24 - Muslims upset about nuclear attacks

[michaeledward]

So it seems clear that . . . .

I find that whenever someone states that something is "clear", the argument raised is far from obvious, or supported by evidence. It is a marker in language about a personal point of view.

And once again, Don Roley, you seem to be arguing against positions I have not staked, arguments I have not made, and beliefs I don't believe.

 

[Don Roley]

And once again, Don Roley, you seem to be arguing against positions I have not staked, arguments I have not made, and beliefs I don't believe.

Hmm? I seem to take your earlier comment of,

And, the Bridagere General feels that he should take "this paternalism" as far as a trip across the country to meet with the producers of the program in an apparent effort to stop portraying illegal activities sans consequence because he is of the opinion that it is negatively affecting West Point Cadets.

as meaning that the general was concerned about the effects on West Point cadets. But the only direct quote from him is about "kids." I see nothing in the direct quotes by him that either indicate he is concerned about the behavior of West Point cadets or speaking as anything other than someone who cares about what kids see.

 

[michaeledward]

The quote from The Independent is an accurate quote from that article. The sentence you quote is also in that same article.

If you read the quote I first linked to again ...

The United States Military Academy at West Point yesterday confirmed that Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan recently travelled to California to meet producers of the show, broadcast on the Fox channel. He told them that promoting illegal behaviour in the series - apparently hugely popular among the US military - was having a damaging effect on young troops.

... you may see the source is the "United States Miltiary Academy at West Point". If West Point tells the Independent that 24 'was having a damaging effect on young troops' ... that is a message and a source I can accept. If it is not a good enough source for you, so be it.

I do not see the 'United States Military Academy at West Point' engaged in any type of political spin or agenda. If they report on the General's message, I can accept that as the message. I do not need direct quotes of the complete conversation with Fox Television.

 

[Don Roley]

... you may see the source is the "United States Miltiary Academy at West Point".

That he went to the producers to talk to them. But the only direct quotes from the general were not about cadets or soldiers and West Point does not seem to have confirmed that. His use of the term "kids" indicates that he is concerned about children and he would not use that term for soldiers- trust me.

And of course, the question of how a college lecturer would even know if there is a cause/effect relationship seems on troops in the field is another debate. Even if there are some quotes not revealed that indicate he thinks that there is an influence on soldiers, his expertise is no greater in that respect than his knowledge of Gitmo- or the concern of any other military member.

 

[michaeledward]

That he went to the producers to talk to them. But the only direct quotes from the general were not about cadets or soldiers and West Point does not seem to have confirmed that. His use of the term "kids" indicates that he is concerned about children and he would not use that term for soldiers- trust me.

And of course, the question of how a college lecturer would even know if there is a cause/effect relationship seems on troops in the field is another debate. Even if there are some quotes not revealed that indicate he thinks that there is an influence on soldiers, his expertise is no greater in that respect than his knowledge of Gitmo- or the concern of any other military member.

Don Roley, I guess the read a different version of English over there.

 

[Don Roley]

Don Roley, I guess the read a different version of English over there.

No need to get nasty. I started out going for a journalism major and do not say that someone said something unless it is directly credited and/or quoted.

Since that subject causes you to lose your civility, let me ask you if you would accept a person involved with interogating prisoners that the techniques used were within the spirit and letter of the law and needed to fight terror? If you accept a person so removed from the field as this professor on matters, it would seem that you would listen to those that are closer to the matter in regards to interogations if you are consistent.

This goes to the "appeal to authority" problem that has been discussed. I do not think that the general is any better at saying what the cause of any problems with soldiers in the field are than the child counselors who said that comic books were the cause of juvenile delinquency in the 50s.

 

[michaeledward]

No need to get nasty. Two sentences, I treat them as seperate rather than assuming.

Since that subject causes you to lose your civility, let me ask you if you would accept a person involved with interogating prisoners that the techniques used were within the spirit and letter of the law and needed to fight terror? If you accept a person so removed from the field as this professor on matters, it would seem that you would listen to those that are closer to the matter in regards to interogations if you are consistent.

You always seem to be accusing me of something --- 'attitude' 'nasty' or something --- why is that?

It doesn't seem to be politic to try and teach rudimentary English over the internet. The sentences are quite clear in their construction, but you keep arguing that they say something which they don't, and that they don't say something which they do.

And again, you are bringing in arguments that are not present in the current discussion. The General was commenting on the effect the portrayals of illegal activities was having on young troops. As the General is a teacher of "young troops" and employed at the military academy in question, he is, according to your rigorous demands for relevancy, completely qualified to comment on the subject.

 

[Don Roley]

You always seem to be accusing me of something --- 'attitude' 'nasty' or something --- why is that?

Maybe because you have made several comments about me in the past and the moderators had to post notices about sniping and such.

The General was commenting on the effect the portrayals of illegal activities was having on young troops. As the General is a teacher of "young troops" and employed at the military academy in question, he is, according to your rigorous demands for relevancy, completely qualified to comment on the subject.

He is not in a position to know what goes on in the field now and what actions are being done any better than anyone else. He teaches the law of warfare in a classroom and has not been AFAIK involved in interogations at all. He can not see what goes on inside the minds of the students. He can observe certain behaviors but not know what the real reasons for those actions can be. Heck, even people doing certain things are not aware of why they do things. If he were commenting about remarks made in class about the series, then that would be of interest. But he is not quoted except for a very brief bit about kids. Again, people involved in juvenile delinquency issues considered comic books the reason for rising crime rates in the 50s. And now we are talking about adults that need to be treated as if they themselves have the ability to do tell right from wrong.

 

[Hisgracecase]

Not every Muslim is a terrorist however since the 70's all terrorists acts have been committed by Muslims. You know, it is sad really, if the good would put the bad in check we would not be having these problems.

The last I checked we have a lot of movies showing the Japanese, Korean, and German WWI, WWII, Vietnamese, Gulf War etc. So why should this be different?

I agree with you, Muslim groups have committed horrible terrorist attacks on America, as well as other countries. Though there have been other attacks
deemed as terrorist activities, such as the Oklahoma city bombing, etc. they have not been carried out by a group or religious sect that is dedicated to
the destruction of America and its allies. The Muslims may not all be terrorists
but make no mistake, they are all Muslims. Their ultimate goal is world domination by the Muslim "RELIGION".

 

[michaeledward]

He is not in a position to know what goes on in the field now and what actions are being done any better than anyone else. He teaches the law of warfare in a classroom and has not been AFAIK involved in interogations at all. He can not see what goes on inside the minds of the students. He can observe certain behaviors but not know what the real reasons for those actions can be. Heck, even people doing certain things are not aware of why they do things. If he were commenting about remarks made in class about the series, then that would be of interest. But he is not quoted except for a very brief bit about kids. Again, people involved in juvenile delinquency issues considered comic books the reason for rising crime rates in the 50s. And now we are talking about adults that need to be treated as if they themselves have the ability to do tell right from wrong.

There have been no assertions about what the General thinks is going on "in the field"; not by me, nor in the article.

According to the "American Military Academy at West Point" the General was talking with the Producers because of concern he sees in the "young troops" ... is that not a way to describe the attendees at West Point? I believe it is. I believe when the General refers to kids, he is speaking specifically of his students - not juvenile deliquents.

You show no evidence that he is talking about a different group. You assert only that by using the term 'kids', he could not possibly be refering to cadets and soldiers. Why not? If you are going to press this supposition, which is far outside the context of the article, please defend the assertion with facts and references.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060406-3.html

The biggest decision I've had to make since I've been your President is putting kids in harm's way. It's a decision no President wants to make. It's a decision I wish I did not have to make. But I'd like to share with you why I made the decision I made.

Is President Bush putting your juvenile delinquent in harms way?
Do you believe that is that what he means?

 

[Don Roley]

There have been no assertions about what the General thinks is going on "in the field"; not by me, nor in the article.

According to the "American Military Academy at West Point" the General was talking with the Producers because of concern he sees in the "young troops" ... is that not a way to describe the attendees at West Point?

If we were talking about cheating on exams, then you might have a point. But your complaint is about torture, then it seems that unless he is around it your points don't have much to stand on.

As for your quoting Bush, I find it a little strange considering that you take time to make comments that he can't make a cohesive sentence that you would now hold him up as the standard of the use of certain terms. That is worth the price of addmision as they say. I do not believe that a West Point Profesor would refer to his students as kids based on my experience of my treatment in the military.

 

[Grenadier]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-

 

[Don Roley]

I agree with you, Muslim groups have committed horrible terrorist attacks on America, as well as other countries. Though there have been other attacks
deemed as terrorist activities, such as the Oklahoma city bombing, etc. they have not been carried out by a group or religious sect that is dedicated to
the destruction of America and its allies. The Muslims may not all be terrorists
but make no mistake, they are all Muslims. Their ultimate goal is world domination by the Muslim "RELIGION".

I happen to think that if there were more Muslims that stood up and denounced terrorism, that the impression others have about their religion would soften. There are folks that will do so. But there seems to be many, many more that either stay silent or qualify what they say so that it does not mean much.

A few weeks ago CNN had a bit on a conference and had a few speakers talking about Islam and violence. One guy was part of the Islamic council in Ireland IIRC and he said quite clearly that the people who were using violence in the name of Islam were dead wrong and merely trying to give a justification for their evil. But there was a younger guy who said that the Koran justified violence if Islam was under attack and he used Afghanistan as an example of how Islam was under attack.

Now, I think most reasonable people would say that Afghanistan was a reasonable response to the people that sheltered the planners of 9-11 and would not turn them over. But to this guy, we should never have attacked Afghanistan or even if we were justified it was still an attack on Islam that merited a violent response.

And this was in a public forum! I know that there are guys like the first one I mentioned. It is the second guy I worry about.

 

[Empty Hands]

While you may think that we must treat adults as if they have the ability to make the right choices- how about the many, many children that are raised on an image of Gangstas as role models?

I don't know, to be honest. As you can probably tell, I am pretty hostile by default to the notion of entertainment converting people into immoral criminals. However, I also have no problem with parents controlling what their children watch. I would not be adverse to giving the parents tools to help them in this matter. However, if the parents choose not to control what their children watch, I still don't want the government stepping in and raising their children for them, and for us all.

 

[The Elemental]

As a muslim, I personally like the show, its also popular in countries like Dubai. The show makes everyone the bad guy which is why it get a lot of criticism from all sides. I don't think it's an anti-muslim show remember season 2, we were not the real bad guys in that season.