Previous 11 - 20 Next
This Young Voices writer isn't ready for the training wheels to come off yet. DoD isn't 'funneling' weapons to or 'militarizing' schools. They've been directed to offer surplus materiel to state agencies. State, not Federal, people are in charge of deciding who gets what and individual agencies get to produce wish lists. Leaving the bizarre MRAPs out of the equation for now (NO idea who, other than police, would want one), military surplus includes all manner of things. A military base, particularly one overseas, has to do it all; PA equipment, computers, school materials, office furnishings, medical equipment, and yes, war materiel are all things that DoD procures and then decides to replace (sometimes just to use up budget money, but that is part and parcel to all government bureaucracies). As for schools with bars and metal detectors, that started long before this recent DoD-to-States program. Simply put, this author is gluing things together that simply aren't connected. Schools too much like jails? Problematic. Military stuff being handed out like candy because it's 'free'? Also a problem. But these things are not connected with each other in the way the author suggests, "...sent weapons of war including guns and tanks to 26 school police departments across the country free of charge...." Unless someone can see this in the data?
In response to:

Obama's Unnecessary, Unpromising War

Mag14 Wrote: Sep 14, 2014 3:08 AM
It never occurs to these people that some of yesterday's Taliban are today's ISIS.
In response to:

Obama's Unnecessary, Unpromising War

Mag14 Wrote: Sep 14, 2014 3:03 AM
"The Obama administration's heavy reliance on targeted killings as a pillar of U.S. counterterrorism strategy rests on questionable assumptions, and risks increasing instability and escalating conflicts," - Stimson Center Soooo. Questionable assumptions. I'd be worried if they were invalid of mistaken. Questionable? Probably lots of assumptions are. I am assuming so, anyway. Risks increasing instability and escalating conflicts? What part of attacking people militarily DOESN'T risk increasing instability and escalating conflicts? I hope whoever hired this think tank to 'think' kept their receipt.
In response to:

Obama's Unnecessary, Unpromising War

Mag14 Wrote: Sep 14, 2014 2:56 AM
Blowback /'bl???bæk/ noun 1. Normal resistance from a country being warred upon.
In response to:

Voter Fraud and the Loss of Pretense

Mag14 Wrote: Sep 13, 2014 2:34 AM
"More Americans voting and participating in the political process are certainly worthy causes...." Not necessarily. If we could get more low-information voters - of all parties - to shut up and stay home we would benefit.
In response to:

Just War Theory and ISIS

Mag14 Wrote: Sep 13, 2014 2:22 AM
We have a strong case for war. I agree on that point. "...military action versus the Barbary Coast Pirates (who where the Jihadists of their day)." Pirate-whacking isn't war, it's taking out the trash - and we should still be doing it. With regard to 'probability of success', that depends entirely on how we define our goals. Eradicating ISIS/ISIL is probably not possible unless we are willing to pursue them into whatever country they flee to whether that country gives us access or not.
In response to:

Is the Islamic State Really Un-Islamic?

Mag14 Wrote: Sep 12, 2014 10:23 PM
Indeed we do engage in silent consent every day. That doesn't mean that all silence is consent. Sometimes it means, 'I'll fight you later'. Sometimes it means, 'I didn't notice'. Sometimes it means, "I assumed you weren't talking about me'. Short of demanding that every Muslim sign a Statement of Intent whenever a given terrorist attack occurs there is always going to be some silence. I am aware that their religion - as written - condones and encourages evil on behalf of Allah. It’s filthy - though there’s more to the Koran than lying, Jew-killing, infidel-whacking and heretic-murdering. Most Muslims - at least in the US – don’t go in for that kind of thing, or at least haven’t for their admittedly brief time as citizens. I am glad that we agree that US Muslims should not be interned at this time. The Japanese were thought to be loyal to their Emperor (who was a God) unto death. So: close enough to a religion that teaches death during war years. Muslims know better than non-Muslims about the price of leaving the religion or espousing non-approved views. They get killed long before your basic infidel. So: coercion. It is possible that every Muslim everywhere is just a scimitar away from joining ISIL. But I don’t think so. I think they're human beings - not multi-culti-just-like-American-people, but human beings who would rather live in a modern city and pursue happiness than they would live in a cave and rampage with sword and machine gun.
In response to:

Is the Islamic State Really Un-Islamic?

Mag14 Wrote: Sep 12, 2014 2:21 AM
Islam doesn't mean peace no matter how many times it is repeated. Silence doesn't mean consent no matter how many times it is repeated either. Coerced silence cannot mean consent. You would hardly expect a bank robber to get off scot free because no one in the bank specifically said he wasn't entitled to take the money. Maxims are not law. If they were they would be enshrined in statute. As a general principle silence - in contract law - is considered consent. But we're not talking of law, we're talking about whether people of a group are in part guilty of what some of that group do because they didn't condemn it. Which is silly. The Ferguson riots were pathetic and inexcusable. But we don't require every black person in the US to sign something saying they disapprove of rioting. It would be lovely if more Muslims spoke out against ISIL etc. Some do, but they don't get much press time. There are Muslims in the US who would turn on their fellow citizens to side with a Caliphate or similar. There are also US Muslims who would not. Same with Muslims in the rest of the world. Which are which and in what quantities is certainly something we need to know. But judging people guilty when they are simply laying low is simply unjust. In WWII the US interned most Americans of Japanese descent on the idea that they might be more loyal to the Emperor than to the US government. We were wrong to do so. We would be wrong - absent actual evidence of sedition - to start that up again with US Muslims.
In response to:

Favors and Loot for Sale

Mag14 Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 9:52 PM
Pretty sure you have to kill them with fire. See also; Guy Fawkes.
In response to:

Cheap Politicians

Mag14 Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 9:14 PM
Sounds good.
So are you trying to tell us that no actual journalists were hurt in the beheading videos?
Previous 11 - 20 Next