WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) - General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke with Pastor Terry Jones by phone on Wednesday and asked him to withdraw his support for a film whose portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad has sparked violent protests - including one that ended with the death of America's envoy to Libya. "In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause," Dempsey's spokesman, Colonel Dave Lapan, told Reuters. "He asked Mr. Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film." U.S. military officials are concerned that the film could inflame tensions in Afghanistan, where 74,000 U.S. troops are fighting. The Taliban earlier on Wednesday called on Afghans to prepare for a fight against Americans and urged insurgents to "take revenge" on U.S. soldiers over the film.
Does the general not also have the right to simply request something of a pastor, that may benefit the men under his command... In this case being the entire US military.
No force involved, simply a request, which I think is fair enough.
No ones rights violated here.
It certainly is the military's prerogative to attempt to ease tensions in the area, especially when US lives could be at stake, especially when considering an excerpt such as this:This is of absolutely no concern to the US military, or even the US government.
I would personally remove large numbers of diplomats from the region in haste, or seek to provide an excess of armed security for the embassies themselves. It's quite easy to make proclamations of bravado and inflamatory statements from the peanut gallery, but when lives are on the line, actions that may avoid an all out conflict or increased rioting are in our best interests.The Taliban earlier on Wednesday called on Afghans to prepare for a fight against Americans and urged insurgents to "take revenge" on U.S. soldiers over the film.
So, the job of the government, and of the military, is to say, outwardly, to these people who are offended, "yeah? Freedom's a bitch, and we defend her."
It certainly is the military's prerogative to attempt to ease tensions in the area, especially when US lives could be at stake, especially when considering an excerpt such as this:
Almost anyone can ASK almost anyone else to do ALMOST anything... if it is legal.
ASK is fine. I don't get too worried until we start getting to order coerce or threaten.
Why are so many people acting as if our 1st amendment is under threat here? No one is stopping this film from being made or release, nor stopping anyone from backing it. Simply asking someone to not support something is not a violation of your 1st amendment.
You know if you were a Romney support and someone asked you to not be one because they believe it will have a negative impact on our troops, is your 1st amendment being violated? No of course not, so stop being so silly and acting like the nazis are marching down Pennsylvania Ave
Almost anyone can ASK almost anyone else to do ALMOST anything... if it is legal.
ASK is fine. I don't get too worried until we start getting to order coerce or threaten.
Again, it is not the role of the military to tell people how to exercise their freedom. It is the role of the military to make sure the freedom is secured.
As for the top military brass calling a private citizen and, er, suggesting that he exercise his freedom in a different way, well, the Supreme Court has a term for it: "chilling effect."
He should be standing up for the pastor's rights to free speech, not trying to restrict them to appease violent barbarians (those who attacked US embassies and killed individuals).
No ones rights violated here.
Nonsense. They do not have a right to curb the exercise of speech itself, but to claim that films that may instigate violence against US military and unarmed personnel in the region are of "no concern" to the military is brazen naivety.Nothing that is the exercise of a constitutionally-guaranteed freedom here at home is the concern of the military. Nothing.
It is not the military's place to tell private citizens how to exercise their rights in order to make the military's job easier.
The military works for us, not the other way around, and seeing it any other way is scary.
Nonsense. They do not have a right to curb the exercise of speech itself, but to claim that films that may instigate violence against US military and unarmed personnel in the region are of "no concern" to the military is brazen naivety.
Surely you recognize such a request would be formulated due to safety concerns and the potential bloodshed that may ensue, not simply due to the military wanting an "easier" way out? Besides, since when has casualty avoidance not been an concern of the armed forces?
And does this fact somehow prohibit the military from exercising their right to speech as well?
The sitting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff surely does."The military" HAS no such right.
Nonsense. They do not have a right to curb the exercise of speech itself, but to claim that films that may instigate violence against US military and unarmed personnel in the region are of "no concern" to the military is brazen naivety.
Surely you recognize such a request would be formulated due to safety concerns and the potential bloodshed that may ensue, not simply due to the military wanting an "easier" way out? Besides, since when has casualty avoidance not been an concern of the armed forces?
Who said otherwise? (Although "working for "us" " is a rather crude manner of phrasing.") Does this fact somehow prohibit the military from exercising their right to speech as well?
The sitting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff surely does.
According to whom?If a general calls a private citizen to tell him to moderate his behavior in a certain fashion then he is not doing it as a private citizen. Otherwise the term "general" would not appear. It is obviously being used to intimidate.
Secondly, why should US Forces, the mightiest in the world, be made nervous by a bunch of Afghan misogynistic religious freaks?
I doubt this would have created a fuss at all during WWII if people had criticized those who were attacking them.
If a general calls a private citizen to tell him to moderate his behavior in a certain fashion then he is not doing it as a private citizen. Otherwise the term "general" would not appear. It is obviously being used to intimidate.
Secondly, why should US Forces, the mightiest in the world, be made nervous by a bunch of Afghan misogynistic religious freaks?
I doubt this would have created a fuss at all during WWII if people had criticized those who were attacking them.
According to whom?
Al qaeda's influence is obviously not limited to Afghanistan.
WW2 was decades ago, and the two situations are simply not comparable.
According to me.
No, it's not.
Certainly wars are comparable. Why wouldn't they be?
The biggest difference between the two wars is leadership. Then they went to win a war and would continue fighting until there was victory.
Now they need a withdrawal date.
Have you been paying attention at all during the last ten years? Thousands of Soldiers are dead and hundreds of thousands wounded, also the attacks in Libya and Egypt are a long way from Afghans live so I think you should take a look at a map too.
Yes, thousands of soldiers are dead and many more wounded over the past 10 years but why has it taken 10 years? What is it about the US Military and its leadership that can drag a war on for 10 years? Do they not want to win?
Four people have already been killed as a result of this film, perhaps more will die in the future. That isn't going to destroy or defeat the US military, but thats no reason to simply right off all the deaths. What General Dempsey is asking this man to do is reconsider his position because his position is getting people killed by giving the enemy a huge propaganda tool.
Far from writing off their deaths I think the Americans should do something about it. But we both know they won't, and the Islamists know it as well.
However NO ONE is suggesting he has no right to hold that position and produce this film, but for the life of me I can't understand why people think the top US General is wrong for asking someone, again simply ASKING, this pastor to change or tone down his position because its getting US citizens killed.
The top US general should be figuring out how to get those murderous bastards responsible for the murder of American citizens rather than calling an obscure Florida pastor to control his opinions.
Four people are dead and some of you all are thinking asking someone to reconsider their position is an extreme reaction?
I did not say it was an extreme reaction. But I would say it was the action not befitting a general. Instead i is the behaviour of a wuss, and that weak attitude is being reflected in American foreign policy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?