• 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

exchemist

Veteran Member
You seem to have forgotten our line of debate:
No I haven't.

You are now claiming Mullen is, "in some way" ,"all for the protesters and rioters" and you are saying this may be because he has come under the influence of some "disgraceful ideology" or other.

I am asking you what you think that is, in his case.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
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.
Cool strawman. Get back to me when you're interested in diuscussing things anyone actually said.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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.
Indeed.
Discussion has been partiuclarly difficult.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I am asking you what you think that is, in his case.
Empowering stand-down or back-down ideology, turning a blind eye to the fact that the US has long since moved on from "mostly peaceful" protests to raging chaos and no, the police still hasn't gotten things under control, especially with more and more PDs actually backing down instead of pushing against the violence. In fact, not just turning a blind eye, but pushing the narrative of the people having a right to protest and that everything is still mostly a-okay. It's not a-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?

In fact, why did he even mention that he's white? What does that have to do with anything? Yeah, I'm seriously asking. If the article was to express sympathy for Floyd's family or to say that he doesn't believe it's an insurrection, what does his being white have to do with anything? That's another broken ideology, that white people have to get on their knees and beg for forgiveness from other people. Why? Did you personally do anything wrong? Are you a racist? If not, then what are you doing? You ain't changing the racists' minds by making excuses for them.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The relation between the two.

I wouldn't overthink it. They're merely examples of poor leadership decisions. In both cases he seems to believe that actions are being taken which run contrary to what he feels the country should stand for.
I agree with him, but even if I didn't, I could at least discern why he's raised them.

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.

I mean...whoever you're addressing with those comments, it's not me. I could care less about politicians 'politicizing' and haven't mentioned it at all.
But scratch the surface, a little...
What was Trump's message?
Who was his intended audience?
Why did he use the props he did?
Was there any authenticity in it?
Why did he decide to move to the church 30 mins before the curfew?
How did the police act?


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 think it's pretty simple. There are problems on both 'sides'. I'd just hope we could hold trained professionals on the side of law and order to a higher standard of behaviour than the violent elements within a street mob.

I've posted this here multiple times, but the line charge was shown live on Australian tv. Thoughts?

US addresses Sunrise on-air attack

He didn't. It's an inference.

At no point did he infer that people should sit around singing as a solution. It's NOT an inference. It's an exaggeration you're making in an attempt to prove a point.

So far, it seems so.

I see the military as more man-power, which is what's needed right now, in my view.

Again, I'd ask you to think a little further on this point. The military is additional manpower, of course, but to use them requires a number of legal hurdles to be cleared, particularly outside of Washington DC, assuming the states don't request assistance.

Police should be aware of civilian law...despite particular officers breaching this on camera through this whole mess. National Guard less so. US Military personnel are going to act based on whatever rules of engagement they're provided, and that better be damn well thought through if they're to be used.

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.

Yet you seem less concerned about the active Commander in Chief of the US military clearly trying to score political points, and making threats which may not even be legally permissable?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium 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.

You're aware that @Harel13 has a completely different view in all this than what you do, right? Like...opposite end of the spectrum.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I mean...whoever you're addressing with those comments, it's not me.
Okay. You asked why I referred to it as possibly. I mistakenly assumed you had a problem with my usage of the term. Sorry.
What was Trump's message?
Who was his intended audience?
Why did he use the props he did?
Was there any authenticity in it?
Why did he decide to move to the church 30 mins before the curfew?
How did the police act?
1. That he's not going to cower in his office or bow down to violent rioters like the governors.
2. The Bible? "In God We Trust", presumably. And all the principals of justice brought in the Bible of which the US was founded on.
3. Maybe not in the Bible part. I don't know. But the main point was to show leadership and strength in the face of terror.
4. That, I do not know. It happened right after he finished his speech. Was it politically planned by his staff or was it on a whim? I have no idea.
5. Before they knew he was on the way or after?
I'd just hope we could hold trained professionals on the side of law and order to a higher standard of behaviour than the violent elements within a street mob.
What can I say? I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to handle matters when people are throwing bricks and water bottles and other stuff at you.
I've posted this here multiple times, but the line charge was shown live on Australian tv. Thoughts?
Saw it. Yes, looks terrible. Park Police says they did it to break up rioters who were throwing stuff at them and at monuments in the park. Again, I don't claim to have all the facts.
At no point did he infer that people should sit around singing as a solution. It's NOT an inference. It's an exaggeration you're making in an attempt to prove a point
Okay, define it how you wish.
well thought through if they're to be used.
Let's hope so.
Yet you seem less concerned about the active Commander in Chief of the US military clearly trying to score political points, and making threats which may not even be legally permissable?
As I've said already, anything - anything - any politician does nowadays, will immediately be taken as trying to score political points. That's why I'm less concerned with that aspect of Trump's threat. Here's hoping they find a way to argue the legality, because no one has a better solution so far. The governors and mayors are cowering in their offices. Police depts. are backing down. The country is really going up in flames. What I'm concerned about is the safety of the innocents caught in the crossfire.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Empowering stand-down or back-down ideology, turning a blind eye to the fact that the US has long since moved on from "mostly peaceful" protests to raging chaos and no, the police still hasn't gotten things under control, especially with more and more PDs actually backing down instead of pushing against the violence. In fact, not just turning a blind eye, but pushing the narrative of the people having a right to protest and that everything is still mostly a-okay. It's not a-okay:


In fact, why did he even mention that he's white? What does that have to do with anything? Yeah, I'm seriously asking. If the article was to express sympathy for Floyd's family or to say that he doesn't believe it's an insurrection, what does his being white have to do with anything? That's another broken ideology, that white people have to get on their knees and beg for forgiveness from other people. Why? Did you personally do anything wrong? Are you a racist? If not, then what are you doing? You ain't changing the racists' minds by making excuses for them.
I've never heard of "stand-down" or "back-down" ideology before. Is this an Israeli thing? Where can I read more about it?

As for the reason Mullen mentions race, that would be because he is, er, writing about race riots, the injustice and the emotions that inspire them and the need for action that really helps which, in his view, calling in the military does not. Bear in mind the navy includes a large number of people from these same ethnic minorities. I am sure Mullen, as a senior officer, will have wrestled during his career with these very same issues in the navy: how to eliminate overt and covert racism and how to make members of ethnic minorities feel welcome and valued in the service. So there is, in fact, a sporting chance the guy actually knows what he is talking about.

Trump, on the other hand, has zippo experience in this area (as in so many others). However, like a number of armchair generals on the Right without any experience of military service, he is all too quick to call in the military as a supposed quick fix, when it is not him who has to manage the operation or its aftermath.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I've never heard of "stand-down" or "back-down" ideology before. Is this an Israeli thing? Where can I read more about it?
I'll see if I can find something. I may have made up this specific term, that's just what came into my head. I use it to describe a shameful stance that declares that militaristic/policing forces should set down their weapons because the people they're facing don't have an equal amount of firepower, or else because those other groups have some ideology that somehow legitimizes how they act. It may be regarded as a bit of an extension of social justice. And no, this isn't pacifism. This is a call for power to the weak, even if the weak hate you. It's something like pandering.
. I am sure Mullen, as a senior officer, will have wrestled, during his career, with these very same issues in the navy: how to eliminate overt and covert racism and how to make members of ethnic minorities feel welcome and valued in the service. So there is, in fact, a sporting chance the guy actually knows what he is talking about.

Trump, on the other hand, has zippo experience in this area (as in so many others). However, like a number of armchair generals on the Right without any experience of military service, he is all too quick to call in the military as a supposed quick fix, when it is not him who has to manage the operation or its aftermath.
Well, this is exactly where we disagree on. I try to see beyond the medals and the rank. Stuff like this has been causing major problems in the IDF for several years now. And much of these ideas came from certain American movements.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I'll see if I can find something. I may have made up this specific term, that's just what came into my head. I use it to describe a shameful stance that declares that militaristic/policing forces should set down their weapons because the people they're facing don't have an equal amount of firepower, or else because those other groups have some ideology that somehow legitimizes how they act. It may be regarded as a bit of an extension of social justice. And no, this isn't pacifism. This is a call for power to the weak, even if the weak hate you. It's something like pandering.

Well, this is exactly where we disagree on. I try to see beyond the medals and the rank. Stuff like this has been causing major problems in the IDF for several years now. And much of these ideas came from certain American movements.
This sounds as if you advocate allowing racism in the armed services to continue unchallenged. Do you actually mean that?
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
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.

Wishi I could like this post time a million!
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Supporting the protesters (who are almost all peaceful) is quite different than supporting the rioters (who are not). We need to do the first while dealing with the second.
You got a <useful> froobal cuz it's the sick chicken of
frubals....the others peck at it, & keep it from being fed.
Also, your post is useful.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay. You asked why I referred to it as possibly. I mistakenly assumed you had a problem with my usage of the term. Sorry.

Ha! I do, actually. I think the behaviour was absolutely problematic, and there's enough evidence to make that case, in my mind.

It was the rest of your point...around politicizing and Biden's actions, etc, that I thought might not have been directed at me. Disingenuous acts concern me more than political messaging, and acts against the democratic principles the US is supposed to be based on concerns me more than disingenuous acts.


1. That he's not going to cower in his office or bow down to violent rioters like the governors.

You're kidding, right?
Trump reportedly demanded his church photo op because he didn't like being mocked for hiding from protests in a bunker

Business Insider - Media Bias/Fact Check

I've already linked to the Australian live feed.


2. The Bible? "In God We Trust", presumably. And all the principals of justice brought in the Bible of which the US was founded on.

I'm almost scared to ask which Biblical principles of justice you're referring to.
Suffice to say I think he belittles the Bible my holding it up, and belittles the Church by using it as a prop. There was no need for him to do either.

And I'm an atheist. Were I Christian I'd be livid about the misuse of my religion.

Ahead of Trump Bible photo op, police forcibly expel priest from St. John’s church near White House

3. Maybe not in the Bible part. I don't know. But the main point was to show leadership and strength in the face of terror.

Our views on leadership are very different, then. To me, this is brittle and small minded politics in the face of widespread problems at a systemic and societal level.


4. That, I do not know. It happened right after he finished his speech. Was it politically planned by his staff or was it on a whim? I have no idea.
5. Before they knew he was on the way or after?

I'll tie these two together.
According to the White House there was always a plan to expand the perimeter around the White House, so the police actions were for that reason, and not for Trump's walk.

However, church personnel hadn't been told about this. And the protesters (I've seen no claims of them being rioters) were removed in the period leading UP to curfew. Wait a half hour and anyone there was breaking curfew. But at the time the action was taken?
They weren't.


What can I say? I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to handle matters when people are throwing bricks and water bottles and other stuff at you.

Well...I'd suggest the appropriate action for bricks or water bottles would be different.
And the action for those not throwing them...or pointing a camera...would be different again.

But whatever forcible action I was going to take would be done at or after curfew.

As I've said already, anything - anything - any politician does nowadays, will immediately be taken as trying to score political points. That's why I'm less concerned with that aspect of Trump's threat. Here's hoping they find a way to argue the legality, because no one has a better solution so far. The governors and mayors are cowering in their offices. Police depts. are backing down. The country is really going up in flames. What I'm concerned about is the safety of the innocents caught in the crossfire.

But in this case the only people injured were protesters, including reporters.
And the timing and execution of the acts lead me to believe it was done to clear the streets of protesters, to facilitate the President's movement.

The alternatives seem unlikely to the point of absurdity.

BTW, thanks for the ongoing discussion. I appreciate your efforts to discuss this in a coherent fashion.
I think (in general terms) the world can use more of that these days.
 
Top