OFFENSIVE? NAVY SEAL TRAINING INCLUDES SHOOTING AT TARGETS SHAPED LIKE MUSLIM WOMAN
JoeBtfsplk
2012/06/30 12:45:33
|
|
|||||
|
8 votes
|
|
19% | |||
|
35 votes
|
|
81% | |||
Here’s a true or false question for our readers:
True or false? A Navy SEAL will, at some point in their career, most likely have to shoot anti-American Islamic extremists.
Based on the experience of SEAL Team 6 in killing Osama bin Laden, we‘d say it’s probably a fairly safe bet that this statement is true. However, apparently preparing them for that possibility via training targets is now an attack on all Muslims, even those who would never take up arms against the United States. At least, that’s the argument advanced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in response to news reports showing that the following training target is used to train Navy SEALS:
In a press release obtained by the Blaze, CAIR says the following about this target:
A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today called on Pentagon officials not to use a target depicting a Muslim woman wearing a religious head scarf (hijab) and verses from the Quran in combat scenarios for training Navy SEALs at the new close quarters combat range at Joint Base Fort Story in Virginia Beach, Va.
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said that military facility, referred to as a “kill house,” features a number of combat scenarios, including a mosque and a movable target of a Muslim woman wearing hijab and aiming a handgun. Verses from the Quran, Islam’s revealed text, are also displayed behind the target.
“Using a Muslim woman wearing a religious head scarf with [verses from the] Quran behind her as a target for our nation’s military personnel is offensive and sends a negative and counterproductive message to trainees and to the Muslim-majority nations to which they may be deployed,” wrote CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad in a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. “This is yet another example of why the Department of Defense needs to fix what appears to be an ongoing problem by consulting credible scholars and experts to review all training and training materials related to Islam or Muslims.”
CAIR’s press release also links to this video, which informs us that CAIR has also contacted Attorney General Eric Holder and asked him to probe the usage of the targets, claiming that law enforcement at all levels are being taught to hate Muslims:
http://youtu.be/RxX5y7zX8RU
But is anti-Muslim sentiment all that’s really involved here?
CAIR cites a number of articles from progressive sources about how the law enforcement community is prejudicially anti-Muslim, but it seems to us that such an accusation would be difficult to make without first knowing what other targets are used in these training exercises.
Would it, for instance, be considered racist against whites to have a target shaped like Timothy McVeigh?
And if not, then what distinguishes that from this claim that essentially, training our soldiers and law enforcement to deal with one kind of Muslim is an attack on all Muslims?
True or false? A Navy SEAL will, at some point in their career, most likely have to shoot anti-American Islamic extremists.
Based on the experience of SEAL Team 6 in killing Osama bin Laden, we‘d say it’s probably a fairly safe bet that this statement is true. However, apparently preparing them for that possibility via training targets is now an attack on all Muslims, even those who would never take up arms against the United States. At least, that’s the argument advanced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in response to news reports showing that the following training target is used to train Navy SEALS:
In a press release obtained by the Blaze, CAIR says the following about this target:
A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today called on Pentagon officials not to use a target depicting a Muslim woman wearing a religious head scarf (hijab) and verses from the Quran in combat scenarios for training Navy SEALs at the new close quarters combat range at Joint Base Fort Story in Virginia Beach, Va.
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said that military facility, referred to as a “kill house,” features a number of combat scenarios, including a mosque and a movable target of a Muslim woman wearing hijab and aiming a handgun. Verses from the Quran, Islam’s revealed text, are also displayed behind the target.
“Using a Muslim woman wearing a religious head scarf with [verses from the] Quran behind her as a target for our nation’s military personnel is offensive and sends a negative and counterproductive message to trainees and to the Muslim-majority nations to which they may be deployed,” wrote CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad in a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. “This is yet another example of why the Department of Defense needs to fix what appears to be an ongoing problem by consulting credible scholars and experts to review all training and training materials related to Islam or Muslims.”
CAIR’s press release also links to this video, which informs us that CAIR has also contacted Attorney General Eric Holder and asked him to probe the usage of the targets, claiming that law enforcement at all levels are being taught to hate Muslims:
http://youtu.be/RxX5y7zX8RU
But is anti-Muslim sentiment all that’s really involved here?
CAIR cites a number of articles from progressive sources about how the law enforcement community is prejudicially anti-Muslim, but it seems to us that such an accusation would be difficult to make without first knowing what other targets are used in these training exercises.
Would it, for instance, be considered racist against whites to have a target shaped like Timothy McVeigh?
And if not, then what distinguishes that from this claim that essentially, training our soldiers and law enforcement to deal with one kind of Muslim is an attack on all Muslims?
to back a racist state against human decency and human rights is twisted. and claiming a god backs it is even more twisted.
If you want to re-write that treaty, call your Congressperson.
“...the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN.… In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.”[105]
Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt’s nephew and a legendary intelligence agent, was another who was deeply disturbed by events, noting:
“The process by which Zionist Jews have been able to promote American support for the partition of Palestine demonstrates the vital need of a foreign policy based on national rather than partisan interests…. Only when the national interests of the United States, in their highest terms, take precedence over all other considerations, can a logical, farseeing foreign policy be evolved. No American political leader has the right to compromise American interests to gain partisan votes…”[112]
He went on:
“The present course of world crisis will in...
“...the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN.… In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.”[105]
Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt’s nephew and a legendary intelligence agent, was another who was deeply disturbed by events, noting:
“The process by which Zionist Jews have been able to promote American support for the partition of Palestine demonstrates the vital need of a foreign policy based on national rather than partisan interests…. Only when the national interests of the United States, in their highest terms, take precedence over all other considerations, can a logical, farseeing foreign policy be evolved. No American political leader has the right to compromise American interests to gain partisan votes…”[112]
He went on:
“The present course of world crisis will increasingly force upon Americans the realization that their national interests and those of the proposed Jewish state in Palestine are going to conflict. It is to be hoped that American Zionists and non-Zionists alike will come to grips with the realities of the problem.”
Truman wrote in his memoirs: “I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance.” There were now about a million dues-paying Zionists in the U.S.[113]
Then, as now, in addition to unending pressure there was financial compensation, Truman reportedly receiving a suitcase full of money from Zionists while on his train campaign around the country.[114]
there was very much extreme opposition to the creation of israel.
Take it up with Congress.
Here, France, and Britain.
I'm sure you will make inroads.
so should palestinians wear a shirts about killing israeli's? should they train that way too? or maybe muslims should wear shirts depicting killing americans? will that be okay?
muslims have become the targeted boogeyman of choice by the govt. instead of diplomacy .no one ever asks why the u.s. feels it has the right to invade and kill people in other countries when it feels like it. and to justify it to americans it has to demonize people. what have they accomplished? intense hatred toward over 1 billion people who don't even think about america until they come calling.
Sure America did some bad things in Iran back in the day. But Iran should have joined the humanitarian thought process and proceeded in direction of what is best for the most.
Instead they decided that all things America are bad and maybe, just maybe that was when international terrorism began.
I don't accept your argument that America is to blame.
Ignorant tribal mentality is more the culprit. IMHO
iran?? LOL LOL iran has held out the hand of friendship many ,many times and been rebuffed by the u.s. because ,guess why?? israel said so! international terrorism is a creation of the cia by the way . they create and promulgate it shamelessly!
the end result is endless subversive activity in other countries. look at syria! anyone who believes that is legitimate needs their head examined. and libya? ,egypt? all regime change. if al qaeda is such a threat then why was the u.s. arming them in libya and air lifting them to syria? nope,the problem lies in the u.s. govt and its puppet master israel.
That's really a GREAT example of - "held out the hand of friendship..."
Lets see. we overthrew their democratic leader and installed our puppet dictator (the shah) and people expect the people we brutalized through our puppet to be nice to us.
No reason for the unmitigated terror that developed.
Has anyone made a bad decision before - since?
In any case, I think this constant offensive on foreign land is putting us in even greater danger: our military spending is partially responsible for our high debt; while we focus on foreign campaigns we ignore domestic issues both social and economic in nature. So we must work on building our domestic infrastructure in order to assure that we are safe and free.
It's up to the good Muslim's to take out the bad Muslim's.
How long do you think that will take?
When is this 1000+ year old feud between two siblings going to end? I'm sick and tired of this back and forth between Christians and Muslims; it's like two pistons of an engine: when one rises the other falls; when one falls the other rises and the cycle continues.
Now - answer my question about - "How long do you think that will take?"
How long will it take? It will never happen, just as the good Christians haven't been able to take out the bad Christians; there is still a lot of Christian violence all over the world: it only settled down over the last hundred to two hundred years because the Ottoman empire oppressed the Muslim half of the machine giving Christians full reign to spread throughout the world.
It's a bit difficult to give a large number of examples and you know it; the reason is not because it hasn't been occurring but because Christians have already converted pretty much every region on this planet. It's easy to say that Christians are no longer going out and converting people through force and through missionaries when that has already been a completed task.
BRAVO
EXCUSE me, but this is the 21st century and if there were Christians butchering and turning humans into Alpo, I'm sure that MSLSD, The Young Turks, ABC, CBS, NBC, Current TV and a host of other Librul , muzzie sympathizing organizations would be all over it like flies on 0bozo's lips.
3-1/2 year old dig. As I said, Christians are not butchering people around the world in the name of religion.
There may be a loose cannon here and there but radical muzzie terrorism is in epidemic proportions. Deny it all you want but sooner or later it will have to be dealt with on a global level.
http://www.welt.de/english-ne...
WHO KNEW?
Couldn't have said it better Linnster! And with a perfect touch of humor to boot!