Politics

Viral Facebook Picture: “I Didn’t Join The Navy To Fight For Al-Qaeda In A Syrian Civil War!”

Viral Facebook Post: ‘I Didn’t Join The Navy To Fight For Al Qaeda In Syria!’

The Obama administration is advocating meekly for approval by Congress for a military strike on Syria. Between now and the vote for authorization, there are going to be a lot of voices for and against, but none would move our wills as much as those who will be asked to perform the strike, the U.S. Military.

That’s why this post, reportedly from a U.S. Naval Petty Officer, on Facebook for a conservative talk show has more than 5,000 ‘likes’ even though it’s only been online for four hours.

There is a controversy in the comments between those who think this kind of commentary is destructive to the military, and those who think he is justified, if not a hero, for doing so.

UPDATE:

Apparently another soldier sent a similar pic to the radio show host:

join-the-military-al-qaeda

Facebook Twitter Email
  • NRPax

    I’ve got mixed feelings on this. When you are in uniform, you don’t have the same rights that civilians do. Posting pictures like this implies approval from the military which is not a Good Thing.

  • gastorgrab

    In many ways this was necessary. The left was absolutely obsessed with status, titles, awards, and position in life. They give and receive from one another, awards and honors created out of thin air, and they hold them up as proof of their ‘expert’ qualifications. They help the left feel superior to others.

    This is a statement to the left, in their own language.

    To convey any idea, or to prove something to someone who has a different point of view than you do, you must ‘prove it’ in their own term. You must learn to speak their language.

  • sandyaz

    Leave it alone. Help Christians escape, let Allah sort them out.

  • John Rebori

    While I agree with his sentiment, I don’t like the idea of a Chief Petty Officer with over 12 years service making a political statement in uniform. At least he preserved his anonymity, but the appearance of military approval or disapproval of civilian orders is outside the culture of the US military.

    And by the way, will someone tell the Angel Clark Show that the Navy is part of the military.

  • NRPax

    That’s all well and good, but the military not the way to do it. We dealt with enough knuckleheads in the service who decided that they weren’t going to war for BushCheneyHaliburtonEnronOil. This is no different.

  • NRPax

    Get the Christians out, wall of the country, wait for the last person to die before we go in. I can support that.

  • NRPax

    And “Navy” is capitalized.

  • John Rebori

    Exactly right, at least in this context.

  • gastorgrab

    They never said they wouldn’t do their duty.

    Their message speaks to their original motivation for joining the military. It’s not a declaration of intent.

  • NRPax

    I didn’t see any message on those boards that said what their original motivation was and I don’t care. There are rules you follow in the military and they are breaking them (Assuming that they are actually in the service to begin with).

  • gastorgrab

    “I did not join the Navy to…”

    “I did not join the Military to….”

  • John Rebori

    Nothing in what he said changes the simple fact that a 12 year veteran E-7 knows he should not be expressing approval or disapproval of civilian authority while in uniform.

    That is a hard and fast rule with no wiggle room in it that you are taught in boot camp and that is reinforced repeatedly.

  • NRPax

    I saw that but I still don’t see a sign that says why they joined in the first place.

  • gastorgrab

    “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic….”

  • NRPax

    “-that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Emphasis mine)

    I see what you are saying, but these people are wrong for what they are doing. You don’t use the uniform for political statements no matter who is in charge.

  • gastorgrab

    “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me”

    —–

    I see nothing in those pictures that suggests these ‘military persons’ are considering mutiny.

    They expressed an opinion only.

    And had they shown their faces, that would be another story. I would interpret that as a challenge to authority. As it is, none of us can verify if these two are even in the military. There is no name and no face to reference.

  • NRPax

    Your final paragraph is why I’m referring to them as alleged servicemembers.

    As for their opinion, fine. But what are they going to do about it if they get orders to deploy? Will they go anyway or will they try to get out? Once more and I’m done: You don’t use your uniform to make statements like this because it’s against the rules.

  • gastorgrab

    “use your uniform”

    Without an identity to go with that uniform, there is no way to ‘profit’ from his actions, monetarily or politically.

    He’s not asking for a reward. He’s calling in an anonymous tip to the real authority of the nation, “We The People”. (The President has a boss too.)

  • John Rebori

    A reward has ZERO to do with it, you DO NOT use your uniform when making a political statement.

    Any one who serves or served knows that is not negotiable.

  • gastorgrab

    Everyone who joined the American military right after the 9/11 attacks was making a political statement WITH their uniform.

  • John Rebori

    No. They made the statement in civilian clothes when they enlisted. You don’t wear a uniform to enlist.

    Once they put on the uniform, they weren’t making a political statement, they were keeping their oath.

    Anyone with 3 weeks in the service has already been taught NOT to do what that purported 12+ year veteran is doing. Whether I agree with him or not about it, he is wrong to do it that way.

  • gastorgrab

    “Once they put on the uniform, they weren’t making a political statement, they were keeping their oath.”

    —–

    So you’re saying that someone in the military could take off their uniform, identify himself as ‘active duty’ on national TV, and bash the US government?

    And isn’t someone technically ‘in the military’ even before they get their first uniform, and do the rules still not apply to them?

    Shouldn’t the rules of conduct apply to the service members themselves, and not to the actual uniform?

    If a POW is stripped of his uniform, is he no longer a soldier?

  • John Rebori

    you are working very hard to not understand a simple point.

    A member of the US Armed Forces is not allowed to identify themselves as such, either by wearing a uniform or identifying themselves as such and publicly taking a position on a US political issue.

    That is why those people are all carefully hiding their faces. They are breaking both tradition and regulations.

  • gastorgrab

    “not allowed to identify themselves”

    —-

    On this point we agree.

  • John Rebori

    Selective editing doesn’t make an agreement.

    They can identify themselves all they want and make any political statements they want, so long as they do not present themselves as members of the Armed Forces.

  • gastorgrab

    If you are a member of the military, how can you identify yourself without disclosing the fact that you are ‘under contract’?

  • John Rebori

    You can identify yourself as Joe Smith from Peoria, or any other form you want. But if you want to discuss politics, you are not allowed to mention or show that you are military.

    The whole point is that the US military, by custom, tradition, and regulation does not make statements regarding civilian politics.

    This really is not this complicated. Recruits who are physically, psychologically and emotionally exhausted during their first week of boot camp get it in about a 5 minute Q&A lesson.

  • gastorgrab

    I understand all that. But that last bit of proof is not present in this situation.

    This case would be thrown out of court. Even a military court. You cannot put John Doe on trial. Anonymity doesn’t allow for proper examination or cross-examination. You cannot establish motive when no pattern of behavior exists.

  • gastorgrab
  • John Rebori

    What has any of that to do with what they are doing?

    Regardless of the fact they would be very hard to try and convict, what they are doing is against regulations and against long standing custom.

    You are fighting awful hard to avoid getting that. Only thing left I can think is you simply don’t want to realize that they are wrong in how they are handling this. I’m done wasting time here.

  • gastorgrab

    So then I get the last word?