100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientiou | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Face it, folks - the boy is the ideal candidate for fragging ... end of story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Face it, folks - the boy is the ideal candidate for fragging ... end of story. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just as easy as the directions on a shampoo bottle:
Pull. Roll. Explode. Repeat. It'd happen ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article said he is seeking CO status but that he would probably refuse to deploy if his CO status is denied. from the Wiki "A 1971 United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection.[40] Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."[41] In the US, this applies to primary claims, that is, those filed on initial SSS registration. On the other hand, those who apply after either having registered without filing, and/or having attempted or effected a deferral, are specifically required to demonstrate a discrete and documented change in belief, including a precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO. The male reference is due to the current "male only" basis for conscription in the United States. In the United States, there are two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. Second, the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375. That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333. COs willing to perform non-combatant military functions are classed 1-A-O by the U.S.; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector#United_States "Desmond Doss was the first of three conscientious objectors who agreed to serve in the US military in non-combatant roles and were subsequently awarded the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration" well, I hope he obtains non combatant position if worse comes to worse,,shame to force him to die for something he doesnt believe in,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the old 'Second City TV' (SCTV) ...
"He blowed up real good ... " |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then he should have thought of that before he signed the papers... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article said he is seeking CO status but that he would probably refuse to deploy if his CO status is denied. from the Wiki "A 1971 United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection.[40] Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."[41] In the US, this applies to primary claims, that is, those filed on initial SSS registration. On the other hand, those who apply after either having registered without filing, and/or having attempted or effected a deferral, are specifically required to demonstrate a discrete and documented change in belief, including a precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO. The male reference is due to the current "male only" basis for conscription in the United States. In the United States, there are two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. Second, the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375. That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333. COs willing to perform non-combatant military functions are classed 1-A-O by the U.S.; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector#United_States "Desmond Doss was the first of three conscientious objectors who agreed to serve in the US military in non-combatant roles and were subsequently awarded the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration" This feller was in when men had values. And he is one out of how many others who were just cowards!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He may really be a C.O. but then he should do the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some choice passages from the KJV Bible which when read in isolation makes the Bible appear to be a primer for evil: 1) In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it’s OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens. 2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants. 3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a god of war. 4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins. 5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently. 6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law. 7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders to kill anyone who refuses to be ruled by him. any religion can be used to justify hatred... Those are not accurate passages. The Bible is full of errors, being that anyone who knows any history of it knows that most of it was made up by religions scholors at the Council of Nicea, which makes it very innacurate. Where the Quran was written directly by Mohammud. how are they not accurate? the point was they are in the bible and can be taken as representative of what all christians therefore MUST condone just like what is done with the Quran No, the bible has been considered historucally innaccurate by top religios scholars and people at the vatican. The Quran on the other hand is historically accurate because it was written by Mohammud. this made no sense the account of those who wrote the bible has been CONSIDERED inaccurate , but Mohammuds accounts have not? doubtful Nope, they have not been considered innacurate by Islamic scholars. It was written and passed down by Mohammud himself. Where the bible was written by religious scholars 300 years after he died. without getting into the history of biblical writings,, what does that have to do with whether a muslim american should be just as free to have religious objections as a chistian american without being labeled a 'traitor' or having the charge of 'treason' thrust upon them,,,? mohammed wrote many things in the Quran, amazingly millions of muslims around the world somehow get a message of peace from those things where as others get a message of non tolerance and violence JUST LIKE THE BIBLE which is followed and studied by millions of christians It doesn't but you decided to take this conversation in that direction. The point is he can't hide behond Islam to get out of going to war, especially since top Muslim groups here in the US and outside the US have said that he can't and no where in their religion says he can't. He wants to get our for political reasons, because he doesn't agree with our two wars. Tough $hit, he signed up when we were in the middle of two wars and he wen't into the ellite Airborne Unit where he is traied to kill, and he knew that joining the Airborne. He wased time and money and took up spots that could have been filled by someone else. He has refused to deploy to the point where they have skipped over him, Thait in itself is a crime and he is lucky they didn't charge him with it while he files this. it is NOT a crime, they have a whole PROCESS set up for just that purpose in the military,,,,,good grief since when do 'top Muslim groups here in the US and outside the US have said' dictate military procedure? They can be called by the Military Prosecutor as expert witnesses. Yes the military does have a system for criminal activity and refusing to depoy is a serious felony and has a minimum sentance of 15 months in the Brig. wait, did the article say he has REFUSED to deploy or that he is seeking a discharge? refusing deployment is an offense, applying for a discharge is not He was held back from deployment because of this BS. Now if the next unit they put him in deploys and he refuses to go, he's done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article said he is seeking CO status but that he would probably refuse to deploy if his CO status is denied. from the Wiki "A 1971 United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection.[40] Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."[41] In the US, this applies to primary claims, that is, those filed on initial SSS registration. On the other hand, those who apply after either having registered without filing, and/or having attempted or effected a deferral, are specifically required to demonstrate a discrete and documented change in belief, including a precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO. The male reference is due to the current "male only" basis for conscription in the United States. In the United States, there are two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. Second, the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375. That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333. COs willing to perform non-combatant military functions are classed 1-A-O by the U.S.; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector#United_States "Desmond Doss was the first of three conscientious objectors who agreed to serve in the US military in non-combatant roles and were subsequently awarded the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration" Well him saying he doesn't wanna die is self interest. His refusal to go because he won't kill other Muslims fall's under that too. I know he can't use religious beliefs because top Muslim groups from across the world have come out and said that BS. Plus Muslim's do kill other Muslims, between the Sunni and Sheite's. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, I hope he obtains non combatant position if worse comes to worse,,shame to force him to die for something he doesnt believe in,,,,, Well I wouldn't want him in my unit. In fact I wouldn't have his back because he dang sure hasn't got mine.
I think the whole excuse is pretty lame, (if it wasn't planned which I'm not getting into right now). What the hell did he think he was trained for, to push pencils? Every unit in combat is supposed to run like a machine. Everyone has a job, there is no room for a pansy moral indecision like, "Gee, he is a sniper for the enemy but he is the same religion as me, I am not sure I can......" While he was being indecisive, 2 or 3 of his comrades and himself were killed by that same sniper because he hesitated and had a(lol)tender moment. Especiallu as a Ranger! They are trained to kill first and ask questions later! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Face it, folks - the boy is the ideal candidate for fragging ... end of story. F Flagging or Blaket Parties or Code Red's! I wan this guy to goto the Bring for years and be the bell of the ball have have several lifers gang bang him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Face it, folks - the boy is the ideal candidate for fragging ... end of story. F Flagging or Blaket Parties or Code Red's! I wan this guy to goto the Bring for years and be the bell of the ball have have several lifers gang bang him. Oh and make him eat nothing but pork! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article said he is seeking CO status but that he would probably refuse to deploy if his CO status is denied. from the Wiki "A 1971 United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection.[40] Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."[41] In the US, this applies to primary claims, that is, those filed on initial SSS registration. On the other hand, those who apply after either having registered without filing, and/or having attempted or effected a deferral, are specifically required to demonstrate a discrete and documented change in belief, including a precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO. The male reference is due to the current "male only" basis for conscription in the United States. In the United States, there are two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. Second, the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375. That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333. COs willing to perform non-combatant military functions are classed 1-A-O by the U.S.; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector#United_States "Desmond Doss was the first of three conscientious objectors who agreed to serve in the US military in non-combatant roles and were subsequently awarded the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration" well, I hope he obtains non combatant position if worse comes to worse,,shame to force him to die for something he doesnt believe in,,,,, Then gone Airborne |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He may really be a C.O. but then he should do the right thing. He's not. They also should take his travel VISA away until the process is complete. He has been trained by the Army where your given a security clearance, then by Airborne where you have all that training and even higher security clearance and we would be fools to not think he will go straint to the Middle East and offer his services to AQ, the Taliban, TTP, AQAP, Hamas, Hezbullah or Iran. As a matter of fact, onces he's out of the military after the brig then his VISA shoulc be pulled for the rest of his life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Face it, folks - the boy is the ideal candidate for fragging ... end of story. all the more reason to allow him a discharge,,,without prejudice,, because such PATRIOTS which he depends upon to have his back have such outward bigotry as to cause him harm,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article said he is seeking CO status but that he would probably refuse to deploy if his CO status is denied. from the Wiki "A 1971 United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection.[40] Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."[41] In the US, this applies to primary claims, that is, those filed on initial SSS registration. On the other hand, those who apply after either having registered without filing, and/or having attempted or effected a deferral, are specifically required to demonstrate a discrete and documented change in belief, including a precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO. The male reference is due to the current "male only" basis for conscription in the United States. In the United States, there are two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. Second, the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375. That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333. COs willing to perform non-combatant military functions are classed 1-A-O by the U.S.; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector#United_States "Desmond Doss was the first of three conscientious objectors who agreed to serve in the US military in non-combatant roles and were subsequently awarded the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration" well, I hope he obtains non combatant position if worse comes to worse,,shame to force him to die for something he doesnt believe in,,,,, lots of things young folks SHOULD think of that they dont,, still no reason to force them to go die for something they dont believe in or support |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If, they decide to discharge him, I could see him getting an Undesirable or Dishonorable Discharge.
I'd really like to see them order him to Afghanistan, him refuse and desert to Canada. He will be hunted like a dog for the rest of his life. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Face it, folks - the boy is the ideal candidate for fragging ... end of story. all the more reason to allow him a discharge,,,without prejudice,, because such PATRIOTS which he depends upon to have his back have such outward bigotry as to cause him harm,,, Why should they have his back when the first chance he gets he will screw them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Face it, folks - the boy is the ideal candidate for fragging ... end of story. all the more reason to allow him a discharge,,,without prejudice,, because such PATRIOTS which he depends upon to have his back have such outward bigotry as to cause him harm,,, Why should they have his back when the first chance he gets he will screw them? Can't claim bigotry without all the facts. So far, it's just his whiny side of the story. But, then, bigotry is a fun word for those who have no legitimate claims.
|
|
|
|
|
