News Should religious beliefs determine military duties?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IcedEcliptic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Army Doctor
Click For Summary
A U.S. Army colonel is refusing to fulfill his military duties unless provided with proof of Barack Obama's birthplace, sparking discussions about insubordination and potential motivations behind his actions. Critics label his stance as a publicity stunt, questioning the rationale behind such a refusal and its implications for military discipline. The conversation touches on the broader "birther" movement, suggesting that this behavior may stem from xenophobia or political bias. Some participants argue that his actions could be seen as principled, while others view them as self-serving. The situation raises questions about the consequences of his refusal and the legitimacy of the claims surrounding Obama's citizenship.
  • #31
Proton Soup said:
also, if McCain had been elected, i think we'd be seeing the same kind of "birther" movement from leftie loons, since McCain wasn't born in the US, "either" (Panama).
As I said above, it did exist prior to the election.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
arildno said:
3. Thus, the only possible "conspirator" we are talking about her is Mama Obama, and possibly, a certificator who grew tired of the demands of "that black woman", and gave into sign the certificate.

I have no idea who you are referring to
 
  • #33
For all the noise made about "no birth record", there is a puzzling problem that the birthers seem happy to gloss over. There were birth announcements in the Honolulu papers. Such announcements would not have included Obama's name if he were born at home. The announcements were made when newspaper staff gathered birth records from the hospital, and did not require the participation of the parents. So how many people needed to be in on this ~50 year-old conspiracy?
 
  • #34
cronxeh said:
I have no idea who you are referring to

"I want my son to be registered as the US citizen he is. That the damn hospital didn't bother to make a formal birth record, although I ASKED them to, that shouldn't prevent my son from getting his status right, just because he's black. DO YOU HEAR ME?"

Or something like that.

A persistent, pushy woman who is knowledgeable about what her, and her son's, rights actually are, will get through the bureaucracy.

A persistent, pushy woman who knows what her son's rights OUGHT to have been (although, technically, he's not entitled to them), in order to maximize his life chances, will ALSO make headway through the bureaucracy.
 
  • #35
arildno said:
"I want my son to be registered as the US citizen he is. That the damn hospital didn't bother to make a formal birth record, although I ASKED them to, that shouldn't prevent my son from getting his status right, just because he's black. DO YOU HEAR ME?"

Or something like that.

A persistent, pushy woman who is knowledgeable about what her, and her son's, rights actually are, will get through the bureaucracy.

A persistent, pushy woman who knows what her son's rights OUGHT to have been (although, technically, he's not entitled to them), in order to maximize his life chances, will ALSO make headway through the bureaucracy.

I can live with that.
 
  • #36
arildno said:
"I want my son to be registered as the US citizen he is. That the damn hospital didn't bother to make a formal birth record, although I ASKED them to, that shouldn't prevent my son from getting his status right, just because he's black. DO YOU HEAR ME?"

Or something like that.

A persistent, pushy woman who is knowledgeable about what her, and her son's, rights actually are, will get through the bureaucracy.

A persistent, pushy woman who knows what her son's rights OUGHT to have been (although, technically, he's not entitled to them), in order to maximize his life chances, will ALSO make headway through the bureaucracy.

Obama's mother is white
 
  • #37
turbo-1 said:
For all the noise made about "no birth record", there is a puzzling problem that the birthers seem happy to gloss over. There were birth announcements in the Honolulu papers. Such announcements would not have included Obama's name if he were born at home. The announcements were made when newspaper staff gathered birth records from the hospital, and did not require the participation of the parents. So how many people needed to be in on this ~50 year-old conspiracy?

This goes to my point about the NSA, CIA, FBI being able to dig this up if it existed. If it did, I cannot imagine it staying quiet.
 
  • #38
turbo-1 said:
For all the noise made about "no birth record", there is a puzzling problem that the birthers seem happy to gloss over. There were birth announcements in the Honolulu papers. Such announcements would not have included Obama's name if he were born at home. The announcements were made when newspaper staff gathered birth records from the hospital, and did not require the participation of the parents. So how many people needed to be in on this ~50 year-old conspiracy?

I was unaware of those newspaper announcements.

I haven't expressed any belief in the birther movement's claims, yet I opposed to the idea that there had to be a BIG conspiracy involved.


Assuming the truth of your information, then, indeed, the birther movement DOES require a big conspiracy to have happened.
 
  • #39
cronxeh said:
Obama's mother is white

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

To Arildno: I have to ask, what rights are conferred here that apply to life in the USA? Other than being president or VP, what could his mother have been seeking to gain?
 
  • #40
IcedEcliptic said:
Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

If you insist on trying to nitpick every post I make I suggest you follow the conversation first.
 
  • #41
cronxeh said:
If you insist on trying to nitpick every post I make I suggest you follow the conversation first.

I, and others are still waiting for your citations in other threads. I am to be honest, suspicious of you. You made a statement I don't understand, and I am not nitpicking. Asking for citations in the other threads is also not nitpicking, it's forum rules.
 
  • #42
cronxeh said:
Obama's mother is white
Ok.
Honestly, I'd forgot about that truthlet, if I ever knew it.
 
  • #43
arildno said:
I was unaware of those newspaper announcements.

I haven't expressed any belief in the birther movement's claims, yet I opposed to the idea that there had to be a BIG conspiracy involved.

Assuming the truth of your information, then, indeed, the birther movement DOES require a big conspiracy to have happened.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
IcedEcliptic said:
Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

To Arildno: I have to ask, what rights are conferred here that apply to life in the USA? Other than being president or VP, what could his mother have been seeking to gain?

I'm not a lawyer with expertise on US citizenry.

But, most countries do have, for example, more inbuilt automatisms/advantages for citizens than for non-citizens (for example, the right to vote).

For example, indigent citizens may have claims on welfare, while indigent non-citizens have claims for a ticket back home.

I'm sure there are some such differential rules in the US as well.
 
  • #45
IcedEcliptic said:
I, and others are still waiting for your citations in other threads. I am to be honest, suspicious of you. You made a statement I don't understand, and I am not nitpicking. Asking for citations in the other threads is also not nitpicking, it's forum rules.

The other thread is locked. If you have a problem understanding written English, ask the poster to rephrase. If you have a problem following hypothetical discussions and conjectures then confront the statements that look like factual ones. All statements I made were either supported by citations or presented as an argument on hypothetical scenarios. I can understand you feel a bit vulnerable on the Arizona issue since you are an immigrant and perhaps know somebody who is in this country illegally, nonetheless the discussion is made from a point of view of those who are here legally and feel burdened by the illegals. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

As for this thread, the statement was "that black woman" as referred to Obama's mother, who I pointed out was white. Speaking of unrighteous indignation, you said you could live with a "A persistent, pushy woman who knows what her son's rights OUGHT to have been (although, technically, he's not entitled to them), in order to maximize his life chances, will ALSO make headway through the bureaucracy." That is something I personally take an issue with. It makes my blood boil when people try to get things they don't deserve, and I will list a few that will speak to you directly: welfare, illegal immigration, affirmative action, loud mouthing in order to win an argument, muscle flexing, and overall obtuse behavior that merits a backhanded response.
 
  • #46
turbo-1 said:
For all the noise made about "no birth record", there is a puzzling problem that the birthers seem happy to gloss over. There were birth announcements in the Honolulu papers. Such announcements would not have included Obama's name if he were born at home. The announcements were made when newspaper staff gathered birth records from the hospital, and did not require the participation of the parents. So how many people needed to be in on this ~50 year-old conspiracy?
Anyone can place a birth announcement in the paper, so it's not proof.

The birthers are just nutters.
 
  • #47
Evo said:
Anyone can place a birth announcement in the paper, so it's not proof.

The birthers are just nutters.

Since Mr. and Mrs. Obama hardly had sinister designs upon the US presidency back in 1961, the complete lack of contextual motivation for the newspaper advertisement does, indeed, speak volumes against the rationality in the birthers' position.
 
  • #48
I don't know how things worked in Hawaii 50 years ago, but it's likely just what happened here. Newspaper staffers would gather birth records from the hospitals and print them on the social pages, generally once a week. IIR, the local paper segregated those births by hospital, too, with birth announcements for the Redington and Fairview hospitals in Skowhegan, and the Thayer and Seton hospitals in Waterville.

These are not paid birth announcements, like some proud parents or grandparents arrange: (Mr and Mrs XXX YYY proudly announce the birth of their daughter ZZZ at #:## am on M/D/Y. Our newest addition to the family is ## inches and ## pounds at birth.). The hospital records of births are very brief and clinical, just like Obama's.
 
  • #49
turbo-1 said:
I don't know how things worked in Hawaii 50 years ago, but it's likely just what happened here. Newspaper staffers would gather birth records from the hospitals and print them on the social pages, generally once a week. IIR, the local paper segregated those births by hospital, too, with birth announcements for the Redington and Fairview hospitals in Skowhegan, and the Thayer and Seton hospitals in Waterville.

These are not paid birth announcements, like some proud parents or grandparents arrange: (Mr and Mrs XXX YYY proudly announce the birth of their daughter ZZZ at #:## am on M/D/Y. Our newest addition to the family is ## inches and ## pounds at birth.). The hospital records of births are very brief and clinical, just like Obama's.

In that case, it remains a mildly interesting speculation why the birth record has gone missing in the aftermath.

Perhaps accidentally lost in some bureaucratic clean-up operation, along with thousands of other birth records?

Or perhaps an officious nurse thought it was a disgrace that HER hospital had produced a cross-racial abomination, and thought to make its records cleaner?
 
  • #50
http://obamatrueandfalse.com/2010/04/16/true-1961-birth-announcements-reported-by-hawaii-bureau-of-health-statistics/
The newspapers (both of them published the date of Obama's birth) were publishing records of the Health Bureau under that header. The idea that Obama's mother could have pulled off such a coup (getting fake records inserted in Health Bureau records) should have qualified her as a top operative for the CIA or other such organization.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
turbo-1 said:
http://obamatrueandfalse.com/2010/04/16/true-1961-birth-announcements-reported-by-hawaii-bureau-of-health-statistics/
The newspapers (both of them published the date of Obama's birth) were publishing records of the Health Bureau under that header. The idea that Obama's mother could have pulled off such a coup (getting fake records inserted in Health Bureau records) should have qualified her as a top operative for the CIA or other such organization.
turbo, the newspapaer article is dated August 16th, she filed for the birth certificate on Aug 4th, the birth announcements are not from the hospital birth records, they are from the Health Bureau, they would have come from the birth certificate she requested based on the information she gave them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
Evo said:
turbo, the newspapaer article is dated August 16th, she filed for the birth certificate on Aug 4th, the birth announcements are not from the hospital birth records, they are from the Health Bureau, they would have come from the birth certificate she requested based on the information she gave them.
In that case, the need for "Big Conspiracy" evaporates, once again..

Assuming there WAS no birth record, a perfectly credible (probable?) scenario can still be for Mr. Obama having been born at an American hospital:

1. For some reason, the hospital didn't deign to issue a witnessed birth record (a white woman giving birth to a negro child might well have been regarded as a disgrace best passed over in silence&forgotten)

2. Mrs. Obama, however, perfectly well understanding the probable future hazards for a son born in a mixed marriage, with arbitrary exclusions being done if papers of formality were lacking, is determined to get as much as she can hope for, namely a birth certificate, at the very least.

Since such a scenario does not seem out-of-place in the early 60's, there really is little reason to disbelieve it, unless strong evidence to the contrary turns up (such as: that Mrs. Obama was nowhere near Hawaii close to giving birth to her son)
 
Last edited:
  • #53
arildno said:
Since Mr. and Mrs. Obama hardly had sinister designs upon the US presidency back in 1961, the complete lack of contextual motivation for the newspaper advertisement does, indeed, speak volumes against the rationality in the birthers' position.

What do you mean? Obama is a trained operative from Kenya of course they had plans back then for him to run for presidency. He was born... no: He was designed in a test tube, specifically to infiltrate and gain a great amount of control over the American government. It's been his life long mission and they prepared him well for it (making fake birth announcements 50 years prior to him running for instance)

Anyways, I don't really see the point in continuing arguing or discussing this position. Obama is president, he was VOTED IN by the American public so there you go.

This Colonel should be dealt with by the military.
 
  • #54
zomgwtf said:
Anyways, I don't really see the point in continuing arguing or discussing this position.
What position would that be? :smile:

Obama is president, he was VOTED IN by the American public so there you go.
What relevance does that have, if it had been proven it happened on false premises?
This Colonel should be dealt with by the military.

In what way?

Like the admirable way the army deals with the Nidal Hassans in their midst?
 
  • #55
zomgwtf said:
Obama is a trained operative from Kenya of course they had plans back then for him to run for presidency. He was born... no: He was designed in a test tube, specifically to infiltrate and gain a great amount of control over the American government. It's been his life long mission and they prepared him well for it (making fake birth announcements 50 years prior to him running for instance)

Manchurian Candidate 2.0?
 
  • #56
arildno said:
What position would that be? :smile:
The let the nutcases continue to be nutcases on their own let's not fuel the fire.

What relevance does that have, if it had been proven it happened on false premises?
While I highly doubt it will ever be proven to have happened on false premises if it does then Obama those involved will be dealt with according to the law of the land... OR The constituition might change... probably will be the latter in my opinion. At some point at least.

I'll pose a question back at you: What revelance does science have if sometime next year the world ends or apocalypse comes down on us? This is a pretty rediculous question IMO. It's the type of thing conspirators live off of. Being proven right about something huge, just that one time.

In what way?

Like the admirable way the army deals with the Nidal Hassans in their midst?

He should be court martialled and face military law based on his action (failure to go). As well isn't it a military offense to 'bad-talk' your superiors? This man is way out of line, regardless of if Obama was born in America or not, he is a military personell and he will do his job or face the consequences. Period.
 
  • #57
zomgwtf said:
The let the nutcases continue to be nutcases on their own let's not fuel the fire..

1.Where have I said one should not fuel the fire of the nutcases?

2.Or, in what way do I lend fuel to the nutcases?

3. Or, in what way is my position that of a nutcase?
 
  • #58
arildno said:
1.Where have I said one should not fuel the fire of the nutcases?

2.Or, in what way do I lend fuel to the nutcases?

3. Or, in what way is my position that of a nutcase?

This whole thread has spewed a discussion/"debate" about the validity of a conspiracy theory, namely the 'birther' arguement. No evidence has been submitted that I can see, just assumptions.

Continued talk of the 'birthers' position or debate against it will just fuel the fire. It should just be left alone, in my opinion. At least not discussed on these forums unless appropriate HARD evidence is brought up and I really don't see the relevance of the discussion to the OP.

The OP is about a Colonel refusing to do his duty, sure his position is about the whole birther argument but this thread isn't about the validity of that position it's about his failure to go and insubordination... neglect of duties... etc. etc.. Regardless of if his position is the correct position or not he is still breaking the law.

The OP also specifically asked if this has to do with xenophobia, or the fear of foreigners. I'm not sure if this specific Colonel has xenophobia but probably not. This is just how things work in America with their flawless constituition. Everyone wants to go out and debate about it and in this situation it appears that the Colonel is arguing from the position of the constituition and the constituition is what is xenophobic. (If that makes any sense to you... I'm not sure how to word this statement)
 
  • #59
cronxeh said:
The other thread is locked. If you have a problem understanding written English, ask the poster to rephrase. If you have a problem following hypothetical discussions and conjectures then confront the statements that look like factual ones. All statements I made were either supported by citations or presented as an argument on hypothetical scenarios. I can understand you feel a bit vulnerable on the Arizona issue since you are an immigrant and perhaps know somebody who is in this country illegally, nonetheless the discussion is made from a point of view of those who are here legally and feel burdened by the illegals. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

As for this thread, the statement was "that black woman" as referred to Obama's mother, who I pointed out was white. Speaking of unrighteous indignation, you said you could live with a "A persistent, pushy woman who knows what her son's rights OUGHT to have been (although, technically, he's not entitled to them), in order to maximize his life chances, will ALSO make headway through the bureaucracy." That is something I personally take an issue with. It makes my blood boil when people try to get things they don't deserve, and I will list a few that will speak to you directly: welfare, illegal immigration, affirmative action, loud mouthing in order to win an argument, muscle flexing, and overall obtuse behavior that merits a backhanded response.

Sounds like you need to learn how to control your temper. As for an argument, it is based in your personal outrage, not facts or merit. There is only the response to YOU, which I will refrain from going on now. You don't cite your generalizations, and you take things far too personally. Take issue with this all you like, I started this thread to ask a simple question which others have already answered. What this thread is turning into, I have little interest in. I wonder how much of what you have, you "deserve", such an interesting concept. I didn't realize that anyone deserved anything in particular. Some are lucky, some are not, and some can better themselves.
 
  • #60
zomgwtf said:
This whole thread has spewed a discussion/"debate" about the validity of a conspiracy theory, namely the 'birther' arguement. No evidence has been submitted that I can see, just assumptions.

No.
No such debate has taken place in this thread, except within YOUR brain.

What HAS been debated is a totally different issue:

Whether the birther's position necessarily implies a Big Conspiracy or not.

That is something totally different, since (I think) it is perfectly rational to hold the position:

a) The birther position does NOT imply a Big Conspiracy, involving a large number of complicit individuals

b) The birther argument is invalid/extremely spurious, nonetheless, and can be regarded as dismissable.


That is MY position.

Some further points:

c) To take a contrasting example:
There are those who hold that Neil Armstrong never was on the Moon.
This position NECESSARILY implies that many thousands of individuals, spread all across the world were complicit in the Huge Conspiracy.

d) For that reason alone, it is rationally invalidated.

e) In the Obama case, however, it wouldn't take more than the actions of Mama&Papa Obama to pull off the trick, i.e, a very tiny conspiracy[/size]

f) The world is full of tiny, trivial conspiracies, and, in contrast to the Huge Conspiracies, they do, on occasion, succeed in their extremely modest aims (for example, intriguing against a colleague in order to get the promotion you want)

g) Just because the world is full of tiny,trivial conspiracies, though, doesn't mean that Mama&Papa Obama engaged in any such activity. Very credible (and I would say, probable) narratives can be constructed to the contrary.

h) Just because it is SIMPLER to dismiss the birther position by regarding it as a conspiracy theory on par with that you need to postulate for the moon landing deniers, doesn't mean you have made a valid argument by doing so.


In short:

Some nonsense is less disprovable&improbable than other nonsense, the birther position is one of them.
 

Similar threads

News Is US Complicity in Yassin's Assassination Fueling a Religious War?
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K