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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Inb4 "lol librul tears not a real american doesn't support are troops MAGA"Written by Mike Mullen, Seventeenth chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
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.
The relation between the two.Which part is confusing?
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.'possibly problematic'?
He didn't. It's an inference.I missed where he suggested that.
So far, it seems so.Do you think the state forces are inadequate in terms of the level of force they can bring?
I see the military as more man-power, which is what's needed right now, in my view.I don't see the military as being effective in that particular endeavour. I think they would be effective in cordoning off areas.
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.I suspect he has a pretty good understanding of what a broad military intervention will mean and that is the reason for his comments.
I think his comments are spot-on. The Insurrection Act is to deal with an insurrection. Riots are not an insurrection.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.
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".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.
Why do you make such a hysterical remark? Why pretend that Mullen is advocating that the police "stand down"?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.
Hysterical?Why do you make such a hysterical remark? Why pretend that Mullen is advocating that the police "stand down"?
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.Hysterical?
Where'd you get I'm hysterical? Do you see my face?
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.Hysterical?
Where'd you get I'm hysterical? Do you see my face?
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.
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.Very sobering.
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.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.
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.
If it's not you, then it's for others.it's at you, or whichever people that are all for the protesters and rioters
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".2) You must therefore think Mullen, a retired US admiral, is "siding with the protesters and rioters". How preposterous.
How ridiculous to suggest Mullen may be at the beck and call of some shadowy group that does not have American interests at heart.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".
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.How ridiculous to suggest Mullen may be at the beck and call of some shadowy group that does not have American interests at heart.
Like what, in the case of Admiral Mullen (Retd.)?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.
You seem to have forgotten our line of debate:Like what, in the case of Admiral Mullen (Retd.)?
2) You must therefore think Mullen, a retired US admiral, is "siding with the protesters and rioters". How preposterous.
In some way he is.