Posted on 05/30/2013 10:14:04 AM PDT by Zakeet
Imagine the following scenario: a young Muslim from the Islamic world joins his country’s armed forces to fight an aggressive war against an overwhelmingly Christian nation. He gains accolades for his work as a sniper, executing his job with ruthless efficiency and little remorse. He admits to viewing the war he is fighting through the prism of religion. He gets a tattoo on his arm declaring that he embraces the concept of holy war. When parliamentarians in his own country question the conduct or course of the war, he states, “How would they know? They’ve never even been in a combat situation.” After shooting someone whose widow claims he was holding a Bible rather than a gun, he answers, “I don’t shoot people with Bibles. I’d like to, but I don’t.”
How would this person be described when his story was recounted in the western press? That’s easy: He’d be described as an Islamic fundamentalist—aggressive, dangerous, and intent on evil.
Now let’s also imagine that this man was widely embraced back home: That he became the author of a bestselling book, and served as a symbol of strength used by politicians to pursue their own ends. How would the culture that lauded this man be described? Well, that too is easy. It would be said that this man’s Muslim country was full of fanatics, and, moreover, that fanaticism more broadly was celebrated—or at least not condemned—by large segments of the population.
[Snip]
The societal failing is deeper than veteran’s care. Here was a man who, as Schmidle puts it, “was deeply religious and saw the Iraq War through that prism.” Think about what that could be possibly mean, and how we would view someone from another culture who had similar sentiments.
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
I probably shouldn't bother to expand on the difference between a dedicated, trained sniper bound to a strict set of rules of engagement and a terrorist out to kill anyone at all. Shouldn't have to.
I will admit that the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter often depends on what side you fall on. The fact that so many on the Left view America’s own soldiers as terrorists shows what side they fall on.
Not sure I’ve ever read a piece with more ridiculously twisted logic than that...
If ISaac Chotiner Had Been a Steaming Pile of Dog Sh*t, We’d Call him an Isaac Chotiner,
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Except Chris wasn’t a Muslim and didn’t participate in Jihad. So the whole article is pointless.
Sounds like a european. The US doesn’t have “parliamentarians”.
He can't be a European. Chotiner is a Jewish name. The Europeans—like the Moslems he defends—don't allow Jews to be prominent. They have to come to America to do that. He says "parliamentarians" in a generic sense, encompassing members of European-style parliaments and our own Congressmen and Senators.
He's not European. He's just pretentious.
A man who cannot reason seeks to impart wisdom. Better to be thought a fool...
There is a big difference between an “overwhelmingly Christian nation” and a THEOCRATICALLY RULED nation.
Why are liberals so pro-Islamic rule? They DO realize that what they refer to as “muslim lands” were home to other faiths before Islamic warlords crushed the locals, don’t they?
If Chris Kyle had been a muslim, we’d have called him an extremist...
If cops were bank robbers we’d call them bank robbers.
If a writer attacks Christians and patriots considers them to be dangerous I’d say he’s a moral imbecile or else he’s playing for the other team. Or both.
Short version of the story:
Kyle is a jingoistic, anti-Muslim yahoo who is like the Taliban. Routh is a victim of lack of funding for VA medical services. Let’s spend more money on medical services.
Overthrowing an aloof, tyrannical, oppressive government was once called “Patriotic” in America...
This piece of crap PERFECTLY exemplifies why liberals are not fit to walk the same earth as normal people.
Isaac Chotiner, you sir, or an absolute idiot, a moron, and an unmitigated ass.
Your attempt at moral equivalence is deragned and misplaced.
Chris Kyler was a solider in the US Military, He trained hard and excelled at what he did. He saved countelss other US solider’s lifes, and he ended the lifes of many terrorists who would think nothing of killing and blowing up civilian men, women and children...even those of his own faith...to advance his Jihad.
Chris Kyler did not believe in Jihad. Chris Kyler did not believe in tyranny. Chris Kyler did not believe in converting people to his religion at the point of a gun, or in forcing them to either submit to his religion or be a slave or die.
Chris Kyler fought a war against such thing...and he was very good at it. And thank God for that.
That’s all this is.
Your atttempts to try and equate him to all of those other things are the trappings of a meaningless intellectual pursuit to somehow try and justify your own feelings against the very people who would protect you.
And, that, is what is sick.
AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
ISLAMIC JIHAD & SHARIA LAW MUST BE ERADICATED FROM THE EARTH
http://www.jeffhead.com/eradicate.htm
and do it face to face in the pudgel stick pit.
Liberals, such as the author, should be used for the harvesting of major organs and nothing else.....Libs have no other value.
(1) A soldier killing other armed fighters and
(2) A coward randomly attacking defenseless women and children.
“used toilet paper (which is about all this article is good for).”
Nope, I wouldn’t soil my ***.
Navy SEAL Chris Kyle did not depend on al-Qaeda for his daily bread. The nameless punk who hacked off Drummer Lee Rigsby’s head was receiving welfare payments from the British Government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.