Juan williams fired from NPR

[Cicero]

You also have a constitutional right to not be discriminated against in employment situations based on your sexuality, which is why DADT is getting stomped in the courts.

It is? The U.S. Congress is the only entity Constitutionally authorized to amend DADT.

Possibly, but it's not a good precedent. Going after funding based on political grudges (vs. legitimate concerns) will only lead to more pettiness in our already very petty system.

Firing employees based on political grudges, i.e. not legitimate concerns, will only lead to more pettiness. As you said, you have a Constitutional right not to be discriminated against in employment situations based on race, gender, sexual orientation and for not having the same opinions as your employer.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Really? There are no homosexuals in the U.S. armed forces? Interesting,.

They kick people out upon learning of their homosexuality. That's discrimination based on bigotry. But you knew that, you really can't trick people into believing that the bigotry-based discrimination isn't there.

 

[Meed]

Except that the perpetrators did it in the name of Islam. THEY made the association.

Bin Laden cited geo-political reasons as the primary motivation for the attack.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

The militant Islamic group decided "we should destroy towers in America" because "we are a free people... and we want to regain the freedom of our nation," said bin Laden, dressed in yellow and white robes and videotaped against a plain brown background.

In the 18-minute message, parts of which were played on Qatar-based Al-Jazeera just four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the day 19 suicide hijackers took over four American passenger jets.

He also threatened new attacks if the policies of the U.S. government do not change.

According to translators, bin Laden told American voters: "Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry or Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands.

"Each state that does not meddle with our security has naturally guaranteed its own security."

 

[Ziggurat]

Bin Laden cited geo-political reasons as the primary motivation for the attack.

Bin Laden was trying to influence a US election with that announcement, and even he understands that demanding US citizens worship Allah won't exactly go over well. Go back to his declaration of war against the US. You will find it doesn't match what he claims in that more recent statement. The former document, however, is much more significant than the latter statement. And it's filled with religious justifications.

Maybe you're just trying to play devil's advocate (I've done that myself plenty of times), but if you truly don't believe that Al Qaeda isn't justifying their actions on the basis of Islamic doctrine, then you aren't paying attention.

 

[marplots]

Bin Laden was trying to influence a US election with that announcement, and even he understands that demanding US citizens worship Allah won't exactly go over well. Go back to his declaration of war against the US. You will find it doesn't match what he claims in that more recent statement. The former document, however, is much more significant than the latter statement. And it's filled with religious justifications.

Maybe you're just trying to play devil's advocate (I've done that myself plenty of times), but if you truly don't believe that Al Qaeda isn't justifying their actions on the basis of Islamic doctrine, then you aren't paying attention.

I agree with you, but I'd point out that his missives that use religious touchstones also cannot be trusted to be other than 'preaching to the choir'. I cannot say I really know what Bin Laden actually believes. I don't trust what he says as necessarily reflecting his true motivations.

 

[Ziggurat]

I agree with you, but I'd point out that his missives that use religious touchstones also cannot be trusted to be other than 'preaching to the choir'. I cannot say I really know what Bin Laden actually believes. I don't trust what he says as necessarily reflecting his true motivations.

In a sense it doesn't matter: even if he doesn't believe it (and there's no evidence or reason to think he doesn't), the "choir" does, and is acting on that belief. Even if he's being completely cynical, bin Laden has still made a deliberate and explicit association between Islamic faith and terrorist attacks.

 

[Meed]

Bin Laden was trying to influence a US election with that announcement, and even he understands that demanding US citizens worship Allah won't exactly go over well. Go back to his declaration of war against the US. You will find it doesn't match what he claims in that more recent statement. The former document, however, is much more significant than the latter statement. And it's filled with religious justifications.

It matches somewhat well. There's a lot of complaints about the United States occupying and murdering. And yeah, religious stuff as well. You can't just say the non-religious stuff doesn't count and is less significant.

Maybe you're just trying to play devil's advocate (I've done that myself plenty of times), but if you truly don't believe that Al Qaeda isn't justifying their actions on the basis of Islamic doctrine, then you aren't paying attention.

They are justifying their actions, which are based largely on political grievances, on Islamic doctrine among other things, yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

It matches somewhat well. There's a lot of complaints about the United States occupying and murdering.

The complaint about occupation in his 1998 declaration of war was in regards to US troops in the Arabian peninsula, and the first Gulf war in Iraq, in 1991. No mention was made of Lebanon. The story you linked to makes no mention of Saudi Arabia, the Arabian peninsula, or Iraq (though perhaps they are in the full transcript), but does mention US involvement in Lebanon in 1982. That's not what I would call a great match. But it's also not really important to my primary argument (see below).

And yeah, religious stuff as well. You can't just say the non-religious stuff doesn't count and is less significant.

I didn't say it didn't count. But it doesn't really matter for the statement you had responded to that "the perpetrators [of the 9/11 attacks] did it in the name of Islam. THEY made the association."

 

[Meed]

True, but it can be misleading to those who aren't aware of the explicit political reasons that have been cited. Obviously both are true to some extent. To what extent each was a factor compared to the other is hard to say. I tend to think of acts of war and/or terrorism as primarily political and religious association as more supplementary. But that's me.

 

[marplots]

In a sense it doesn't matter: even if he doesn't believe it (and there's no evidence or reason to think he doesn't), the "choir" does, and is acting on that belief. Even if he's being completely cynical, bin Laden has still made a deliberate and explicit association between Islamic faith and terrorist attacks.

Now that would be a good test question. How would I feel about Stewart having Bin Laden on stage? Would I say the equivalent of "just let him sing" like I did with Yusuf?

 

[Roadtoad]

Really? There are no homosexuals in the U.S. armed forces? Interesting,.

Yes, but they have to serve without revealing they're gay/lesbian.

Most of us consider that discriminatory.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, but they have to serve without revealing they're gay/lesbian.

Most of us consider that discriminatory.

If you let those colored people eat in the kitchen, it's not discriminatory because you're still letting them eat in your restaurant.

 

[Cicero]

If you let those colored people eat in the kitchen, it's not discriminatory because you're still letting them eat in your restaurant.

When you attempt an analagy, it always comes up invalid, but it does showcase your racist vocabulary.

 

[Cicero]

Yes, but they have to serve without revealing they're gay/lesbian.

Neither heterosexuals or homosexuals have to serve.

Most of us consider that discriminatory.

POTUS Clinton was/is a champion of discrimination? Contrary to the flick "G.I. Jane," the Navy doesn't allow women to join the SEALs. The armed forces is discriminatory. They do not deny it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Neither heterosexuals or homosexuals have to serve.

I see you writing English words and people responding to you in English, yet you still seem unable to understand what is actually being posted. Is English your second language?

 

[Roadtoad]

Neither heterosexuals or homosexuals have to serve.

That is true. It is a volunteer force.

However, by banning people from service not because they are not qualified in every other aspect of their lives, but simply because they are gay/lesbian, the military is discriminating over a matter that is largely a minor matter. It simply is not worth it.

As a result, men and women who would ordinarily be highly qualified are denied an opportunity to serve, and thus, we wind up with people who are less qualified.

 

[Puppycow]

Ellen Weiss fired from NPR

 

[applecorped]

the sacrificial lamb no one noticed.