It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Retired General Slams NY 'Mosque' Critics

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Stormdancer777, Thank you for sharing this to us. It is important to hear from others of influence just as the general does.
Topic of the thread is how AMERICANS can win the HEARTS AND MINDS of the ISLAMIC WORLD, and how AMERICANS are helping to LOOSE the WAR FOR HEARTS AND MINDS IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD.

Thank you for contributing even when others show agression; speaking different to who doesn't agree with their views.
You are infact "helping" just as the general is.


Thank you,
sweetliberty

[edit on 20-8-2010 by sweetliberty]




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



I haven't mentioned Afghan

I am on topic

You're the one now desperately trying to drag in red-herrings


And once again, you have no authority whatsoever in this forum

You're just a poster like any other

You're way out of line in your dictatorial stance

You do not tell others what they may or may not post


As to hearts and minds ... you still haven't explained why -- when Stormdancer and others provided clear evidence of willingness to cooperate by muslims and Americans ... you flipped your lid

Curious


I'll go on to say that Stormdancer's example was evidence of hearts and minds attitude, i.e., a prominent individual within the Islamic community conceded that to erect a mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero would be insensitive. The same individual suggested that the erection of a mosque, a church and a synogogue would be far more appropriate

It would be more appropriate

It would lead to greater unity between Muslims and non-Muslims.

In case you didn't understand that -- it means it would unite Muslim and non-Muslim hearts and minds



[edit on 20-8-2010 by Dock9]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 


Once again Topic of the Thread is a Retired American Army General who feels the Mosque controversy pertaining to the inflamatory rhetoric is harmful to winning the hearts and minds in the Muslim world.

If you would like to discuss aspects of this issue regarding how AMERICANS could win or loose the war for the hearts and minds in the Islamic World ALONG THE LINES of the ARTICLE that is the SOURCE OF THIS THREAD please let me know.

I will be glad to discuss topical questions and links with any and all posters.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


No. You're still retaliating in dictatorial manner without first taking the time to understand the posts you're objecting to

A Muslim of repute stated the erection of a mosque, a synogogue and a church would be more appropriate at the location in question

That comprises the 'hearts and minds' component you believe you possess the authority to insist upon within this thread


It appears that having stressed 'hearts and minds'

... and after being provided content which clearly comprises 'hearts and minds' in action

... you are now insisting the only 'hearts and minds' content that you will accept within this thread must derive from a general


......



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
OK, I think that Muslims are a bit smarter than to have a general reaction to one small issue. They know that this whole brouhaha is a symbolic dustup just as well as anyone else.

So how do we win hearts and minds? Why don't we focus on winning everyone's hearts and minds. Why don't we treat other States with a proper arms-length relationship, as one State to another?

We don't need to calibrate our internal actions to some supposed PR agenda. Nor should they. In our internal policies toward foreign countries, we should be looking to our own interests and they should be looking to theirs.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 


It's my belief that the winning of hearts and minds must be mutual

For example, I would not dream of seeking asylum in a traditionally muslim land, only to propose the erection of a church on land upon which 3000 Muslims had been murdered. It would be unthinkable. Especially if some Muslims believed my own countrymen were responsible for those murders

I doubt I would be permitted by muslims to do so in the first place

Secondly, I would not consider informing Muslims that it was my intention to erect a church in a location of particularl sensitivity to Muslims

It would be very poor manners indeed

As a guest, I would not wish to offend, disappoint or enrage my hosts

Nor would I desire to offend their religious or cultural sensitivities

It would be imprudent of me. After all, I would be the guest of a host nation and population


So attempts to win hearts and minds has to be a joint effort. In fact, it's my belief that as guests within a host nation, and having been provided extreme latitude regarding their vastly different culture, it behoves muslims to make the greater effort to win hearts and minds

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Dock9]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by oniongrass
OK, I think that Muslims are a bit smarter than to have a general reaction to one small issue. They know that this whole brouhaha is a symbolic dustup just as well as anyone else.

So how do we win hearts and minds? Why don't we focus on winning everyone's hearts and minds. Why don't we treat other States with a proper arms-length relationship, as one State to another?

We don't need to calibrate our internal actions to some supposed PR agenda. Nor should they. In our internal policies toward foreign countries, we should be looking to our own interests and they should be looking to theirs.


Actually we have in past wars, where the aim was to get a clear military victory, then they activate the home front.

In this particular case it's about a protracted war of securing resources, and the objective of occupation.

Yet they still have to make it look like to the public they are serious about winning the war, versus just an indefinate occupation to secure and control resources.

The truth is that on the ground level the soldiers live longer if they can win hearts and minds because their are less hostiles gunning for them.

On the Upper Management Level though they are in fact trying to sabatoge what the soldiers are doing on the ground level, by trying to win your hearts and minds for supporting a long costly protracted war.

This requires actually making you not like Muslims and to want to keep fighting them.

The war of hearts and minds goes on everywhere, but this particular thread really is not about how Islamists can win Americans hearts and minds, but how Americans can win the Islamists for the benefit of the soldiers on the front line.

Non-agenda, non-biased driven posters who read the actual source article and know a little or a lot about Military strategy should be able to pick up on these aspects and expound on them.

Hopefully such an intelligent discussion will develop despite all the atempts to derail the thread.

Thanks for focusing in on the topic.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 



PT is only asking you and Stormdancer to adhere to board posting practices and the terms and conditions of membership, I note that you are behaving in the manner of one trying to derail a thread that poses a threat to their belief matrix.

Interesting to observe but ultimately pointless in terms of analysing the topic at hand, it also displays the paucity of your arguments.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye
reply to post by Dock9
 



PT is only asking you and Stormdancer to adhere to board posting practices and the terms and conditions of membership, I note that you are behaving in the manner of one trying to derail a thread that poses a threat to their belief matrix.

Interesting to observe but ultimately pointless in terms of analysing the topic at hand, it also displays the paucity of your arguments.


I see Dock9 is having to defend his/her rights to engage in this thread and being on topic but at a different view. Unfortunately, Dock9 can't continue on the topic since he is constantly having to first defend his and others rights to be treated fairly.

Thanks,
sweetliberty



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock9
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


No. You're still retaliating in dictatorial manner without first taking the time to understand the posts you're objecting to

A Muslim of repute stated the erection of a mosque, a synogogue and a church would be more appropriate at the location in question

That comprises the 'hearts and minds' component you believe you possess the authority to insist upon within this thread


It appears that having stressed 'hearts and minds'

... and after being provided content which clearly comprises 'hearts and minds' in action

... you are now insisting the only 'hearts and minds' content that you will accept within this thread must derive from a general


......



Perhaps if you actually read the Source article, and then you would better understand how no what you are talking about has nothing to do with winning hearts and minds abroad in the Middle East, and Asia in the actual War Zones.

These posts were focused in on how the Muslims could win our hearts and minds, by compromising to appease us, here at home, so we can feel DOMINANT over them.

However over there our Soldiers do need to be in the Dominant Position in an ACTUAL WAR ZONE, as opposed to how some posters would like to be Dominant in their minds as how Muslims relate and behave and do things in the United States.

It is two completely different issues.

So once again, for the last time, I am asking you to focus on the topic, and I am absolutely not interested in other posters issues regarding their inability to stay on topic, understand a topic, and or post ontopic.

I am interested in having a quality discussion as it pertains to the Source article of this thread.

If you can't respect that, then yes, of course it's going to preclued a quality discussion as it pertains to the SOURCE ARTICLE for this thread.

Once again I am interested in THIS ISSUE, not other Poster's issues.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Thepreye
 


Well I thought their stuff was on-topic, although not perhaps within the narrow bounds of topic as defined by PT. Normally in my experience generally, OP doesn't get to define the boundaries of the topic, other than by the content of the original post. I don't think this is different on this particular board is it?

It shocked me that you would mention something in terms of the conditions of board membership. I think that comment was even out of line.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


NAME 1 INSTANCE WHERE THAT STUPID DOCTRINE OF "Winning Hearts and Minds" Militarily has worked? I'm tired of hearing it. When someone is sawing of your head with a dull knife while your hands are tied with wire behind your back, whose heart and mind is being won and by whom?

Origins of the term.....
www.foreignpolicy.com...

Sometimes, some of you people on here amaze me. Screw that dip# General and yes I am prior service!



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetliberty

Originally posted by Thepreye
reply to post by Dock9
 



PT is only asking you and Stormdancer to adhere to board posting practices and the terms and conditions of membership, I note that you are behaving in the manner of one trying to derail a thread that poses a threat to their belief matrix.

Interesting to observe but ultimately pointless in terms of analysing the topic at hand, it also displays the paucity of your arguments.


I see Dock9 is having to defend his/her rights to engage in this thread and being on topic but at a different view. Unfortunately, Dock9 can't continue on the topic since he is constantly having to first defend his and others rights to be treated fairly.

Thanks,
sweetliberty


Has it ever occured to you that the reason there are so many different threads is each pertains to a different topic.

No some of the posters you have mentioned nor is your post on topic.

Had you taken the time to read the source article, and the terms of service, having displayed earlier in the thread you have read neither you would understand that.

The topic is about winning hearts and minds or loosing hearts and minds in the Middle East and Asia War Zones, not how Muslims can win your hearts and minds here.

Yes that's an important and interesting topic but it is NOT the topic to this thread.

Starting a thread on ATS costs you nothing.

Further ATS terms of service prohibit copying and pasting the same post from one thread, to another thread, to another thread.

Which is what the poster you want to thank and defend for posting off topic on this thread did.

In fact you could thank them for that on other threads were they copy and pasted the same post in violation of terms and service.

No need to derail this thread.

So for the sake of brevity here, I will simply place ANYONE who wants to keep posting off topic on ignore.

Read the original post, read the original news source, no one knows better what the topic of a thread is about than the person who posted it.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Hello Proto,
As per the article you posted, I was wondering your thoughts on this paraghraph.



The American Legion, in an online poll of its members, is finding opposition to the project is even more widespread. As of Aug. 18, nearly 2,500 people had voted, with 68 percent opposing the center as "a slap in the face" to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and another 23 percent saying it shouldn't be built because "the entire site should be classified a historic landmark."


If parts in the article is off topic and the off topic parts of the article is what I post, I apologize in advance for addressing the article that might be off topic.

Thank you in advace
sweetliberty



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSROT
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


NAME 1 INSTANCE WHERE THAT STUPID DOCTRINE OF "Winning Hearts and Minds" Militarily has worked? I'm tired of hearing it. When someone is sawing of your head with a dull knife while your hands are tied with wire behind your back, whose heart and mind is being won and by whom?

Origins of the term.....
www.foreignpolicy.com...

Sometimes, some of you people on here amaze me. Screw that dip# General and yes I am prior service!


I think it depends on how good of a job is being done at winning hearts and minds, in other words is your message a consistant one.

So if we are over there saying we are a partner for peace, and we will help you establish order, and the folks back here or yakking away a mile a minute about how they are sure Islam is out to take over the world and we need to do them before they do us, while we keep dropping bombs on the wrong targets and killing women and children...then no it's a real conflicting message, that is bound to make people there think it's better to fight on.

Who is responsible for winning the hearts and minds at home here is not Muslims but the Government to support the war effort and view the war effort and view Muslims in a way that provides a consistent message over there.

Strategies are only as good as the planning and execution.

Failed execution does not mean it's a failed idea.

We were able to win the hearts and minds of the Germans for instance, well the West Germans and our segment of Berlin, we weren't able to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese, once again because we were talking out of both sides of our mouth, saying one thing doing another.

Sending a conflicting message.

That's my opinion.

I understand how tough it is.

Thanks for posting.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Here's an idea ... what don't we all do what we do every day?

If you think someone is off topic, alert their post.
If you think someone is acting like a mod or bullying, alert them
If someone is trolling, don't feed them.
If someone trying to derail the OP topic, ignore them.

Do your part and let the staff take care of the rest.
Problem solved and we can get to discussing the issue at hand.
Lest those who try to divert us from doing so succeed.


Now, about the retired general's comments ...

No matter what your position on the building of this mosque, his only concern is a military one. From his position, part of his job is trying to convince folks on the other side of the world that there is merit to the American ideal ... hard to do so if we're behaving like fundamentalists ourselves and singling out religions for persecution.

And whereas I deeply disagree that we should be imposing political/economic/social system on other nations, from his point of view his point is valid.

Christ, it's like the more we fight over there the more fundamentalist WE become.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
To Protoplasmic Traveller:


I was just stepping out to do some gardening

Refreshed and discovered you are accusing me of 'copying and pasting from one thread to another '


Until that moment, I'd actually had a higher opinion of you

Well, no, that opinion had lessened slightly earlier, when you basically accused me of discussing Afghanistan, which was also untrue if you'd care to scroll back through this thread

In fact, as you're presuming to critique posts, there can be no doubt at all that you knew, when you accused me of raising the issue of Afghanistan, that I had not mentioned it. Yet you accused me of doing so

And now you've accused me of 'copying and posting', which again, I did not do

So now you've falsely accused me of contravening board T & C into the bargain


I may have expressed virtually identical sentiments within this and other threads. If that is my opinion, then naturally I would express it .. if I chose .. within various threads on the same subject matter

But you've gone too far th is time with these false accusations

And it's all so unnecessary, isn't it ?

This thread covers an extremely emotive topic. You would have known that when you introduced it, despite there existing numerous threads coving the controversial mosque. Yet you went ahead and introduced another, knowing it would very likely attract the very same posters who were/are posting simulaneously in other threads about the mosque in question

Well, you are wrong twice and have falsely accused me twice

I suppose seeking an apology for what amounts to defamation would be a waste of time

But I'll be darned if I'll sit back and allow you to attempt to falsely discredit me in order to justify your own behaviour

It would be good to see this thread recommence

It would be preferable if people were ableto state their opinion without censure

Like Onion, I have never before seen the OP attempt to control subsequent posts within a topic

but that's how you choose to operate and you're insisting that because you commenced the thread, you are empowered also to control all subsequent posters' content and to publicly abuse them, basically, if, like Stormdancer, they post contrary to your liking, despite that I and others appreciated Stormdancer's contribution

Your prerogative however does not extend to making unsubstantiated, false accusations about those posters whom you wish to silence and remove -- not in my opinion, anyway



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



I'm wondering why you included the controversial mosque into the title of this thread -- in light of your repeated insistence the topic is not about the mosque ?


Did you include the word 'mosque' to gain the maximum posters, thus the maximum potential for flags and stars ?

If so, didn't you calculatingly seek to attract people from other 'mosque' related threads ?


Bearing in mind your intention to determine the content of the thread, would it perhaps be wiser for you to amend the title of the thread and delete the word 'mosque' ?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 

Perhaps he included the word mosque because it is the headline on the story of this breaking news and per T&C one must put the exact title of the news story on the thread.

In addition, you did notice that the word mosque is in quotations, right? And you know what that means?



[edit on 8/20/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 





No matter what your position on the building of this mosque, his only concern is a military one. From his position, part of his job is trying to convince folks on the other side of the world that there is merit to the American ideal ... hard to do so if we're behaving like fundamentalists ourselves and singling out religions for persecution.


This is the discussion I am trying to foster.

As mentioned to other posters there are plenty of threads active right now to post general positions on mosques, religions, who likes who, who hates who, who has been spurned by who, then now hates who etc., etc.

I really appreciate someone of your intellect and focus taking part in this topic.

I am hopeful that one day yet, the actual conspiracy angles to all this can be discussed, though it does appear that it is too emotionally charged an issue yet for many members to focus in on specific aspects.

My real question here is the strategies we are employing to win hearts and minds over there and the strategies being used to win hearts and minds over here, are actually promoting two completely different concepts.

Government says all Muslims are not extremists yet government and media is constantly painting them all as extremists.

Goverment says to the Muslims we are a partner for peace that you don't have to fear, while more or less contriving to keep people on a war footing against Muslims here.

So what I have been hoping to foster is a discussion on why the government is essentially pursuing a strategy that is bound to fail to win hearts and minds by more or less promoting two conflicting messages, one for Muslims abroad, and one for Americans here.

Of course in this information age, what gets said here gets heard over there, and defeats the message we are telling differently over there.

You know same old White Man speak with forked tongue stuff the Indians used to complain about.

Well until we pretty much exterminated them all, and left the few left starving and totally dependent upon charity in poorly run and corrupt reservations.

I was hoping ATS would be mature enough to have a specific discussion on one strategic and intellectual aspect of this issue, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen today.

Thank you for participating on that level my friend.



[edit on 20/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]




top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join