prize for stupidness

Maybe it just seems like common sense to me, but if someone's on a terrorist watch and the CIA were objecting to allowing him citizenship, it probably wouldn't be wise to let him into the Army. But hey, its no-one elses fault that your government is stupid. :)

Also, that's four Muslims from the military who were indicted and/or charged by the US government. Out of an estimated population of 15,000 Muslims who serve in the US military. These were actual cases where people committed criminal acts, so of course there are probably a few more who harbour resentments toward the US. But that doesn't mean that you should kick them all out. If someone is an obvious threat (Ali A. Mohamed) then it is stupid to allow them into the military. But you shouldn't kick all Arabs/Muslims out because of the actions of a few.

John Abizaid is Libanese from origin. John Abizaid is second in charge in this war.

Of course he ain't muslim anymore; he was forced to convert to ignorism before he was allowed to join the US army.

I didn't wanna start a new thread. and this one seems closest.... (as it's another example of something that deserves a prize for stupidness)

Quote:

---

Four U.S. soldiers with the 3rd Infantry Division were killed Saturday morning when a suicide bomber in a taxi attacked a military checkpoint in the central Iraqi town of Najaf, a U.S. Central Command spokesman said

---

Quote:

---

U.S. Central Command Director of Operations Maj. Gen. Victor Renuart Jr. condemned Saturday's attack as a terrorist act but said it not change the coalition's operational strategy.

---

I'm really starting to wondering about the collition forces/allies/invaders...... They've invaded a country.... This country fights back using whatever means are necessary. This happens to include a suicide bombing. What does the US government do? They call it a terrorist attack. Should we start calling the Kamikazes of WWII terrorists? Were those terrorist attacks as well???

I think the US government needs to wake up and realize that attacks on them in war time are not terroist attacks... They are invading another country, the citizens of that country can choose to ward of those invaders if they feel it is right to do so. This isn't terrorism, this is self-defense.

i would agree except that there are now rules to warfare. and yes there are rules, they cant sucide attack us anymore than we can moab bagdad. its considered bad taste. personaly, i think when it comes to war, manners should go out the window. we *should* have moab'ed bagdad at the very begaining. it would have a made a very nice point. and would...induce the rest to surrender. *note* i would not wipe bagdad from the face of the earth, but i would leave a big hole in the middle, right where all those govt building are. it would be better than throwing missiles at them and then have a bloody door to door fight for the city.