replies
10
Views
560
Drjones
D
J
  • Locked
FBI Reviews Muslims' Military Role
Replies
0
Views
523
Jeff White
J
2
  • Locked
U.S. fears attacks from Muslims in armed forces
Replies
0
Views
303
2dogs
2
F
  • Locked
Pentagon Jihadis
Replies
0
Views
289
FRIZ
F
Back
Top