Well, I do care about the safety of our troops, along with our freedoms. Our troops are not disposable. They don't need any unnecessary additional risks from idiots in the homeland while they are serving our nation overseas.
I am one who believes this does not increase the risk level. Nobody who was not previously motivated in some way to attack our men and women in the field would be inspired to do just that because of this.
The only Idiots in this nation endangering the troopws lives right now are the Idiots who will not rescind their Johnson/McNamara type ROE's so they can do what they must ASAP and come home SOON. The same ROE's that have been in place starting in Korea and used ever since. But everyones too busy doing their PC sensitivity Boo Hooing over a stinking book to realize it.
The logical conclusion of your opinion is that nobody in this country should do anything “unnecessary” that might offend the radicals who killed us on 9/11, because it might make a few more “almost-radicals” into radicals, and make things harder.
Well, if we all converted to Islam, and implemented Sharia law, and allowed the Taliban to take over Afghanistan, I suppose our troops would be a lot safer than they are now. Just as if we had given in to Germany in WW2, we wouldn’t have had so many soldiers killed in that war either.
Who defines what is “unncessary”? Sure, most of us seem to agree that burning a Koran is unnecessary. But given that Jesus said we could pray in secret, is there really any reason for us to be so open about practicing our faith in public, something that also offends the radical muslims?
And while our women like to parade around in immodest clothing, and our men like to watch them, surely it’s not NECESSARY that they wear those clothes, so shouldn’t we, just to be safe, make all women wear modest dress, and cover themselves?
And nobody thinks pornography is necessary. Or R-rated movies that show women undressed. Osama has issued proclamations about how our predilictions are one of the things that causes them to attack us, so we should certainly stop filming R-rated movies, it’s not ncessary and it puts our troops in danger.
Where do you draw the line? And are you the arbitor, or is General Petraeus the one who gets to make the rules about what freedoms of ours are necessary, and which are unnecessary and should be abandoned to make our soldier’s jobs easier?
As I said in another thread I posted, Obama surrendered our country this week. When the government tells a private citizen to curtail their free speech rights “for the sake of the troops”, that is the day when we surrender to the demands of those who threaten the troops because of our liberties.
BTW, I totally believe that you have every right to be upset at the Pastor, and to say that he is endangering our troops, and to publicly denounce him for the unncessary risks he is imposing.
That’s because you are a fellow citizen, and do not speak with the authority of the government, and the authority of the military.
Doesn’t it bother you in the least bit that Obama explicitly named himself as “commander in chief” when he denounced the pastor; that the Secretary of Defense also denounced the pastor, and that General Petraeus denounced hte pastor? Doesn’t it bother you that the entire top ranks of our military leadership impolitely told a citizen to stop exercising his free speech, because it made their job harder?
It bothers me greatly.