Petreus is out of line

[MaggieMae]

The Constitution allows Patraeus free speech also.

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

McChrystal violated an age-old basic military code of behavior for military personnel. That said, the oft-repeated analogy is that yelling FIRE in a crowded theater isn't protected by the First Amendment.

 

[WillowTree]

an officer's ultimate obligation is to protect the men and women for which he is responsible. i can't fault him for doing that, nor do i think he's out of line.

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?

I did not read what Petreus said exactly. I know that he said that burning the Koran puts the lives of the soldiers in the Middle East more at risk. Did he make any kind of statement about whether or not the church should be allowed to burn the Koran or did he just state that doing so was not good for the war effort?

Personally, I have no problem with him making a statement that burning the Koran makes life harder for the troops. I am opposed to the burning myself, but believe the church has a right to be stupid and unamerican if it so chooses. I must say if I had been a member of that church, I would not be one today.

The church has every right to burn Korans. However, if they are trying to win people to Christ (isn't that supposed to be the mission of every church?) I think that they are going about this the wrong way.

Immie

Well, me being me. I think burning the Koran is a stupid thing to do. It's not worth doing if it cost a soldiers life.

 

[Middleman]

The Constitution allows Patraeus free speech also.

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

Not exactly the same. Wasn't McChrystal making fun of his boss's appointees, people with whom he was working?

I know my bosses would probably fire me if I was interviewed in the paper and made fun of them.

 

[blu]

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.

damn, that is a really good point I hadn't thought of or heard of.

 

[blu]

I can't imagine that the actions of some attention-seeking 'Christian' church will really have an effect on Afghanistan. It was merely a PR moment for Petreus and is a member in good standing of 'Team Obama'.

its already caused issues and there has been riots for days

 

[Middleman]

The Constitution allows Patraeus free speech also.

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

McChrystal violated an age-old basic military code of behavior for military personnel. That said, the oft-repeated analogy is that yelling FIRE in a crowded theater isn't protected by the First Amendment.

That's not the same. Nothing McChystal did was illegal. But it did make his boss angry, it undermined working relations, and it cost him his job. But, he was free to state his opinion and didn't risk being thrown in jail.

 

[Charles_Main]

I can't imagine that the actions of some attention-seeking 'Christian' church will really have an effect on Afghanistan. It was merely a PR moment for Petreus and is a member in good standing of 'Team Obama'.

its already caused issues and there has been riots for days

While I agree this might put our troops at risk. I fail to see why the hell we should care about them rioting. They riot over a lot of shit. Should we stop doing everything they riot over?

These ignorant assholes have the right to be ignorant and burn the books. Maybe I should do like you guys do on the mosque debate and accuse you all of wanting to infringe on their Rights and force them not to burn the books. lol

 

[Middleman]

I can't imagine that the actions of some attention-seeking 'Christian' church will really have an effect on Afghanistan. It was merely a PR moment for Petreus and is a member in good standing of 'Team Obama'.

its already caused issues and there has been riots for days

That's mass insanity, then. That's beyond absurd. Those people need psyche meds...

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Okay. Let's play in this ball park awhile. If you ban handguns, they will not be so readily available. If guns are available and easy to get, there will be more guns. More guns gives passionate arguments a greater chance to devolve into tragedy. Hence, more gun violence.

Inflaming Muslim passion by desecrating their holy text will fan the flames of terrorism. Gee? Can we find examples of that already? By not insulting Muslims, perhaps the justice of our cause can be understood by those same Muslims. Fewer insults (fewer guns) lowers the temperature of the discontented (passionate arguments) and therefore reduces the chances of tragic endings.

This relates to the story. So long as we allow for the standard of living in the dark ages, then we deserve everything that comes with that. If we're not willing to fight against that, then LET'S GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST ALTOGETHER.

So long as we allow for the standard of living in the dark ages?

As it applies to the average Afghani? Are we at war, in your opinion, against the economic and cultural development present in Afghanistan today? Are we at war with the way the Afghan government conducts itself? Are we at war against Shiria law in Afghanistan? Is our mission to rebuild Afghanistan culturally, economically, politically as well as militarily?

Because, if that's our goal, we should conduct public burnings of Korans at every occasion. The Super Bowl. As part of the Great American Christmas Light Up Night! That way there would be no ambiguity. No subterfuge. The Afghanis would have to face the truth. We're here until the inner American in every Afghan is released.

Of course that's not why we're there. But explain that to someone who has lived under the constant threat of war for over seven years. Explain that to someone with a Dark Ages world view.

The responsible thing, in my opinion, would be for every media outlet, every editor, every assignment desk to ignore the entire event. Assure the idiots their right to make an ass of themselves, but not print, broadcast, blog a word of it.

What if they had a war and nobody came?

It will be telling which news outlets will manage to man up and do the right thing and which will exploit it for ratings.

I'm takin' odds!

Drudge. 5:2

Fox 2:1

MSNBC 3:1

The New York Times 3:1

 

[manifold]

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.

I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just a rather pedestrian troll and don't actually believe that steaming pile of horseshit you just posted. Because if you do then you're really really really really fucking dumb.

 

[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...

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.

Backpedal fail.

 

[gautama]

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.

O.K. Liberrhoid MaggieMayday, what about the IRRITATING FACT:

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

What about them apples, you Obamarrhoidal LIEbturd twit..... DOESN'T THAT MEAN SOMETHING ...... EVEN TO A MORON LIKE YOU ?????

YA JUST GONNA IGNORE THAT ?!?!?!?

 

[asterism]

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.

I disagree, only that he just stated his analysis of the threat he's charged to face. The book burning in G-ville and the Mosque a few blocks away from ground zero are both Constitutionally protected. They are also both very stupid expressions of the First Amendment just to stick someone in the eye.

 

[asterism]

an officer's ultimate obligation is to protect the men and women for which he is responsible. i can't fault him for doing that, nor do i think he's out of line.

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?

Yes. It's why I don't say "******" at an MLK rally. It's my right, but I don't do it because there's nothing to gain and a whole lot to lose. Same situation here.

A General with no authority over this church is not stopping them.

 

[asterism]

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?

I did not read what Petreus said exactly. I know that he said that burning the Koran puts the lives of the soldiers in the Middle East more at risk. Did he make any kind of statement about whether or not the church should be allowed to burn the Koran or did he just state that doing so was not good for the war effort?

Personally, I have no problem with him making a statement that burning the Koran makes life harder for the troops. I am opposed to the burning myself, but believe the church has a right to be stupid and unamerican if it so chooses. I must say if I had been a member of that church, I would not be one today.

The church has every right to burn Korans. However, if they are trying to win people to Christ (isn't that supposed to be the mission of every church?) I think that they are going about this the wrong way.

Immie

He advised it would hurt the war efforts..........and in my opinion, him saying that (in and of itself) hurt the war efforts. (get what I mean?).

If America fights for freedom, it shouldn't be fearful of oppression.

Fearful and aware of what's effecting the situation on the ground are two separate things.

 

[asterism]

I know how to differentiate that. I know that he's not attempting to pose that they HAVE NO RIGHT. I'm just saying that I think that a man in a leadership position in fighting this war on terrorism is coming off like we do not have the courage of our convictions, as far as freedom of speech goes, and instead is coming off like "guys, please don't piss of these crazies who are already trying to kill us because they might want to kill us."

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

Yup.

And it's a call-out to them who are posing as "conservatives." A very effective negotiating position when he's dealing with the Afghans.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't think it's out of the line to provide the warning. In fact, I think it's good that we know this.

I find these acts to be in bad tastes. They certainly have the freedom to burn the Quran, I don't think Petraeus is disputing that. But He is telling them that there are some possible real life consequences for that.

 

[asterism]

I know how to differentiate that. I know that he's not attempting to pose that they HAVE NO RIGHT. I'm just saying that I think that a man in a leadership position in fighting this war on terrorism is coming off like we do not have the courage of our convictions, as far as freedom of speech goes, and instead is coming off like "guys, please don't piss of these crazies who are already trying to kill us because they might want to kill us."

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.

No it doesn't, it makes him look aware and reasonable. He's in Afghanistan and is going to have to order thousands dead on Saturday if this becomes a big deal. That's not weakness, it's strategy.

 

[asterism]

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.

If you are threat and I control the theater, you don't get to have a potato gun and I'll comment on how sending you drawings of potato guns isn't a good idea. Just like Gen. Petraeus.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

an officer's ultimate obligation is to protect the men and women for which he is responsible. i can't fault him for doing that, nor do i think he's out of line.

How do you figure that is his ultimate obligation?

I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

Do you see anything in there about preserving the life of his men? If his ultimate obligation was to preserve the lives of those who serve under him he would simply refuse to deploy with them, thus preserving their lives. You obviously do not understand the purpose of the military.