banning sales to the followers of islam works for me..esp non citizens
When we get into an all out war with China,what country will the Saudis stand behind ?? --- SAWMAN
muslim ones i reckon'...
How China Persuaded One Muslim Nation to Keep Silent on Xinjiang Camps
A year ago, clerics here in the world’s largest Muslim-majority country expressed alarm over China’s treatment of ethnic-minority Muslims—around a million of whom have been detained in re-education camps, according to human-rights groups.
More than a dozen top Indonesian religious leaders were taken to Xinjiang and visited re-education facilities. Tours for journalists and academics followed. Chinese authorities gave presentations on terrorist attacks by Uighurs and invited visitors to pray at local mosques. In the camps they visited classrooms where they were told students received training in everything from hotel management to animal husbandry.
Views in Indonesia changed.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-ch...-to-keep-silent-on-xinjiang-camps-11576090976
If not that is even more messed up the way the news is plastering them all over the place.I don't believe that Ubers was confirmed as the seller. The message at the bottom of th video feed I watched said "alleged".
What is it like training an international student?
Each nation is different, and it was interesting to see some stereotypes play out and interact with different cultures. The Swedish and Norwegians were your typical vikings. The Germans were often humorless, focused, and smart. The Singaporeans were incredibly disciplined, and this group of students policed itself in an impressive manner. Any Sing who did poorly on a flight or test would have the other students ensure they did well the next time around. I’d gladly fight alongside any of these guys any day of the week. I stay in touch with several of my students as their careers advance.
The Saudi students have an entirely different reputation and structure to their training. While all of the other nations employ a form of meritocracy to be in the flight program, the Saudi students are typically the child of a Saudi sheik, politician, or member of a rich/important Saudi family. They all drive luxury vehicles, and flaunt their wealth to the other students and instructors. It isn’t unusual to see a Saudi student wearing designer shoes that cost thousands of dollars with their uniforms instead of their issued shoes or boots.
The Saudis do not stand any of the squadron watches (Like assistant OOD (Officer of the Deck), where the flight schedule is executed), while other nations participate fully in squadron functions. The Saudis also have a cadre of senior officers in Pensacola, ostensibly to monitor and aid the progress of the students. They employ a number of former/retired (US) Navy pilots to serve as tutors to the Saudis, and also to provide instruction on how to properly interact with their US instructors and inside of American society. The retired officers also act as a liaison to the American command structure.
Our instructors are told that we can only instruct the Saudis in flying. Issues regarding disciple, respect, or military bearing, etc all have to be referred to the liaisons. Those issues are rampant among the Saudi contingent, and are well known among the chain of command. While there are certainly some Saudi students who have been respectful and disciplined, the norm is an aloof, arrogant child who seemingly feels superior to his instructor.
American and non-Saudi international students are expected to show up to the pre-flight briefs ready to explain all of the concepts required in the flight to the instructor (proof they study and paid attention in class). Saudi students often show up to briefs unprepared to meet that standard, and expect the material to be presented to them anew. The norm for the Saudis is to pass the student regardless of performance, unless they are simply a danger to themselves, then they get referred back through the liaisons.
We are paid to move them through the pipeline and deliver them having completed the syllabus. We can’t make them study. One friend had a Saudi student refuse to recover an aircraft from a spin, and simply threw up his hands and stated “If Allah wills it, it will recover.” This was during out-of-control flight, with the aircraft falling several thousand feet per minute. The instructor took the controls, recovered from the spin, and returned to base. That student eventually graduated.
I have had conversations over the last 3 days with at least a dozen current or former Navy flight instructors. Unanimously, the sentiment is that Saudis should be expelled from training in our program. Not only is there legitimate concern for personal safety and national security, there is a general feeling that they won’t be able to put their feeling aside and provide proper training.
· Why did the Sheriff Department have to stop the shooting and not active duty watch-standers or military police?
In short, because the Sailors at NAS Pensacola were failed by their leadership.
No additional laws/rules will detect or stop evil in someone's heart. It seems attractive to "close loopholes", but those "loopholes" may be the only recourse for legitimate personnel. No need to make things complicated.
Let the responsible active-duty members carry openly in uniform on-base. Or concealed with a state permit in civvies. Or concealed (with extra military training) in uniform. If carrying in uniform, the weapon must be military issued (way too many reasons for that one). That would cover the options for a secondary check and leadership involvement.
These cowards would think twice next time, and if they decided to proceed anyway, the body count would be lower due to the quicker armed response.
i would like to see veterans organizations along with others hold the actual admiral etc that signed off on the gun bans responsible and put them out of the service. At least make their names and signatures public on these gun policies. Our military bases should not present safe working conditions for terrorists engaging in the killing of our service personnel.I've heard this proposed many times, and the only reason I can come up with for not implementing it is that leadership does not truly trust those they lead to the extent they'll allow them to be armed. Even many deployed locations secure weapons in the armory and only issue when deemed necessary. Having served over 20 and still being employed civil service, I would appreciate being able to bring my legally/authorized CCW inside rather than leaving it in my vehicle. My personal action plan in the event of a significant threat is not to shelter in place unless forced to by circumstances. I plan on being out the door and to my vehicle where I have some better means of personal defense. I have no plan to re-enter and/or white knight. Would just rather be in the clear and armed than sitting in a room without windows hoping all goes well.
For what ever it is worth:Wasn’t ccw on the bases outlawed by Bill Clinton in 1996? It wasn’t always illegal I don’t believe.
Claim: President Bill Clinton issued an executive order disarming soldiers on military bases.
FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alarming-disarming/
Origins: The wake of the September 2013 fatal shooting of 12 people by a civilian military contractor who went on a rampage at Washington Navy Yard saw the recirculation of a rumor that gained currency after the November 2009 fatal shooting of 13 people by a U.S. Army psychiatrist at
Fort Hood, Texas: that one of the reasons these mass shooters had not been stopped earlier in their killing sprees was because President Bill Clinton had issued an executive order back in 1993 that prohibited personnel on military bases from carrying firearms while on duty.
While there was at least a small kernel of real information underlying such claims, the gist of the rumor was wrong on two major counts.
It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive was eventually implemented through a regulation 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office.
Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; rather, it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was “a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried”:
a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms.
b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed.
c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.
Others noted that the change in policy likely had little actual effect on day-to-day base operations:
Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel, also [said] that Clinton is not to blame.
“I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking to put blame on someone for disarming the military,” said Bucci, when asked if Clinton was responsible. “I think that’s kind of a bogus story.”
“We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones,” he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority.
Last updated: 16 July 2015
Sources:
Darcy, Oliver. “This Is Why Most Military Personnel Aren’t Armed on Military Bases.”
The Blaze. 17 September 2013.
Snopes has been caught in more than a few falsehoods , most people with common sense take their data with a grain of salt.
For what ever it is worth