Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 2:18:49 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
Nope Sorry can't agree to do anything to physically stop the man from being the biggest bigotted idiot ih the world even if it means more risk to troops.

Talk to the man, reason with the man, try to convince him that his actions suck and will likely mean more US soldiers and citizens die. Yep you can do all that.
But the second you trample on his rights and prevent him from exercising them you have crossed a line that leaves open the door for other times when constitutional rights might be trampled. And next time those rights might be yours or mine.

I stand behind this man's right to act like a biggoted jackass. Even though I'd love to force him to try that protest in Saudi Arabia in person so that the risk is his instead.



< Message edited by Archer -- 9/7/2010 2:19:35 PM >

(in reply to AlwaysLisa)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 2:21:00 PM   
kiwisub12


Posts: 4742
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline
To my way of thinking they are exibiting the behaviour Jesus stood for - tolerance!!!   Sure, I think Jesus would be proud of them for being so bold and proactive, because inciting people with your actions is what Jesus was about. *rolls eyes*

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 2:22:44 PM   
Slavehandsome


Posts: 382
Joined: 9/19/2004
Status: offline
Is General Betrayus aware that Illegal Occupation Of A Foreign Country Endangers Troops? We're damn lucky that we're not up against opposition from U.N. forces fighting on behalf of Iraqi, Afghani and Pakistani taxpayers.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 2:31:50 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
LOL illegal occupation, LOL

About as dumb as the birther stuff



(in reply to Slavehandsome)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 2:34:08 PM   
Slavehandsome


Posts: 382
Joined: 9/19/2004
Status: offline
The U.N. voted AGAINST the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. As far as the 'birthers' thing you mentioned, if Obama were born in the U.S., then why would a judge have to seal everything as classified?

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 2:39:36 PM   
pogo4pres


Posts: 593
Joined: 1/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

LOL illegal occupation, LOL

About as dumb as the birther stuff




Archer, the legality of Afghanistan while it can be debated, really should not be in question, we fucked the place over in the 80's and we have to do something now.  The real illegal occupation was/is Iraq, and you as a former Army officer should know that one.   Speaking of army officers or rather soon to be ex-army officers go over to the "woodshed thread" and tell me what you think of my opinion of the "birther" Lt Col. 


Militarily,
Some Knucklehead in NJ






_____________________________

"All life is pain highness, anyone that says different is just trying to sell something" The Man in Black (Dread Pirate Roberts)

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 3:33:19 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

LOL illegal occupation, LOL

About as dumb as the birther stuff





Agreed,the 2nd part was dumber.

I don`t think the commander wanted to physically stop the book burning.

If they are going to do it in spite of the dangers to our fighting men protecting us,they do it knowing that it will hurt the US.

He`s not going to allow the book-burners their ignorance tho.

Kudos to him for not letting conservative PC get in the way of protecting America`s soldiers.

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 9/7/2010 3:36:00 PM >


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 3:40:48 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
separation of church and state, we should just shoot the fuckers as traitors.  it is what the right would do to us.

lol, I couldn't help it.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 4:55:27 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome

The U.N. voted AGAINST the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. As far as the 'birthers' thing you mentioned, if Obama were born in the U.S., then why would a judge have to seal everything as classified?


My, and here i thought the birth records were sealed by the hawaiian governor.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Slavehandsome)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 5:06:55 PM   
AlwaysLisa


Posts: 1088
Joined: 10/6/2006
From: Washington State
Status: offline
quote:

Bottom line.  Do they have the RIGHT to do it?  Absolutely.

Are they asinine, short sighted dumbasses for even announcing their plans to do it?  ABSOLUTELY

You have a right to free speech. You have a RESPONSIBILITY to not unduly endanger the men and women that put their ass on the line every day to protect your right of free speech.


I think thats what I said, lol

But thank you for the back up :)   Hey, my picture is gone, ok...who took it.  

_____________________________

Just an old flower child, trying to survive in today's chaos and confusion.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 5:06:58 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
I saw the certificate,online.

So technically it`s not sealed.

The answer as to why the republican governor sealed the records?


To drive the asshole birther nutjob dickhead morons crazy(ier).




_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 5:26:05 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Researching this small part... hiding Presidential records... its been an interesting history lesson. What was Bush trying to hide in Reagan's presidential records?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/7/2010 5:28:50 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
Why wouldn`t bush and cheney testify under oath?


What were they trying to hide?




_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/8/2010 12:59:01 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
I think the short answer to that is "everything"...

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/8/2010 2:10:33 AM   
TheRaptorJesus


Posts: 640
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Curb us from enthusiastically supporting free speech, despite so many so-called Liberals' hatred of it?

I seriously doubt it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

This needed it`s own thread.AngelikaJ, posted it 1st.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

Does anyone thing this will curb sanity and his friends?



So you would not be upset at burning bibles or American flags?


_____________________________

What if your God... were a motherfucking DINOSAUR?!

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/8/2010 3:39:22 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

I dont like people burning books or flags, especially my countrys flag, but people should have the right to do it. Disrespect Catholic symbols or Buddhist or Hindu symbols all you want. It shows that youre ignorant and it makes you a jerk, but its protected under the Constitution, as it should be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheRaptorJesus

So you would not be upset at burning bibles or American flags?



_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to TheRaptorJesus)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/8/2010 5:09:11 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
I find your question interesting, even though its not directed at me. Why would anyone be upset at the burning of either?


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheRaptorJesus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Curb us from enthusiastically supporting free speech, despite so many so-called Liberals' hatred of it?

I seriously doubt it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

This needed it`s own thread.AngelikaJ, posted it 1st.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

Does anyone thing this will curb sanity and his friends?



So you would not be upset at burning bibles or American flags?




_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to TheRaptorJesus)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/8/2010 5:48:59 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
On the Iraq legality I have two points you can debate against if you like but they stand pretty well.

1. the resolution that gave us the 91 OK to go in has a very specific clause that states " And all subsequent relevant resolutions" strictly in a legal sense that gave us the legal means to go in and be on pretty firm legal footing.

2. The legal condition on March 19, 2003 of the Iraq situation was a Cease Fire Agreement. The conditions of that cease fire agreement had been violated by the Iraqis for about 14 years.
There is no legal need for a UN resolution to RESUME military actions after a cease fire has been violated.

Afghanistan the legality of the war was that the UN had Resolution 1386 (2001) authorization for a multi national force to occupy Afghanistan.

But back to the topic at hand, US Military has no footing to do anything to prevent the burning. Now one might if you were a mayor/ council that cared much about it, place an outdoor burning ban in place, for the prevention of wild fires of course, and have the Fire Department in place to enforce it on the planned date. BWa ha ha ha the mind of a pragmatist workiing overtime on this subject. LOL

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/8/2010 6:11:36 AM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
No-fly zones:

" Among the reasons U.S. Senate candidate Mel Martinez supported the war in Iraq was the alleged danger faced by U.S. and British pilots who protected "no-fly" zones in that country before the 2003 invasion.

In his first debate with Betty Castor, the Orlando Republican said that pilots were fired on "almost daily" and that "our men and women in uniform flying those aircraft were risking their lives."

Technically, that's true. But a closer look at the history of the no-fly zones shows that the real risk was to innocent Iraqis. Over an 11-year period, hundreds of civilians, including children, were killed or injured by U.S. and British airstrikes, while not a single allied pilot was shot down or killed by Iraqi fire.

"The casualties were in the very areas allegedly established to protect people," Hans von Sponeck, then coordinator of the U.N. humanitarian program in Iraq, said in 2002. "The cruel reality is that people are dying as a result of these no-fly zones."

After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United States, Britain and France created the zones in northern and southern Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein's forces from bombing rebellious groups in those regions. All Iraqi planes were grounded, but allied jets routinely took to the skies, hitting Iraq's air defense systems and other military targets.

"It was a permanent, low-level war," says James Paul, executive director of Global Policy Forum, which monitors U.N. policymaking. "I don't think citizens of the United States and the U.K. realized the intensity of this thing - there were thousands of sorties flown at huge expense."

By 2002, it became clear that the United States and Britain viewed the main purpose of the no-fly zones as more military than humanitarian.

With so many bombs dropped and missiles fired, civilian casualties were inevitable.

On Jan. 25, 1999, Saeidh Hassan and her three daughters were at home in Basra, a southern port city, when a U.S. missile slammed into their apartment block. Trapped under concrete and steel, Mrs. Hassan called to her daughters but got no answer.

All three were killed instantly. A neighbor boy also died and more than 60 people were critically injured.

U.S. Central Command in Tampa said the strike was a "misfiring," and denied that the allies targeted civilians. Yet that year alone, there were 132 bombings that killed 120 Iraqis and injured 220, the U.N.'s von Sponeck found. Allied strikes also destroyed farms and other civilian property.

"How at a (33,000)-foot height can you protect a population?" von Sponeck wondered. "That is a fantasy."

By 2002, it became clear that the United States and Britain viewed the main purpose of the no-fly zones as more military than humanitarian. (France, concerned by the casualties, dropped out of the coalition in 1996.)

"Since the current Bush administration took power," journalist Jeremy Scahill wrote from Baghdad in 2002, "there has been a significant increase in the frequency and intensity of the bombings, particularly in the south of the country.

"The administration has used the zones to pre-emptively degrade Iraq's already limited ability to defend against a large-scale U.S. attack while not citing a single incident of attempted repression of Shiite or Kurdish populations as a justification."

By late 2002 - just a few months before the invasion - the allied sorties seemed more intended to frighten Iraqis than protect them. U.S. warplanes dropped leaflets in the no-fly zones with pictures of an explosion and a cowering Iraqi family.

"Before you engage coalition aircraft, think about the consequences," the flier warned in Arabic.

U.S. military officials say allied planes were repeatedly threatened while patrolling the zones - 470times in one 18-month period. Given that not a single pilot was killed or injured, though, does Martinez think the threat was exaggerated?

"I know (Defense) Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld didn't think it because I had that discussion on and on prior to the war," Martinez, a former Bush Cabinet member, said Thursday.

But for Iraqis, there was no question who faced the real danger. As Dr. Jawa Al-Ali, a Basra physician, told the St. Petersburg Times in 2000: "The Americans and British say we are protecting you with our airplanes, but at the same time they are killing us on the ground."http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/29/Columns/_No_fly__zone_perils_.shtml



_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops - 9/8/2010 6:55:45 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

On the Iraq legality I have two points you can debate against if you like but they stand pretty well.

1. the resolution that gave us the 91 OK to go in has a very specific clause that states " And all subsequent relevant resolutions" strictly in a legal sense that gave us the legal means to go in and be on pretty firm legal footing.

2. The legal condition on March 19, 2003 of the Iraq situation was a Cease Fire Agreement. The conditions of that cease fire agreement had been violated by the Iraqis for about 14 years.
There is no legal need for a UN resolution to RESUME military actions after a cease fire has been violated.

Afghanistan the legality of the war was that the UN had Resolution 1386 (2001) authorization for a multi national force to occupy Afghanistan.

But back to the topic at hand, US Military has no footing to do anything to prevent the burning. Now one might if you were a mayor/ council that cared much about it, place an outdoor burning ban in place, for the prevention of wild fires of course, and have the Fire Department in place to enforce it on the planned date. BWa ha ha ha the mind of a pragmatist workiing overtime on this subject. LOL



The city fathers must have been reading your mind Arch.  According to an article I checked yesterday, they have been denied a burn permit but they claim they will do it anyway.  The preacher did leave himself an out, though, saying he was still "praying about it".

I think a fire truck is a REALLY good idea.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Top US commander: Burning Quran endangers troops Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109