RoyGBiv wrote:williamkevin wrote:ffemt300 wrote:Since when does an ambassador tell the Marines what to do? :headscratch
The Marine detachment works for the ambassador.
Another forum post on this subject worth reading here...
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php? ... #post91399" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Roy, thanks for the link. Jus as the guy who wrote that post concludes in one of his prior posts, I'm a very conservative guy, and I cannot stand the Impostor in Chief or his sidekick, Cankles; but it is clear that this did come under the heading of "stuff happens" rather than some kind of clear cut fecklessness on the part of DoS or our intelligence apparatus.
That said, what truly does chap my hide is the tone of the official responses—from the idiot functionary at our Cairo embassy's apology, even to the president's "make no mistake" response. I want him to STOP CONSTANTLY REASSURING MUSLIMS that their rights will be protected—NOT because I don't want their rights protected, but because he does not extend the SAME protections to CHRISTIANS, whose rights are under assault in this nation daily from a hostile administration. This is NOT because I am arguing that we are a "Christian nation." This is because NO RELIGION SHOULD BE SINGLED OUT FOR PROTECTION
OR PERSECUTION.
Instead of the words he used, he should say "Make no mistake,
it does not matter what your religion is, if you harm us, we will find you, waterboard you to find out where the rest of you are, and crush ALL of you like the vermin you are. Our response WILL BE out of proportion to the offense. There WILL BE collateral damage and casualties, including YOUR wives and YOUR children. You just think about that for a few minutes before you try any crap against any American embassies and citizens inside of your borders."
The First Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." ANY official response must be couched in such terms. The First Amendment makes the religion of the people from whose ranks the attackers emerged
irrelevant, and peaceful Muslims living among us have no
legitimate fear of reprisal against them because
even on 9/11/01, when Muslims in American neighborhoods danced in the streets upon hearing the news, we did NOT retaliate. WE ARE NOT
LIKE THAT. In this particular context, I like to quote Michael Medved, one of the most common sense conservative commentators I know of. He says that it would be terribly wrong to characterize all Muslims as terrorists. He also says that, however, ALL of the terrorists who have attacked Americans over the past 20 years or so have been Muslims. And despite that, American Muslims have largely gone about their business, in total safety, even in the face of the ignorance or hostility of their fellow citizens;
even on the day of the worst attack on the nation in American history by self-professed Muslims; and often with the support of their local communities who did not share their religious faith but wanted them to be safe in this country. WE ARE NOT A BARBAROUS PEOPLE, AND THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO STOP IMPLYING THAT WE ARE, and that Muslims or anybody
else needs a guarantee of special protections from US. We are not the bloody Hutus. We are not like the Muslim government in Darfur, exterminating Christian farmers.
There is at least ONE example I can think of in my lifetime when religious/political violence involving Christians took place, and that was the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Whatever one thinks of the political agendas of either side, the fact is that Catholics in England slept safer in their beds at night than did Protestants in Ireland.
Whatever else one thinks about the nation of Israel and the seemingly perpetual war between Israel and her Arab neighbors, Muslims living inside of Israel's borders sleep safer in their beds at night than Jews living in the Palestinian Authority would sleep—not because there is any love lost between the two, but because the one group is essentially lawless and violent by nature, and the other isn't.
So why is it that Muslim Israelis are safer in their beds than Palestinian Jews? It is because Israel, despite being populated by a
mostly religious people, is a secular nation. In any nation made of mostly of one religion in which the government seeks to impose
religious law (Sharia) on everyone instead of secular law, then the rights of the religious minority are necessarily curtailed or even crushed.
There are some valid conclusions to be drawn from this. First, to my fellow citizens who are Muslims, I am about to vote for a
Mormon for president, and as an evangelical Christian, I regard Mormonism as theologically unsupportable and a flawed religion (as I do Islam, by the way). But the fact of my religion does not mean that I cannot coexist peacefully and cooperate—and even support politically—people of good character whose religious choices are different from my own, but with whom I share political ideology. I will defend my theology to the death, but I'd
rather do it over barbecue and lemonade. The above mentioned Michael Medved has a nickname for that segment of Islam which is predisposed to act reflexively, violently, and without legitimate reason against the west and most specifically against America and Americans: "ROPO," which is short for the "Religion of Perpetual Outrage."
ANYONE who is a Muslim and who is NOT a member of the ROPO, has nothing to fear from other Americans, regardless of their religious orientation; and I REALLY wish that the clown in the White House and any of his likeminded trolls in the State Department would quit speaking as if they did.
