Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Bibles at Walter Reed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Forever_frost
    replied
    That and you can't fight an enemy you can't identify Exlude. When the enemy blends into the population and can attack and disappear at will you can't win. Check what happened in Vietnam, the American Revolution, Iraq and AFghanistan. They'd have to kill everyone they came across to make sure they got the insurgents. And the laws of war against our own people would be horrendous and rely on soldiers to shoot their own countrymen which we are conditioned against

    Leave a comment:


  • exlude
    replied
    Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
    I'm pointing out that if things went bad and it was the military versus the citizenry, the citizenry would win every time.
    While I don't believe that the US Military could defeat its own people, simply due to the high rate of defection...I don't think your examples are legitimate. The main reason we haven't been able to "win" those cited wars are because of an ill defined mission, constricting laws of war, or lack of popular support. If the government were to turn on its own people, neither of those issues would crop up or matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Forever_frost
    replied
    Originally posted by exlude View Post
    How does that counter his point?

    He's right, on a kill:death basis...the US handily won/is winning Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan.
    I'm pointing out that if things went bad and it was the military versus the citizenry, the citizenry would win every time.

    Leave a comment:


  • SMEGMA STENCH
    replied
    Originally posted by racrguy View Post
    Even Fox news, who is NOTORIOUS for making things slanted

    So are all the rest

    Leave a comment:


  • exlude
    replied
    Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
    Do you know what the most deadly thing is to an Abrhams tank or any other armored vehicle? Infantry. Guys with rifles and are on foot who use what's at hand.
    How does that counter his point?

    He's right, on a kill:death basis...the US handily won/is winning Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan.

    Leave a comment:


  • Forever_frost
    replied
    Originally posted by onemeangixxer7502 View Post
    Thats stretching it a bit, people in vietnam have been fighting people since who knows when and were dug in. Same thing with the afghani's . Also the kill ratios were very one sided.
    Do you know what the most deadly thing is to an Abrhams tank or any other armored vehicle? Infantry. Guys with rifles and are on foot who use what's at hand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Forever_frost
    replied
    Originally posted by racrguy View Post
    Yet AGAIN we're faced with an issue where you think "Oh they're hating on Christians only." Even Fox news, who is NOTORIOUS for making things slanted, said:



    Yes, that explicitly bans the Koran too.

    Also, what Rough Customer said.

    If families want to bring loved ones bibles, be my guest, there isn't a constitutional amendment barring people from believing certain things, it only forbids the government from getting involved in any way.
    Combine the latest incident with the burning of Bibles on a military base by the box and the banning of saying God Bless at military funerals and you get a very clear view of who this is aimed at.

    Leave a comment:


  • onemeangixxer7502
    replied
    Originally posted by Up0n0ne View Post
    Actually there's a good chance of that happening.
    Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
    You evidently haven't seen our fight in Vietnam, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Someone who knows their environment is deadly. VERY. Even a loosely organized militia can disassemble a modern military. That's how we beat the British and how we have been hammered in the jungle and desert and mountains.

    You're also assuming that the active duty military will not defect and take their weapons, skills and equipment with them, that they'll open fire on their own families and that we don't have prior service military in the civilian populations with armaments that would rival the weapons the government could use. Do you think they'd use cluster bombs and nukes on our own soil?
    Thats stretching it a bit, people in vietnam have been fighting people since who knows when and were dug in. Same thing with the afghani's . Also the kill ratios were very one sided.

    Leave a comment:


  • exlude
    replied
    Originally posted by line-em-up View Post
    What about a muslum woman wearing a curtain? Does that count? It should, because it is expressing a religious view.
    It says that you can't give the Soldiers religious items, so as long as she doesn't take it off...

    Leave a comment:


  • line-em-up
    replied
    ...

    Originally posted by Nash B. View Post
    It says "religious items," not "Christian religious items."
    What about a muslum woman wearing a curtain? Does that count? It should, because it is expressing a religious view.

    Leave a comment:


  • ceyko
    replied
    Originally posted by talisman View Post
    I think you're reaching like fucking crazy.
    Maybe he is reaching a little, but it's no different than some other trends that we see spun these days. At least in regards to racism and/or "hate crimes".

    I get what you're saying and I agree the ban was universal. Either way, in the particular case it never should have been implemented in the first place. I'm glad our leaders/politicians are dealing with these important issues, considering there is nothing else going on.

    Leave a comment:


  • talisman
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
    So what you're saying is that because Christians bring their service members a Bible into Walter Reed that it's mentioned and Muslims don't bring a copy of the Koran to their family right Nash? Tell me, what do you think would have been the result if it said (Koran, etc)? Think we'd have several lawsuits by Islamic groups yet?


    I think you're reaching like fucking crazy.

    Leave a comment:


  • racrguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
    They literally said "If you are wounded, your family cannot bring you a Bible." A priest can't come in with his, which if I understand correctly, that means there's issues with last rites and so forth.

    Again, if the Koran was mentioned explicitly, do you not think the Islamic Council wouldn't have filed several lawsuits and called the military islamophobic?
    Yet AGAIN we're faced with an issue where you think "Oh they're hating on Christians only." Even Fox news, who is NOTORIOUS for making things slanted, said:

    Originally posted by Fox News
    Walter Reed National Military Medical Center said they are rescinding a policy that prohibits family members of wounded military troops from bringing Bibles or any religious reading materials to their loved ones.
    Yes, that explicitly bans the Koran too.

    Also, what Rough Customer said.

    If families want to bring loved ones bibles, be my guest, there isn't a constitutional amendment barring people from believing certain things, it only forbids the government from getting involved in any way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Forever_frost
    replied
    They literally said "If you are wounded, your family cannot bring you a Bible." A priest can't come in with his, which if I understand correctly, that means there's issues with last rites and so forth.

    Again, if the Koran was mentioned explicitly, do you not think the Islamic Council wouldn't have filed several lawsuits and called the military islamophobic?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Customer
    replied
    I do not advocate religion in any form and would love to see it retired voluntarily but denying a soldier (especially a wounded soldier... appalling) access to literature and other comfort items is very wrong.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X