• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Atlantic: I Cannot Remain Silent

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
He starts out by attacking Trump's church move, then moves on to say that American cities aren't battlegrounds and that everyone deserves justice and to be treated as a rightful citizen of the USA - sorry, not quite following: after some protesters decided to become violent, turning the protests into chaotic riots (not to mention, looting) - how exactly is the government supposed to quell the situation? By holding hands and singing Kumbaya? Attacking Trump's church move is one thing, but to equate the possibly problematic events that happened there with the police's and NG's attempts to stop the rioting - well, it's troubling to know that this man used to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

"and I am not convinced that the conditions on our streets, as bad as they are, have risen to the level that justifies a heavy reliance on military troops. Certainly, we have not crossed the threshold that would make it appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Insurrection Act."​

Oh, okay. How many more businesses need to be looted to cross the threshold? How many more churches and synagogues need to be vandalized? How many more people need to be beaten on the street? How many more people need to be killed?

I hope he's comfy in what I assume is a fancy, well-protected home somewhere in a safe area, as is appropriate for a man of his rank.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member

I see it as more hopeful.
There is clearly a number of conservative voices starting to rally and speak out about the lack of leadership they are seeing.
There are bipartisan issues amongst all the noise here, and those on both sides willing to set aside party alliances in the short term to find common ground and unity are showing actual, meaningful leadership.

I hope that sort of voice gains ground through this.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
He starts out by attacking Trump's church move, then moves on to say that American cities aren't battlegrounds and that everyone deserves justice and to be treated as a rightful citizen of the USA - sorry, not quite following

Which part is confusing?

: after some protesters decided to become violent, turning the protests into chaotic riots (not to mention, looting) - how exactly is the government supposed to quell the situation? By holding hands and singing Kumbaya?

I missed where he suggested that.

Attacking Trump's church move is one thing, but to equate the possibly problematic events that happened there with the police's and NG's attempts to stop the rioting - well, it's troubling to know that this man used to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

'possibly problematic'?

"and I am not convinced that the conditions on our streets, as bad as they are, have risen to the level that justifies a heavy reliance on military troops. Certainly, we have not crossed the threshold that would make it appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Insurrection Act."​

Oh, okay. How many more businesses need to be looted to cross the threshold? How many more churches and synagogues need to be vandalized? How many more people need to be beaten on the street? How many more people need to be killed?

As he points out in the article, US military intervention in domestic disputes has a checkered history. He might be of the opinion that there is risk of escalation and more deaths if the military are involved.
Do you think the state forces are inadequate in terms of the level of force they can bring?
For me, I think the correct application of force in a much more targeted manner than has been the case is required.
I don't see the military as being effective in that particular endeavour. I think they would be effective in cordoning off areas.

I hope he's comfy in what I assume is a fancy, well-protected home somewhere in a safe area, as is appropriate for a man of his rank.

I suspect he has a pretty good understanding of what a broad military intervention will mean and that is the reason for his comments.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Which part is confusing?
The relation between the two.
'possibly problematic'?
Yes, possibly problematic. The fact that people are bothered by a "politicizing of the event" - well, in our day and age, every move, every breath of air a politician takes is recorded and politicized in some sort of way. People are all snooty about the photo of Biden with his face in his hands, looking distraught - newsflash, that's also politicizing.

As for which version of the story of Park Police vs protesters is correct, I've yet to see definitive evidence for either side. So yes, I'm sticking with possibly until the world gets its facts straight.

I missed where he suggested that.
He didn't. It's an inference.
Do you think the state forces are inadequate in terms of the level of force they can bring?
So far, it seems so.
I don't see the military as being effective in that particular endeavour. I think they would be effective in cordoning off areas.
I see the military as more man-power, which is what's needed right now, in my view.
I suspect he has a pretty good understanding of what a broad military intervention will mean and that is the reason for his comments.
Actually, I'm not sure. While I'm not too familiar with how the average American general thinks, I am familiar with how Israeli generals think, and it ain't pretty, I can tell you that. Especially when they feel the need to get political, which is exactly what is happening here.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
He starts out by attacking Trump's church move, then moves on to say that American cities aren't battlegrounds and that everyone deserves justice and to be treated as a rightful citizen of the USA - sorry, not quite following: after some protesters decided to become violent, turning the protests into chaotic riots (not to mention, looting) - how exactly is the government supposed to quell the situation? By holding hands and singing Kumbaya? Attacking Trump's church move is one thing, but to equate the possibly problematic events that happened there with the police's and NG's attempts to stop the rioting - well, it's troubling to know that this man used to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

"and I am not convinced that the conditions on our streets, as bad as they are, have risen to the level that justifies a heavy reliance on military troops. Certainly, we have not crossed the threshold that would make it appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Insurrection Act."​

Oh, okay. How many more businesses need to be looted to cross the threshold? How many more churches and synagogues need to be vandalized? How many more people need to be beaten on the street? How many more people need to be killed?

I hope he's comfy in what I assume is a fancy, well-protected home somewhere in a safe area, as is appropriate for a man of his rank.
I think his comments are spot-on. The Insurrection Act is to deal with an insurrection. Riots are not an insurrection.
The politicisation of the military is obviously one of his biggest worries, as it would be for any senior military person. These are race riots. The last thing the army wants is to be used to suppress race riots: the image that would project, to large sections of the population, would be dreadful.

The notion that calling in the army would be some kind of quick fix also seems to me misplaced. What would they do that the police can't do? Shoot people? Then what? The army is a world-class killing machine, not a police force.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
The notion that calling in the army would be some kind of quick fix also seems to me misplaced. What would they do that the police can't do? Shoot people? Then what? The army is a world-class killing machine, not a police force.
It's not what they can do that the police can't, it's that they add much-needed manpower. I hope you realize that not every command in the army is "shoot to kill".

So far, protesters and rioters alike seem to classify the police as a killing force too, so what would the difference be from their POV? Should the government tell all police officers to stand down? Yeah, that'll definitely make things better.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
It's not what they can do that the police can't, it's that they add much-needed manpower. I hope you realize that not every command in the army is "shoot to kill".

So far, protesters and rioters alike seem to classify the police as a killing force too, so what would the difference be from their POV? Should the government tell all police officers to stand down? Yeah, that'll definitely make things better.
Why do you make such a hysterical remark? Why pretend that Mullen is advocating that the police "stand down"?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Why do you make such a hysterical remark? Why pretend that Mullen is advocating that the police "stand down"?
Hysterical? o_O
Where'd you get I'm hysterical? Do you see my face? :rolleyes:
I'm not pretending anything. My second paragraph wasn't directed at Mullens, it's at you, or whichever people that are all for the protesters and rioters.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Hysterical? o_O
Where'd you get I'm hysterical? Do you see my face? :rolleyes:
I'm not pretending anything. My second paragraph wasn't directed at Mullens, it's at you, or whichever people that are all for the protesters and rioters.
Ol' Exy up there is on quite a "this isn't fascism, you're over reacting, nothing to see here, you're hysterical if you think there's a problem" tear just recently, for some reason. I'm not sure why.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Hysterical? o_O
Where'd you get I'm hysterical? Do you see my face? :rolleyes:
I'm not pretending anything. My second paragraph wasn't directed at Mullens, it's at you, or whichever people that are all for the protesters and rioters.
What I did in my post was to say why I thought Mullen was right in what he wrote.

Your reaction is to claim that, by doing so, I am "all for the protesters and rioters". So that means two things:

1) because I agree with Mullen's piece, that's enough for you to conclude I am "all for the protesters and rioters". How silly.

2) You must therefore think Mullen, a retired US admiral, is "siding with the protesters and rioters". How preposterous.


Do you really live in a world of such binary choices?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Very sobering.
And much appreciated. Between his comments and those of Bishop Budde we may be witnessing hints that we are inching towards a tenuous consensus which, hopefully, will increasingly isolate, if not shame, the complicit. Even Biden impressed.

Let's see what November brings.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Ol' Exy up there is on quite a "this isn't fascism, you're over reacting, nothing to see here, you're hysterical if you think there's a problem" tear just recently, for some reason. I'm not sure why.
In my opinion, these riots have provoked knee-jerk responses from several members of this forum that betray an alarming lack of subtlety or maturity of thought, in some cases to the point of hysteria.

"The police are all fascists".

"Anyone opposing the use of the army is all for looting and destruction"

This is stupid, overheated stuff.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
1) because I agree with Mullen's piece, that's enough for you to conclude I am "all for the protesters and rioters". How silly.
it's at you, or whichever people that are all for the protesters and rioters
If it's not you, then it's for others.
2) You must therefore think Mullen, a retired US admiral, is "siding with the protesters and rioters". How preposterous.
In some way he is. And it's not preposterous. I live in a country that emulates American mindsets in many ways. I can tell you for a fact, as someone who has some knowledge in the field, that high-level Israeli commanders are practically at the beck and call of various individuals and organizations who do not have Israel's best interests at heart but only those of Israel's enemies, that are calling for, among other things, soldiers to stop shooting terrorists, to endanger soldiers because they might just hurt the enemy, to put in jail soldiers who did their jobs by doing the best they could to protect Israeli citizens in the face of terrorist threats, and many many more terrible things. And all this in the name of what? Social justice, wokeness nonsense, whatever. The new American "ideals".
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
If it's not you, then it's for others.

In some way he is. And it's not preposterous. I live in a country that emulates American mindsets in many ways. I can tell you for a fact, as someone who has some knowledge in the field, that high-level Israeli commanders are practically at the beck and call of various individuals and organizations who do not have Israel's best interests at heart but only those of Israel's enemies, that are calling for, among other things, soldiers to stop shooting terrorists, to endanger soldiers because they might just hurt the enemy, to put in jail soldiers who did their jobs by doing the best they could to protect Israeli citizens in the face of terrorist threats, and many many more terrible things. And all this in the name of what? Social justice, wokeness nonsense, whatever. The new American "ideals".
How ridiculous to suggest Mullen may be at the beck and call of some shadowy group that does not have American interests at heart.

This is swivel-eyed conspiracy theory at its finest. :D
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
How ridiculous to suggest Mullen may be at the beck and call of some shadowy group that does not have American interests at heart.
a. The groups I'm referring to aren't shadowy in the least bit. I can give you names. b. I didn't suggest Mullen is at the beck and call of any group, I'm suggesting that he, like many other public figures, is influenced by these disgraceful ideologies that are taking over the Western world.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
a. The groups I'm referring to aren't shadowy in the least bit. I can give you names. b. I didn't suggest Mullen is at the beck and call of any group, I'm suggesting that he, like many other public figures, is influenced by these disgraceful ideologies that are taking over the Western world.
Like what, in the case of Admiral Mullen (Retd.)?
 
Top