Operation E-book Drop: For the Troops

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It doesn't really say much for the "right of free speech" in your country if someone cannot express an unpopular opinion without being physically assaulted as a consequence, does it? It's unpopular opinions that people need to know that they can express without the risk of assault, prosecution, or other consequences. Popular opinions don't need protection.

If what you say is actually true, then I'd be deeply concerned about what rights a person actually has to free speech in your country.

So if what someone did what snape said in your country would have no backlash?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by bjrnfrdnnd

As always, everything depends on your motivation. If you are interested in categories like grace and disgrace, your opinion might be backed up by a large number of people. If you are, however, interested in categories like causal chains, why did this happen, how did it happen, how will we be able to stop such a thing from happening, what should be changed in order to stop such things.... Well, in that case, it _does_ matter why he wanted to go. It _does_ matter why the army wouldn't let him go. It _does_ matter what the regulations are.
In my opinion, that guy went crazy due to his disagreeing with the army's actions. The army might be to blame because it didn't have the necessary control mechanisms in order to find out that the psychological stability of this guy was insufficient in order to keep the individual in the ranks of the army. It might also turn out, that this happened rather quickly and with little
possibilities to have been anticipated. In that case, one might have to just say "these things happen". I hope, however, that some kind of lesson kan be learnt from what happened. That either psychological inspection of the soldiers is intensified, or that the army allows more individuals to leave its ranks, something that might reduce the probability of this thing to happen again. I am quite sure that saying "That guy was an asshole" doesn't help to reduce the probability of this kind of thing happening again.

The army simply has opposing interests. It cannot let go people just because they don't want to continue fighting - the probability that there are no soldiers willing to go into the next conflict is too high. On the other hand, the army only wants people that are motivated to do what the army orders.
So, the army must look for a compromise between letting people go in order to remain a motivated entity, and keeping them because they need the manpower.

The army has an interested in critical soldiers - soldiers who do not agree with every action the army does, but who do agree that the army serves a greater good. Without these critical individuals, a body like the army necessarily runs the risk to become too radical and self-content, and in consequence will do things that are not morally defensible anymore - or even outright crimes of war.

In the same line of reasoning, the country as a whole has an interest in critical citizens - citizens that do not support everything the army does, that do not support everything that the government does. That is called democracy and the freedom of speech. It is a necessary corrective in order to not end up in attack wars and dictatorship.

OH my goodness. what a bunch of BS.

The act was what it was......a terrorist attack on our soil by a muslim. By a muslim that betrayed his country for his faith.

Why is no one addressing THIS?

No, we're going to wring our hands, and pitifully cry "'why? Lets find out why this person did this then we can prevent future happenings."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

So if what someone did what snape said in your country would have no backlash?

If you mean "would they be physically assaulted?", then I think the answer is "very definitely not". Vigourously argued with by many people, yes; told to "f*** off", yes, but do you honestly think that there is any circumstance is which it is justifyable to physically attack someone simply for expressing an opinion that you disagree with?

[gollu]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you mean "would they be physically assaulted?", then I think the answer is "very definitely not". Vigourously argued with by many people, yes; told to "f*** off", yes, but do you honestly think that there is any circumstance is which it is justifyable to physically attack someone simply for expressing an opinion that you disagree with?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8091605.stm

[HarryT]

Throwing eggs at people that you dislike is a "traditional" part of protesting in the UK; very few people would regard it as being equivalent to giving someone a good kicking. There are probably very few politicians that haven't had eggs chucked at them at public meetings here.

Mr. Griffin is (IMHO) a thoroughly nasty piece of work, but politicians of all political shades come in for "egging".

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you mean "would they be physically assaulted?", then I think the answer is "very definitely not". Vigourously argued with by many people, yes; told to "f*** off", yes, but do you honestly think that there is any circumstance is which it is justifyable to physically attack someone simply for expressing an opinion that you disagree with?

Expressing an opinion that you disagree with is one thing.

Expressing a opinion in the form of a verbal assault on someones personal lifestyle, habits, race, parentage, etc can definitely cause some physical harm.

[gollu]

Harry, I am a great fan of English football and the Premier league. As I happen to be a Manchester United fan, I would never, ever, get close a pub known as a Liverpool fans' place with United's shirt. Neither I'd talk in such a place about how Benitez is weak manager. It's all up to the people that are around.
But we are really now

edit: I absolutely agree about Griffin .

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

you were exploring the thought that military enlistment was heavily weighted by economic need. I was pointing out that indeed it is not. and it was not me that "wanted to morally excuse people wjp join the army for economic reasons"

I do not know what holds but some counter examples does not show that the statement "heavily weighted" is false.

[HarryT]

I stand by what Voltaire (arguably) said, gollu:

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Regardless of whether or not I agree with what another person's views may be, I will always, always defend their right to say it without fear of attack, imprisonment, or other form of retribution. That, to me, is one of the true tests of democracy.

[bjrnfrdnnd]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

OH my goodness. what a bunch of BS.

The act was what it was......a terrorist attack on our soil by a muslim. By a muslim that betrayed his country for his faith.

Why is no one addressing THIS?

No, we're going to wring our hands, and pitifully cry "'why? Lets find out why this person did this then we can prevent future happenings."

Well,
I do think that actually what the guy did is far off from a muslim terrorist attack. And I do think that there are many muslim terrorist attacks. Just to show you that I will agree on _some_ of the things that you call muslim terrorist attacks (take 9/11), but not on others. It therefore doesn't mean that we have fundamentally different opinions. We do meet somewhere.

Just for the sake of argument, let us assume that we agree on classifying his action as "a terrorist attack on our soil by a muslim. By a muslim that betrayed his country for his faith."

Good. We have addressed it. What now? How do we stop the next thing like that? Certainly not by just repeating what you said. But we do have a little chance if we try to understand what happened, why it happened, and how we might stop it next time.

[bjrnfrdnnd]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not know what holds but some counter examples does not show that the statement "heavily weighted" is false.

Agreed. Statistics will tell us. Exampliism will not erase the validity of the statistics. But I do not have the statistics In its absence, I must remain open to the possibility that the poor may not be overrepresented in the army. If they are overrepresented, this does not mean that no rich at all join the army. It would just mean that proportionally less rich join the army. And it also does not exclude the possiblity that everyone's primary reason is the desire to serve the good cause, more than betterment of their own economic position.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by bjrnfrdnnd

Well,
I do think that actually what the guy did is far off from a muslim terrorist attack. And I do think that there are many muslim terrorist attacks. Just to show you that I will agree on _some_ of the things that you call muslim terrorist attacks (take 9/11), but not on others. It therefore doesn't mean that we have fundamentally different opinions. We do meet somewhere.

Just for the sake of argument, let us assume that we agree on classifying his action as "a terrorist attack on our soil by a muslim. By a muslim that betrayed his country for his faith."

Good. We have addressed it. What now? How do we stop the next thing like that? Certainly not by just repeating what you said. But we do have a little chance if we try to understand what happened, why it happened, and how we might stop it next time.

What exactly do you not understand about his attack?

That his particular brand of faith preaches this is what a good follower will do?

He COULD have walked away. Faced court-marshal. I guess that was too easy a solution.

I will agree with you on one point. The signs were there. Action should have been taken to remove this person from the service before it came to this.

Now I'll tell you why he wasn't. We have turned into a society so fearful of being called racist, we don't dare accuse a anyone of anything for fear of being sued.....and the sue-er winning.

Imagine the furor of his being released because of his opinion on the war. "Muslim kicked out of service for religious beliefs" Thats exactly what the headlines would have said.

So.......how do you combat that?

Now, this man's neighbors had nothing bad to say about him. Always friendly, generous and nice.

How do you balance that with what he did? You can't. Anymore than you can prevent something like this with happening again.

Thats why their called terrorists.

[bjrnfrdnnd]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

What exactly do you not understand about his attack?

That his particular brand of faith preaches this is what a good follower will do?

He COULD have walked away. Faced court-marshal. I guess that was too easy a solution.

I will agree with you on one point. The signs were there. Action should have been taken to remove this person from the service before it came to this.

Now I'll tell you why he wasn't. We have turned into a society so fearful of being called racist, we don't dare accuse a anyone of anything for fear of being sued.....and the sue-er winning.

Imagine the furor of his being released because of his opinion on the war. "Muslim kicked out of service for religious beliefs" Thats exactly what the headlines would have said.

So.......how do you combat that?

Now, this man's neighbors had nothing bad to say about him. Always friendly, generous and nice.

How do you balance that with what he did? You can't. Anymore than you can prevent something like this with happening again.

Thats why their called terrorists.

We actually do agree on many points. You express the opinion that we will probably find out that we could not have anticipated what he did. And that there is no reasonable measure that would have prevented anything like this. As I said, in this case we must accept it as whatever we might think about it - you as a terrorist attack, me as the act of a guy who went crazy and therefore did commit something horrible, which looked like a terrorist attack. And we will have to go on with our lives, knowing that this kind of thing might happen again and again and again. Sad perspective, but maybe one that has to be accepted.

You also express the opinion that maybe the signs were there, and action could have been taken. In that case, the perspective would not be as bad as in above reasoning. In order to determine which was the case, research into what and how happened must take place - if not, we will have no clue how to reduce the probability of this kind of thing happening again.

I also agree with you concerning the headlines that might have emerged from his being kicked out of the army because of his beliefs. Which corresponds exactly to the problem the army does face with its opposing interests (and also society). You express the opinion that public opinion is biased in favor of his rights to let his religious feelings introduce a bias into his feelings towards the goodness of the army's deeds. That might well be the case, and also deserves public discussion.

As I say, it is a very complicated thing for the army if a soldier really starts to have feelings of hatred for the army's actions. And I think that this possibility deserves reflection about how to deal with it. Apart from just saying "it was a terrorist attack", without following up on any measures about future improvements to reduce the probability of a repetition of this kind of thing.

[HarryT]

desertgrandma,

Until the man comes out of his coma and is able to be interrogated, any speculation as to his motives can be nothing more than speculation, and I don't think that's very productive - do you? Terrorism is one possibility, yes, but equally so is the possibility that he merely went on a random shooting spree at his place of work, as regretably have postal workers, college students, etc, done so in the past.

Don't you think it would be better to wait for the facts?

I don't know if you read this editorial in the "Dallas Morning News", but I agree with every word of it:

As of this writing, the killer's motive is not known – and depending on how much he can or will cooperate with investigators, it may never be – but his name is Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, believed to be in his late 30s. It obviously could prove significant that the murderer was believed to be a Muslim, suggesting the motive might be ideological or religious anger, as opposed to post-traumatic stress disorder or some other psychiatric distress. This wasn't the act of a young and traumatized enlisted man; the mass murderer was an officer – and, indeed, a psychiatrist himself, one about to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.

It is tempting, in our collective grief and anger, to jump to furious and intemperate conclusions. Given that this country has been engaged in a war on Islamist terror for most of this decade, it's natural to focus on the killer's religion. ("I wish his name was Smith," an unidentified Army officer's wife told ABC News, and who wouldn't agree?)

Be careful here, and let the FBI and military investigators do their careful and deliberate work. If there was any sort of conspiracy, they will find it – but don't assume the worst.

The Pentagon estimates that roughly 3,000 American Muslims serve in the U.S. military, though they don't have a precise count. Islamic soldiers no doubt get lots of grief serving in a military that's occupying and fighting in Muslim countries, but serve they do – and by choice. They don't deserve to have their patriotism and loyalty questioned because of this.

What they do deserve, as do the rest of us, is a complete examination of this criminal act and a clear resolution on what led to it.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I have the right to own a firearm. Should the gov't be responsible for making sure I don't shoot myself in the foot?

The Government should ensure you take a gun safty course before you're sold a firearm, so you know how not to shoot yourself in the foot, yes.