Comments on: Marines Under Fire for Ordering Removal of Contractor’s Anti-Islam Bumper Stickers

By: CEJ

CEJ — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:36:10 +0000

Mespo,

Thank-you for taking the time to rebuke PJ the bigot.

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:45:41 +0000

PJ:

“If Muslims object, let them return to their shangri-la of sharia, such as Syria, Iran or a quant little oasis in the Sahara Desert.
They wish to come over to a Western civilization, they should leave their unwelcomed customs behind.”
**************

Tell me PJ are you even now listening to the sonorous words of Merle Haggard as he sings “..if you don’t love it ,leave it.” Jingoism like this is embarrassing and bumper sticker philosophers have the most to be embarrassed about. Condemning the entire group for the actions of a few may have popular appeal in some pin-headed (or should I say skin-headed) circles, but it places you squarely in the camp of other such “sophisticated” thinkers as the Hitler, Himler and Pol Pot. And your keep-your-”fur-en”-customs-to- yourself philosophy points you up as one of the anti-immigration bigots like Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan. Quite a flock you fly with!

By: P.J.

P.J. — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:17:16 +0000

I have one complaint about Mr.Nieto’s use of bumper stickers to express his dislike of Muslims: That is not sharing with us the source of the stickers.
I would like to acquire some of those stickers.
If Muslims object, let them return to their shangri-la of sharia, such as Syria, Iran or a quant little oasis in the Sahara Desert.
They wish to come over to a Western civilization, they should leave their unwelcomed customs behind.

By: Jill

Jill — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:57:58 +0000

From onenewsnow, the real story…

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Poll.aspx?ekfrm=323368

By: SharkGirl

SharkGirl — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:54:58 +0000

Good point Gyges. I can’t argue with you on that one. However, if there is going to be freedom of speech for one class of citizens, then it should be equal for all.

The military can’t pick and choose which topic is going to be allowed, or banned. They should require all the stickers to be removed from vehicles that enter the bases. There can’t be a double-standard.

By: Gyges

Gyges — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:10:19 +0000

Shark,

We have examples of how this country reacts when Christians engages in Terrorism. Remember the Oklahoma City Bombing? What about when abortion clinics are bombed? The country reacts the way I wish it reacted to Islamic terrorists, it doesn’t assume that the lunatic fringe is representative of the whole.

By: SharkGirl

SharkGirl — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:58:30 +0000

I worked at Robins AFB and researched that case you quoted. I’m also keeping up with what happens in the Islam bumper sticker case.

What I don’t understand is why he’s not allowed to display his freedom to speak out against what happened to USS Cole. All across Robins AFB, images were posed up on our bulletins, in our cubicles, and in other areas about the USS Cole event that displayed the face of a certain person involved.

Why can’t people be free to speak? If the bases themselves are posting up “wanted” posters of these people, and warning people, then why can’t contractors and military personnel speak out?

I also don’t understand why Christianity is taboo on military bases, yet, the military allows Muslim mosques. Christian chaplains are told not to pray in Jesus name, yet, Islam is protected.

Where is the ACLU screaming “separation of church and state” when it comes to the other religions? Why only go after the Christians?

Perhaps this is a test case. He’s the first to be “processed” for his freedom of speech. Maybe the anti-Christian stickers will be removed too, as a result?

Or is it just anti-Christ freedom of speech that’s allowed? If it were Christians who did that to the USS Cole, or Trade Towers, you can guess this would not be an issue in court. The media would eat it up and promote bumper stickers.

Welcome to the new America. Check in your freedom of religion because Islam is in Congress and it will be protected…and forced?

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:17:36 +0000

Jill,
that is an interesting take on the contractor killings. The contractors should be held to the same standard as the military personnel in country. It is a tough job to try to allow free speech and at the same time maintain some order on military installations. However, I am not sure that bumper stickers are a threat to the order on a military base. It seems from the story that some stickers were OK, while others not ok. The military command does not seem to enforce the bumper sticker ban in a uniform and fair manner. I am not sure why a sticker denouncng Bush or any president should be outlawed. Political speech should be protected at all costs. The hate speech cmments and stickers are ugly and do not belong anywhere, but I do not see how you can stop them and still have a First Amendment right.

By: Jill

Jill — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:40:51 +0000

This case is interesting from another angle. The military has refused to punish civilian contractors for killing civilians in Iraq because they claim they have no jurisdiction over contractors, who supposedly, are to be subject to civilian laws of the U.S.–NOT. I would be interested if the ruling against Mr. Neito could be a basis to make contractors subject to military sanctions for killing civilians (in addition to things such as poisoning the water of our troops in Iraq).