Welcome to Gaia's forums, where millions of members gather to discuss random stuff, make new friends,
complain about life, argue about nothing, laugh at dumb pictures, discuss serious issues and/or curse like sailors.
Lurking is creepy. Quit skulking in the shadows and join the conversation!
Register to reply| Let go. We can no longer trust them with guns and authority. |    |
4.7% | [ 8 ] |
| Screened for interest in radical forms of Islam. | |
15.7% | [ 27 ] |
| Screened and profile in more than one way.. | |
7.0% | [ 12 ] |
| Just ignore them. | |
1.2% | [ 2 ] |
| Muslim service men and women are just like anyone else. | |
59.3% | [ 102 ] |
| They should be singled out for further training together with psychiatric evaluations. | |
2.9% | [ 5 ] |
| More than once answer from above. | |
9.3% | [ 16 ] |
 |
You think you might die that day, you say something to god.
|
|
|
HelloNoora Muslim, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan shouted "God is Great" in Arabic while opening fire at Fort Hood yesterday hitting 43 persons before being shot himself. Hasan is alive and in critical condition at a nearby community hospital under guard by both local and military police. Why are they letting the b*****d live? Someone pull the ******** plug, while there's still time! Quote: This is going to be bad for Muslims in the American Armed forces. It is most likely that he was going through middle age crises in addition to being deployed against his wishes. The two most dangerous groups of people for mass murder are teenage boys who suffer from fail, followed by middle aged men going through male menopause faildom. Just throwing this out there, but is it possible that it was another 9/11? You know, trained in America, by America, to destroy America? Quote: However, there will be people who raise the question of whether it is sensible to have Muslims in western military outfits especially those that espouse radical Islam and who vocally protest our aggressive presence in the oil rich countries and Afganistan. Well, to be fair, I wouldn't send a Chinese person to fight against the Chinese. That just seems wrong. Quote: Americans will never tolerate another Japanese interment camp a la WWII for Muslims in our population. We learned from that one. However, is it possible or not to remove Muslims from military service? Would it be a good idea or not? Probably wouldn't be the most celebrated decision in American Military history, but whatever we can do, to protect our boys, right? Quote: My stance is that if we remove Muslims from our armed forces it might make people have a false sense of security while also causing many Americans to begin fearing and shunning civilian Muslims. Your thoughts? Well, I don't know about all that. But I do believe that it would have a lot of Muslim Americans, and sympathizers, pretty pissed off. But after that little incident, I don't think it would be wise to continue to let Muslims into a group who's current enemies are Muslim. |
 |
|
|
Cory Shallow You think you might die that day, you say something to god. The saying "God is Great" is common enough, yes. One would expect that if you are dying you might say something to God. |
|
|
Oh snap...looks like there is a connection between this Fort Hood killer and the 9/11 hijackers
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33777070/ns/us_news-tragedy_at_fort_hood/ black_wing_angel Just throwing this out there, but is it possible that it was another 9/11? You know, trained in America, by America, to destroy America? 9/11: Trained in America(Newsweek reported several of the 9/11 hijackers were trained at high level US army bases), by America, to destroy America? Well...one could definitely say the elites engineered 9/11 to serve such purposes, using these gullible jihadists to do their work |
|
|
|
Cloning. We should breed soldiers with no personal or religious ideology, only blind and supreme obedience to their chain of command. An endless stream of perfect soldiers marching out of factories and onto battlefields so the rest of us don't have to deal with the blood and guts of it. Less risk of someone of value being killed senselessly in a battle as well. |
|
|
If we remove the Muslim population from the American military, there will be enormous backlash from across the globe, especially in the US. Not to mention those part of the radical side of Islam will view it as the US admitting this is, in fact, a war on Islam.
|
|
|
|
Mathematical Trickery If we remove the Muslim population from the American military, there will be enormous backlash from across the globe, especially in the US. Not to mention those part of the radical side of Islam will view it as the US admitting this is, in fact, a war on Islam. Question: Why not declare war on Islam? They've certainly never been shy about declaring war on us. I know, I know, "not every Muslim hates the US". True, but not every German was a Nazi, nor every Italian a friend of Mussolini. |
|
|
...because the Muslim population is well over 1.5 billion people.
And we trained the mastermind of the only group of terrorists that killed over a thousand people in the United States. To declare war on a religion is insane. We are not a Christian country, and I will certainly side with Islam were such a catastrophe to happen. |
|
|
|
Mathematical Trickery ...because the Muslim population is well over 1.5 billion people. And we trained the mastermind of the only group of terrorists that killed over a thousand people in the United States. To declare war on a religion is insane. We are not a Christian country, and I will certainly side with Islam were such a catastrophe to happen. So? There's a lot of them. Just means we'll use more bombs than bullets. Yeah, we trained them and they turned on us. If a dog bites you, you go Old Yeller on it's a**. You don't keep petting it. Declaring war on an enemy group, be it a nation, religious sect, or people named Floyd is not insane nor can it be done solely by another such group. You can wage a war on one religion without being part of another yourself, Cochise. |
|
|
AsuraSyn Mathematical Trickery If we remove the Muslim population from the American military, there will be enormous backlash from across the globe, especially in the US. Not to mention those part of the radical side of Islam will view it as the US admitting this is, in fact, a war on Islam. Question: Why not declare war on Islam? They've certainly never been shy about declaring war on us. I know, I know, "not every Muslim hates the US". True, but not every German was a Nazi, nor every Italian a friend of Mussolini. Wouldn't it be slightly more stupid than declaring 'war on terrorism' ? There are more than 1 billion Muslims in the world. And it's still an abstract noun. You can't capture the capital of 'terrorism' and get a declaration of surrender from its government. So that war can never be won. If you pick on Islam you could capture Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. (Oh - that one is already occupied). But you can't get the leader of Islam to announce that they're wrong and they surrender and its all over. Because there isn't a leader - there isn't any individual in control. All you'll have done is make enemies out of one in five of the human population. 'War' is supposed to be a limited conflict between two sovereigns or two sovereign states with monarch substitutes. Declaring war on an idea is like painting over the colour yellow or floodlighting a shadow - intrinsically fatuous. |
|
|
|
Grungekitty AsuraSyn Mathematical Trickery If we remove the Muslim population from the American military, there will be enormous backlash from across the globe, especially in the US. Not to mention those part of the radical side of Islam will view it as the US admitting this is, in fact, a war on Islam. Question: Why not declare war on Islam? They've certainly never been shy about declaring war on us. I know, I know, "not every Muslim hates the US". True, but not every German was a Nazi, nor every Italian a friend of Mussolini. Wouldn't it be slightly more stupid than declaring 'war on terrorism' ? There are more than 1 billion Muslims in the world. And it's still an abstract noun. You can't capture the capital of 'terrorism' and get a declaration of surrender from its government. So that war can never be won. If you pick on Islam you could capture Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. (Oh - that one is already occupied). But you can't get the leader of Islam to announce that they're wrong and they surrender and its all over. Because there isn't a leader - there isn't any individual in control. All you'll have done is make enemies out of one in five of the human population. 'War' is supposed to be a limited conflict between two sovereigns or two sovereign states with monarch substitutes. Declaring war on an idea is like painting over the colour yellow or floodlighting a shadow - intrinsically fatuous. Well, for one thing "War on Terrorism" is perhaps the stupidest ******** thing I have ever heard in my life, and I grew up with "duck & cover", so yeah to that. I mean, you can't go to war against future events so shouldn't it be "war on terrorists"? And even then, by law, you can't go to war against terrorists because they have no recognized sovereignty and thus the so called "Rules of War" do not apply to them, but moving on. We couldn't capture and/or force a surrender, true, but we could annihilate it. A War of Destruction, ten point for whomever knows the other term for that phrase, would solve the problem of extremists cropping up from this group, would it not? After all, if there's no group, there's no extremists, right? As for what "war" is "supposed" to be, when has it ever been limited to two sovereigns? There's always spillover and collateral damage. How's this going to be any different? |
|
|
AsuraSyn Grungekitty AsuraSyn Mathematical Trickery If we remove the Muslim population from the American military, there will be enormous backlash from across the globe, especially in the US. Not to mention those part of the radical side of Islam will view it as the US admitting this is, in fact, a war on Islam. Question: Why not declare war on Islam? They've certainly never been shy about declaring war on us. I know, I know, "not every Muslim hates the US". True, but not every German was a Nazi, nor every Italian a friend of Mussolini. Wouldn't it be slightly more stupid than declaring 'war on terrorism' ? There are more than 1 billion Muslims in the world. And it's still an abstract noun. You can't capture the capital of 'terrorism' and get a declaration of surrender from its government. So that war can never be won. If you pick on Islam you could capture Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. (Oh - that one is already occupied). But you can't get the leader of Islam to announce that they're wrong and they surrender and its all over. Because there isn't a leader - there isn't any individual in control. All you'll have done is make enemies out of one in five of the human population. 'War' is supposed to be a limited conflict between two sovereigns or two sovereign states with monarch substitutes. Declaring war on an idea is like painting over the colour yellow or floodlighting a shadow - intrinsically fatuous. Well, for one thing "War on Terrorism" is perhaps the stupidest ******** thing I have ever heard in my life, and I grew up with "duck & cover", so yeah to that. I mean, you can't go to war against future events so shouldn't it be "war on terrorists"? And even then, by law, you can't go to war against terrorists because they have no recognized sovereignty and thus the so called "Rules of War" do not apply to them, but moving on. We couldn't capture and/or force a surrender, true, but we could annihilate it. A War of Destruction, ten point for whomever knows the other term for that phrase, would solve the problem of extremists cropping up from this group, would it not? After all, if there's no group, there's no extremists, right? As for what "war" is "supposed" to be, when has it ever been limited to two sovereigns? There's always spillover and collateral damage. How's this going to be any different? I was hoping you were being satirical, but it looks like you're a racist, bigoted dipshit. Enough said, gtfo. |
|
|
|
Mathematical Trickery AsuraSyn Grungekitty AsuraSyn Mathematical Trickery If we remove the Muslim population from the American military, there will be enormous backlash from across the globe, especially in the US. Not to mention those part of the radical side of Islam will view it as the US admitting this is, in fact, a war on Islam. Question: Why not declare war on Islam? They've certainly never been shy about declaring war on us. I know, I know, "not every Muslim hates the US". True, but not every German was a Nazi, nor every Italian a friend of Mussolini. Wouldn't it be slightly more stupid than declaring 'war on terrorism' ? There are more than 1 billion Muslims in the world. And it's still an abstract noun. You can't capture the capital of 'terrorism' and get a declaration of surrender from its government. So that war can never be won. If you pick on Islam you could capture Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. (Oh - that one is already occupied). But you can't get the leader of Islam to announce that they're wrong and they surrender and its all over. Because there isn't a leader - there isn't any individual in control. All you'll have done is make enemies out of one in five of the human population. 'War' is supposed to be a limited conflict between two sovereigns or two sovereign states with monarch substitutes. Declaring war on an idea is like painting over the colour yellow or floodlighting a shadow - intrinsically fatuous. Well, for one thing "War on Terrorism" is perhaps the stupidest ******** thing I have ever heard in my life, and I grew up with "duck & cover", so yeah to that. I mean, you can't go to war against future events so shouldn't it be "war on terrorists"? And even then, by law, you can't go to war against terrorists because they have no recognized sovereignty and thus the so called "Rules of War" do not apply to them, but moving on. We couldn't capture and/or force a surrender, true, but we could annihilate it. A War of Destruction, ten point for whomever knows the other term for that phrase, would solve the problem of extremists cropping up from this group, would it not? After all, if there's no group, there's no extremists, right? As for what "war" is "supposed" to be, when has it ever been limited to two sovereigns? There's always spillover and collateral damage. How's this going to be any different? I was hoping you were being satirical, but it looks like you're a racist, bigoted dipshit. Enough said, gtfo. You don't like what I have to say so you ignore what I have to say and any and all points I make and label me a bigot? ... The irony is what gets me the most. xd |
|
|
Oh no, you're right.
We should kill all the Jews too! Wait, that makes me a bigot? Haha, turns out YOU'RE the bigot! We should go to war with them because a small percentage HATE us and want to kill us! Jeeze, I love your logic. I could do this all day! Death to the Jews! |
|
|
|
Mathematical Trickery Oh no, you're right. We should kill all the Jews too! Wait, that makes me a bigot? Haha, turns out YOU'RE the bigot! We should go to war with them because a small percentage HATE us and want to kill us! Jeeze, I love your logic. I could do this all day! Death to the Jews! I'm sorry, how many of our buildings did the Israelis blow up again? stare I think Godwin's on line one, Cochise. I never said we should kill all Muslims, I said why shouldn't we. I have yet to hear a reason. Oh yeah! As for the whole 1/5 people hating us, what's the percentage now of people who hate us? One in six? Yeah, hell of a big difference there. |
|
