Thread: GOD, COUNTRY, DUTY AND HONOR

Originally Posted by 59caddy

i will not be able to give you specifics since most are classified. but in order to get a top secret clearance for communications tech you could not be a foreign national or have ties to any nation or group of people having any type of extreme views. these were the rules in 1977-1981, things may or may not have changed since then. this was again only for military members holding high security clearances, not the regular troops and sailors or other members. also most officers held some type of clearance depending on their duty.

Your original post was explicitly centered around religion, and later on you said the policy you were quoting was a 'fact', yet the statement above does not mention religion at all. So can you please answer this question:

Was any religion a reason for automatic denial in 1977-1981 of this level of security clearance, if yes, which religions?

Let me demonstrate how your proposed logic works: seems like this may have been an act of terrorism, so the department of homeland security is fully responsible for failing to stop it, because that's their job. The head of DHS is methodist woman of italian descent. Therefore no methodists, women or people of italian descent should be ever put in charge of counterterrorism, there is plenty of other ways they can still serve if they wish to. And since this guy could have been stopped earlier, clearly whites, semites, males, roman catollics, jews, and former governors should serve their country in some other way just not as head of DHS. And while at it, may be it's time to establish the religious disqualifications for president of the US, as well.
That's exactly the logic you're proposing, just applied to other, even more important things.

May be psychiatrists should not be allowed to serve in the army too, it seems to me quite plausible that dealing with other people's mental issues was what made him go nutz.

The Bible verse of the day is Matthew 5:29 - those are the word of Jesus.

Originally Posted by gugi

Y

The Bible verse of the day is Matthew 5:29 - those are the word of Jesus.

And your point is...?

Originally Posted by JMS

And your point is...?

why? everybody can make the point for me, it's a simple verse, that I don't mean to offend anybody. let's see other people's thought on how it is relevant to the subject at hand.

as far as you go, we all know you chopped off your pinkie, what i find interesting is that you never came clean about the sin that you committed with it. i'm not saying that you're a sinner, just saying that many people wonder about these things and somebody sometimes has to say it out loud...

Originally Posted by gugi

why? everybody can make the point for me, it's a simple verse, that I don't mean to offend anybody. let's see other people's thought on how it is relevant to the subject at hand.

as far as you go, we all know you chopped off your pinkie, what i find interesting is that you never came clean about the sin that you committed with it. i'm not saying that you're a sinner, just saying that many people wonder about these things and somebody sometimes has to say it out loud...

The verse or the fact that you posted the verse I do not find offensive, it's just that it doesn't seem to fit...the point is not a clear one at all.

Oh, and about my pinkie...It was a shameless beast indeed but I dare not reveal the details publicly lest I offend and mar someones psyche to the point that they go on a rampage and shoot up a military base or two

Originally Posted by JMS

The verse or the fact that you posted the verse I do not find offensive, it's just that it doesn't seem to fit...the point is not a clear one at all.

well take it up with the original author, not me. it's jesus who said it, it's not like he's dead and can't explain himself...

Originally Posted by gugi

Your original post was explicitly centered around religion, and later on you said the policy you were quoting was a 'fact', yet the statement above does not mention religion at all. So can you please answer this question:

Was any religion a reason for automatic denial in 1977-1981 of this level of security clearance, if yes, which religions?

Let me demonstrate how your proposed logic works: seems like this may have been an act of terrorism, so the department of homeland security is fully responsible for failing to stop it, because that's their job. The head of DHS is methodist woman of italian descent. Therefore no methodists, women or people of italian descent should be ever put in charge of counterterrorism, there is plenty of other ways they can still serve if they wish to. And since this guy could have been stopped earlier, clearly whites, semites, males, roman catollics, jews, and former governors should serve their country in some other way just not as head of DHS. And while at it, may be it's time to establish the religious disqualifications for president of the US, as well.
That's exactly the logic you're proposing, just applied to other, even more important things.

May be psychiatrists should not be allowed to serve in the army too, it seems to me quite plausible that dealing with other people's mental issues was what made him go nutz.

The Bible verse of the day is Matthew 5:29 - those are the word of Jesus.

i cannot give specific sects or religion that were disqualified. that would be a breech of security measures and like i said do not know if they are still in place.
i completely agree with you that this was in my thoughts a terrorist act by someone unstable and who should have been reported much earlier to avoid this very tragedy.
one thing i think that may have prevented reporting this wacko was the very idea of "it might offend someone/him/group of people" IF so that is where the problems is. if it saves one life of our military men and women and civilians here and abroad, then report it now and worry later about offending somebody later. this insanity about offending a person or group has got to cease. life itself is offensive in lots of ways. we all world wide need to be safe and secure and wackos of any breed/color/religion/sect need to be stopped for the good of all.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

one thing i think that may have prevented reporting this wacko was the very idea of "it might offend someone/him/group of people" IF so that is where the problems is. if it saves one life of our military men and women and civilians here and abroad, then report it now and worry later about offending somebody later. this insanity about offending a person or group has got to cease. life itself is offensive in lots of ways. we all world wide need to be safe and secure and wackos of any breed/color/religion/sect need to be stopped for the good of all.

So it all starts with an innocent IF and ends with a pretty strong statement - is that statement based on that speculation? If so proper logic would dictate that you provide equally strong support that your speculation is valid as the conclusion you derive from it.

And what IF it was the incompetence of his supervisors, or the lack of policies for said reporting to happen. I can speculate a lot, but as far as I understand there are a lot more competent people on the matter than me, with a lot more access to relevant information about the case. I think I'd rather them do their job as they are far more likely to come to correct conclusions than armchair experts and sensation seeking journalists.

On this note what if I find stupid people very offensive, where do I report them?

Originally Posted by gugi

So it all starts with an innocent IF and ends with a pretty strong statement - is that statement based on that speculation? If so proper logic would dictate that you provide equally strong support that your speculation is valid as the conclusion you derive from it.

And what IF it was the incompetence of his supervisors, or the lack of policies for said reporting to happen. I can speculate a lot, but as far as I understand there are a lot more competent people on the matter than me, with a lot more access to relevant information about the case. I think I'd rather them do their job as they are far more likely to come to correct conclusions than armchair experts and sensation seeking journalists.

On this note what if I find stupid people very offensive, where do I report them?

by your own words i can then make this statement, the competent people failed in there duties and we have men and women dying/dead because we had to analyze the facts and not do anything at all because we have to "think more". seems correct to me, just let the wackos keep killing others and we will wait until all our "conclusions" are in.
also there are a lot of so called "stupid" people out there in the real world not killing others. being stupid is judgmental. there were people around this guy at FT. HOOD that have now spoken out on newscasts stating something was not right with the person. again all the "smart" people failed in noticing something was wrong, others did nothing for fear of offending someone.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

being stupid is judgmental.

no, being stupid is not judgmental, it's just sad. judgmental is judging something or somebody as stupid, doesn't matter if correctly or incorrectly.

Originally Posted by gugi

no, being stupid is not judgmental, it's just sad. judgmental is judging something or somebody as stupid, doesn't matter if correctly or incorrectly.

well i certainly hope the stupid were not the judgmental, look what a mess most stupid politicians have done to us all throughout the times.