Posted on 10/24/2002 10:18:49 PM PDT by xzins
This is outrageous!
The truth is that
1. Islamics blew up the World Trade Center
2. Islamics blew up a wing of the Pentagon in which many members of the ARMY died.
3. Islamics blew up the USS Cole in which US military died.
4. Islam is the issue with Al Quaeda and Bin Laden.
This man is JOHN MUHAMMED, an Islamic who was "sympathetic" to the 9/11 terrorists.
He's been out of the Army for years. He never received specialized training in sniping in the Army. He DIDN'T MAKE IT in the Army.
But the lead is: "Army Vet"
As a 20 year Army retiree, I deeply resent this, but I resent even more the politically correct culture that makes it impossible to call an islamic terrorist an islamic terrorist.
Appreciate the support, annie.
Being the voice the reason, sometimes opens you up to irrational and emotional responses.
And as someone else said, he's certainly not a Republican. :-)
Military personnel have a funny way of what makes a good soldier or "Vet". Like for example soldiers who do not complete and retire after 20 years, or that did not actually serve in a conflict shouldn't be classified as a vet. But then again this is just "semantics" I suppose. No reason to argue about it, this is just how a good majority of soldiers in the military feel about this. They understand that a few pieces of paper don't make a soldier necessarily. And the hype put behind this claim of (bogus) "specialize sniper training" is just the icing on the cake.
To receive marksman, or even expert qualifications, (the award) Army soldiers are not taken out and given any "special sniper training", you practice, you learn to zero your weapon, along with common safety procedures and maintenance on the weapon (and that usually is learned while cleaning the weapon for the rest of the day because the armor wants it back a hell of a lot cleaner than when he issued it to you! lol) and the like, but what is this sniper training everyone is talking about on the news???
"If political correctness is censoring and editorializing the truth to fit your political agenda, then it seems your wanting to highlight one aspect of the truth (his Islamic faith"
Then the same most certainly applies to the media at this point. But I would have to say they aren't highlighting the truth, they are not reporting it correctly for some reason, and at the least, stretching it to fit their "report". I could be wrong I suppose, since after hearing the media's version of events I stop watching them after the first 10 reports on John Mohammed's bio. If only the facts were reported then I have nothing to worry about, but seeing how the "facts" usually change with the media whores, maybe I am out of the loop on the latest?
I heard Fred speak his mind pretty clearly.
As far as I am concerned Fox does a pretty good job of running a network that is informative, particularly if you compare them to the other available networks. I occasionally scan MSNBC and CNN but usually only after Fox starts running the news wheel that I have already seen. I haven't bothered to watch ABC, NBC, or CBS news in years.
I guess I just don't understand what some people here would like to see on the shows. Maybe the anchor jumping up and down brandishing an automatic weapon shouting "Death to the Liberals?" You convert people through persuasion, not radicalism. Unless of course you want them to convert to Islam.
Thanks! I heard he was a bodyguard for Calypso Louie last night on Fox.
I expect we'll see even more background on John Muhammad coming out over the next week or so.
LOL
Maybe you should start a fund. Could be tax advantages in it. :-)
>>>Count me in this esteemed group.
Will do!
Nam Vet
Yeah I get it. You mean like CNN does with Paul Begala and James(The Forehead)Carville on Crossfire.
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.