The media vs. LG Boykin

[Story]

Has anyone seen the videotape on General Boykin's talk yet?

General Casts War In Religious Terms
Richard T. Cooper, Times Staff Writer
LA Times
October 16, 2003


WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has assigned the task of tracking down and eliminating Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other high-profile targets to an Army general who sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan.

Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, is a much-decorated and twice-wounded veteran of covert military operations. From the bloody 1993 clash with Muslim warlords in Somalia chronicled in "Black Hawk Down" and the hunt for Colombian drug czar Pablo Escobar to the ill-fated attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980, Boykin was in the thick of things. Yet the former commander and 13-year veteran of the Army's top-secret Delta Force is also an outspoken evangelical Christian who appeared in dress uniform and polished jump boots before a religious group in Oregon in June to declare that radical Islamists hated the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian and the enemy is a guy named Satan."

Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." "We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this," Boykin said last year. On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there." Boykin's penchant for casting the war on terrorism in religious terms appears to be at odds with Bush and an administration that have labored to insist that the war on terrorism is not a religious conflict.

Although the Army has seldom if ever taken official action against officers for outspoken expressions of religious opinion, outside experts see remarks such as Boykin's as sending exactly the wrong message to the Arab and Islamic world. In his public remarks, Boykin has also said that radical Muslims who resort to terrorism are not representative of the Islamic faith. He has compared Islamic extremists to "hooded Christians" who terrorized blacks, Catholics, Jews and others from beneath the robes of the Ku Klux Klan. Boykin was not available for comment and did not respond to written questions from the Los Angeles Times submitted to him Wednesday.

"The first lesson is to recognize that whatever we say here is heard there, particularly anything perceived to be hostile to their basic religion, and they don't forget it," said Stephen P. Cohen, a member of the special panel named to study policy in the Arab and Muslim world for the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. "The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is a big mistake. It's basically the language of Bin Laden and his supporters," said Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York. "They are constantly trying to create the impression that the Jews and Christians are getting together to beat up on Islam We have to be very careful that this doesn't become a clash between religions, a clash of civilizations."

Boykin's religious activities were first documented in detail by William N. Arkin, a former military intelligence analyst who writes on defense issues for The Times Opinion section. Audio and videotapes of Boykin's appearances before religious groups over the last two years were obtained exclusively by NBC News, which reported on them Wednesday night on the "Nightly News with Tom Brokaw." Arkin writes in an article on the op-ed page of today's Times that Boykin's appointment "is a frightening blunder at a time that there is widespread acknowledgment that America's position in the Islamic world has never been worse."

Boykin's promotion to lieutenant general and his appointment as deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence were confirmed by the Senate by voice vote in June. An aide to the Senate Armed Services Committee said the appointment was not examined in detail. Yet Boykin's explicitly Christian-evangelical language in public forums may become an issue now that he holds a high-level policy position in the Pentagon. Officials at his level are often called upon to testify before Congress and appear in public forums.

Boykin's new job makes his role especially sensitive: He is charged with speeding up the flow of intelligence on terrorist leaders to combat teams in the field so that they can attack top-ranking terrorist leaders. Since virtually all these leaders are Muslim, Boykin's words and actions are likely to draw special scrutiny in the Arab and Islamic world. Bush, a born-again Christian, often uses religious language in his speeches, but he keeps references to God nonsectarian. At one point, immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the president said he wanted to lead a "crusade" against terrorism. But he quickly retracted the word when told that, to Muslim ears, it recalled the medieval Christian crusaders' brutal invasions of Islamic nations. In that context, Boykin's reference to the God of Islam as "an idol" may be perceived as particularly inflammatory. The president has made a point of praising Islam as "a religion of peace." He has invited Muslim clerics to the White House for Ramadan dinners and has criticized evangelicals who called Islam a dangerous faith.

[Story]

The feeding frenzy continues, courtesy Reuters.

16 Oct 2003 20:37:43 GMT
Senior U.S. general says Muslims worship 'idol'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - A senior Pentagon intelligence official has told Christian gatherings that Muslims worship an "idol" and not "a real God," but Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday declined to criticize him and praised his "outstanding" military record.

Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and warfighting support, has used speeches at churches and prayer breakfasts to portray the U.S. battle with Islamic radicals as a fight with "Satan," saying they sought to destroy America "because we're a Christian nation."

NBC News broadcast videotapes of Boykin, an evangelical Christian, giving a number of speeches while wearing his military uniform at Christian functions around the country.

In one speech, Boykin recalled a Muslim fighter in Somalia who said U.S. forces would never get him because Allah would give him protection. "Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol," Boykin told his audience.

At a Pentagon briefing, Rumsfeld declined to answer when asked whether it was appropriate or advisable for a high-ranking Pentagon official to make such remarks in public, and did not say whether he would investigate.

"We do know that he is an officer that has an outstanding record in the United States armed forces," Rumsfeld said.

"There are a lot of things that are said by people in the military, or civilian life, or in the Congress, or in the executive branch, that are their views. And that's the way we live. We're a free people," Rumsfeld said.

"Saddam Hussein could do it pretty well, because he'd go around killing people if they said things he didn't like."

"The only thing I would say is there is a very wide gray area on what the rules permit," said Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"At first blush, it doesn't look like any rules were broken," Myers added.

Rumsfeld said he had not seen the videotapes and "I simply can't comment on what he said" in part because he did not know "the full context" of Boykin's remarks.

In another speech, Boykin said God selected George W. Bush as president.

"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

Describing America's fight with Islamic extremists, Boykin also said, "The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He's called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan."

Myers said that if a member of the military was speaking "in a private capacity, it's probably appropriate not to wear a uniform, but there are always exceptions to that." Myers noted that he has spoken at a prayer breakfast in uniform.

Rumsfeld also said that President Bush has said "the war on terrorism is not a war against a religion."

"It is a war against a group of people who have taken the subject of terrorism and tried to hijack a religion and make it look like that's part of their religion, which it is not," Rumsfeld said.

Boykin has a long military record and has been involved in noteworthy covert operations in the past.

Boykin took part in the failed mission by the Army's elite Delta Force to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980, searched for Colombian drug kingpin Pablo Escobar in 1992, commanded the 1993 raid in Somalia in which U.S. troops were ambushed in Mogadishu, and commanded Army Special Forces.

[rubberneck]

The liberal media is fixing to lynch the good general. It is too bad. We need good generals not politically correct partisan hacks.

It is enough to make me yearn for the days when Patton could say whatever the hell he wanted to because he was really good at his job. I would be really sprised if Gen Boykins survived the week.

One has to think that the Dem candidates will be all over this like stink on shit and then three or four years down the road decry the lack of leadrships in the miliatry.

[zog]

Is any of this false?

[specwarnet]

It is enough to make me yearn for the days when Patton could say whatever the hell he wanted to because he was really good at his job. I would be really sprised if Gen Boykins survived the week.

Patton could never say whatever the hell he wanted to; he had his collar jerked quite often.

This is an emotionally charged issue. Not going to be much middle ground.

[ODA 564]

Here's the intersting part...

Boykin's right.

And all this bullshit namby-pamby 'tolerance of diversity' crap gives aid and comfort to an unrelenting foe whose goal is to crush Judeo-Christian civilization and create a Muslim world.

Now, we (the West) have already destroyed Judeo-Christian civilization and live in a hedonistic sybaretic 'culture' of depravity and perversion (except for us that still cling to the out-of-fashio, quaint ways).

Bin Laden is no extremist. He is a mainstream practioner of his religion - which is why most Muslims have some sympathy for AQ's objective.

And we'll tolerate diversity and refuse to deal with it until its too late and the survivors are making the choice between conversion or death.

All the feminists, the Wiccans, the 'gay, lesbian, and transgendered' and all the 'victim' groups will e bleating 'but we respected YOUR lifestyle and religion' as they are forced into burkhas, stoned, etc.

Herre's a hint... ain't no tolerance in Islam. Just try to have a 'coven' in a Muslim country...

What shit. Embracing the bastards that are gutting you as you piss on that which made it possible.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by ODA 564
Here's the intersting part...

Boykin's right.

And all this bullshit namby-pamby 'tolerance of diversity' crap gives aid and comfort to an unrelenting foe whose goal is to crush Judeo-Christian civilization and create a Muslim world.

Now, we (the West) have already destroyed Judeo-Christian civilization and live in a hedonistic sybaretic 'culture' of depravity and perversion (except for us that still cling to the out-of-fashio, quaint ways).

Bin Laden is no extremist. He is a mainstream practioner of his religion - which is why most Muslims have some sympathy for AQ's objective.

And we'll tolerate diversity and refuse to deal with it until its too late and the survivors are making the choice between conversion or death.

All the feminists, the Wiccans, the 'gay, lesbian, and transgendered' and all the 'victim' groups will e bleating 'but we respected YOUR lifestyle and religion' as they are forced into burkhas, stoned, etc.

Herre's a hint... ain't no tolerance in Islam. Just try to have a 'coven' in a Muslim country...

What shit. Embracing the bastards that are gutting you as you piss on that which made it possible.

Alright.

Boykin is right...to an extent. I've butted heads with people on this site before on this subject, but please allow me this one last attempt to make a point:

THIS WAR IS MORE ABOUT PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT THAN ABOUT DESTROYING A RELIGION.

Our enemy in this war numbers between 2 and 3 million (although that number grows with each passing comment like this). That includes active fighters and their inactive supporters. They are followers of the Salafi/Wahabbi sects of the Sunni Muslims. Saying that this group of represnts all Muslims is akin to saying that the Mormons represent all Christians. When our elected representatives and their staff make comments like this, it only adds to the number of people we have to fight. Seeing how difficult it is to kill one of these fuckers, I'd just as soon minimize the number we have to go after.

Shiite terrorism need to be approached differently.

I am not comparing Mormons to the aformentioned groups, but rather the numbers seem appropriate. I apologize if anyone takes offense.

[Anakin]

I think the War on Terror is whatever one perceives it to be. If someone believes it's a religious thing then that's what it is to them.
No doubt the Islamic world will once again claim that the US is fighting a war against Islam on behalf of the "zionists".

[1026]

I'm with ODA 564. Most wars in today's world involve "the religion of peace". They worship a demon, Baal, not an idol.

Modern "liberals" worship idols; they practice animism.

[DY]

The President is a Christian, too. He also had a, ahem, religious awakenning. His denominational and cultural background is a bit more conservative than Boykin's. But rest assured that Bush's religious restraint is under political advisment while Boykin does not feel he requires that. Look how far he has gotten while his outspoken manner has been consistent. Granted he has moved farther into the international arena. But I bet he's thinking about Elija's story right now and will do just fine. Somehow, I don't think AQ is going to get a very good spin on this.

[Snowball]

Truth has nothing to do with retention in positions of power. Remember that not only did Patton get yanked, but so did MacArthur. What's that quote about rough men ready to do rough deeds ...?
respectfully submitted

[DY]

Truth has everything to do with retention in positions of power if that is a tenet of your leadership which got you there to begin with. The man is consistent.

[rubberneck]

Patton could never say whatever the hell he wanted to; he had his collar jerked quite often.

What I should have said is that Patton wouldn't have had to worry about his job if he had made non p.c. comments about the Germans. In those days winning could forgive a multitude of sins and it isn't that way any more. If Patton had struck a trooper in 2003 instead of 1943 he would have been canned so quickly his head would have spun regardless of how good he was at his job.

[Snowball]

My point exaclty. If what LG Boykin does not "please" others, then tough. Leaders are expected to deal in the truth, not being brown nosed sycophants pandering for favor. Without a truthful and accurate assessment of a situation, any planning for a response is doomed to fail. I really don't care one way or another about the religious aspect of his analysis, but it is undeniable that the enemy sees it as a religious war. Using a religious model does make it easier to nderstanding to the natuere of the situation. For us to ignore the enemy's motivation is simlpy foolish.
respectfully submitted.

[SF Trainee]

You know, I saw this last night in a link in AKO and I was tempted to put it here on SOCNET for discussion. I resisted that temptation because it's not going to solve anything and just going to add more BS to an already BS issue. Plus, I admire LTG Boykin and respect his views. He doesn't need me to help the media push this BS around. But, since we are now discussing it ...

What does anyone here give a fuck what his religious beliefs are? If a man can't walk into a church and talk of his beliefs, where the fuck is he going to do it? WTF is this country coming too?

Another thing, LTG Boykin is not a politician (and don't give me this intellectual bullshit argument that "well, he is a general after all ..."). He does not shape domestic, or international policy. He is on the mission execution side of things. Who gives a fuck as long as he is effective in his job, which is to find and kill fucking terrorists. I can't even believe this discussion is taking place here.

[zog]

Of course Boykin is right -- to a certain extent.
And there's no doubt about his creds as a soldier.
But....

He's in DC now, he's at the Pentagon. That's a long way from Bragg, no matter what side of the fence you call home. There's lots and lots and lots of small p politics; put the ceramic plate in the back, that's where the knives are aimed. Somebody pointed the reporters toward this story.

It's NOT the (allegedly) liberal media against Boykin, someone else dropped a dime on him. Who and why? I dunno.

But Boykin must work with intelligence services and others in Islamic countries. His words don't help, and probably will be used to whip up more suspicion about the Great Satan, just like President Bush using "crusade" was a mistake. Truth is a tricky thing: How would you answer girfriend's or wife's "Does this make me look fat?" question?

He's not in ops anymore, he's in a position that's inherently political.

Situational awareness.

If he's still there in a week to 10 days, he'll be OK and we won;t see "leaving to spend more time with family and pursue other interests" report. From what I've learned about him, he's not a quitter.

He's doing right by not commenting right now. Let the story die. Something else will come along.

[wolfhound227]

The thing is that he made these comments in a church. The last time I checked church is where a person could make these kinds of statements. Now if he'd said this stuff in a briefing room somewhere then I'd have a problem with it.

Side question:

They showed a picture he took over Mogadishu of an anomalous black object . Boykin interpreted the object as a manifestation of evil, is that photo posted anywhere on the net?

[Story]

Originally posted by wolfhound227
Side question:

They showed a picture he took over Mogadishu of an anomalous black object . Boykin interpreted the object as a manifestation of evil, is that photo posted anywhere on the net?

wolfhound227,
please elaborate. more detail? remember where you read this?
story

[SF Trainee]

Originally posted by zog

Situational awareness.



I feel rather unqualified to lecture LTG Boykin about "situational awareness". LOL

[specwarnet]

He's human, like the rest of us.

[SF Trainee]

Originally posted by specwarnet
He's human, like the rest of us.

I said that "I" felt rather unqualified to lecture LTG Boykin about "situational awareness". Maybe you guys are qualified to do so. I'm not.

[specwarnet]

I'd be about the least qualified.

What occured to me reading all of this is that he's human, he'll make little mistakes and goofs here and there. I don't necessarily share his religeous beliefs but I don't think he needs or deserves a lecture over it. Sort of rephrasing "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" as it were.

[Bohr Adam]

Originally posted by zog
Somebody pointed the reporters toward this story.

It's NOT the (allegedly) liberal media against Boykin, someone else dropped a dime on him. Who and why? I dunno.


That is not how I read it. Th is LA times writer is their "military correspondent" - that that meanbs at that paper is it his his job to dig up dirt on senior DOD officials. That is what this is.


But Boykin must work with intelligence services and others in Islamic countries. His words don't help, and probably will be used to whip up more suspicion about the Great Satan, just like President Bush using "crusade" was a mistake. Truth is a tricky thing: How would you answer girfriend's or wife's "Does this make me look fat?" question?

That is not how I read it at all - and I am usually very leary towards fundamantalist Christians. He was saying that the terrorists worship a false god - in other words, not the God of Abraham - who is also the Muslim God. In case he may be misunderstood there, he even goes on to compare them to the KKK claiming to be Christians, but actually worshipping a similarly false god. It is only pure LA Times style spin that tries to make this a religious intolerance issue.

I am reminded of one of my favorite movies, "Children of the Corn." The children believed there god was the god of Abraham, when it fact it was Satan. That is exactly LTG Boykin's point.


He's not in ops anymore, he's in a position that's inherently political.

Situational awareness.



On top of that, these remarks he is being pegged for were made over the past year or more, with the most recent being in June. Any remarks about it being inappropriate for his new job - thus making him lack situational awareness - make no sense. This is all just a typical LA times smear campaign.

Believe me, if he had said anything to the effect of Islam itself being a false religion, or that Allah was a false god - it would have made that article and been on the news. That reporter dug through hours of video tapes and cassettes to get those few quotes he DID find.

Always the media cynic,

Adam

[wolfhound227]

Originally posted by Story
wolfhound227,
please elaborate. more detail? remember where you read this?
story

I saw it on either NBC Nightly News or CNBC. NBC is the tag-team partner with the LA Times on this "story".

[yotanka]

I stand with LTG. Boykin. I agree with all he said.

Jennifer Martinez sends

[yotanka]

I have two things to add to this subject:

Source (http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16892)

FIRST-PERSON: Stabbed in the back
Oct 20, 2003
By Bobby H. Welch

EDITORS' NOTE: Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin, one of the Bush administration's top officials in the war on terror as the new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, has been the focus of various media reports recently for comments he has made about his faith in various religious settings in recent years. An evangelical Christian, Boykin has been in the Army since 1971, serving in such key operations as the 1980 rescue attempt of U.S. hostages in Iran and in 1993 in Somalia. From 2000 until June of this year Boykin was the commanding general at the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center, Fort Bragg, N.C. He has earned such honors as the Defense Superior Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters; Bronze Star Medal; and Purple Heart with oak leaf cluster. Following is a column by Bobby H. Welch, pastor of First Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Fla., where Boykin has been a guest speaker.

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. (BP)--For 32 years Lt. Gen. "Jerry" Boykin has voluntarily placed his life and body between Americans and their enemies. In defending America he has almost been killed numerous times. His arm was almost blown off his body in one battle. From other battles his body still carries metal from mortars and gunshot wounds. His impeccable heroic leadership has made him practically a legend among his peers.

For such distinguished leadership and do-or-die devotion to America, and to those of us who call America "home," he has received numerous awards and decorations. Likely, Boykin is one of the most combat-decorated soldiers on active duty today. Without question, he is an all-American hero of the first and finest order. He is exactly the kind of man a father and mother would want their son and daughter to meet. To borrow a quote from the cover of Charles Beckwith's book "Delta Force," "nations without men like this simply don't survive."

History is on Boykin's side.

All throughout American military history, from before the Civil War until now, it is replete with illustrations of great military commanders verbalizing their spirituality. Gen. MacArthur and Gen. Patton and multiple others called on God, prayed to God, gave God praise and glory for victories and called upon God to defeat their enemies. Not a single one of those military leaders ever was belittled, harassed or chastised for speaking out about their spirituality.

Heroism is on Boykin's side.

Who do these so-called "watchdogs" think they are "barking" at anyway? He is not a politician, commentator or comedian. This is one of the most outstanding men this country has produced, a hero fully worthy of honor.

Help is on Boykin's side.

General Boykin is one of the very few uniquely equipped and experienced men who are absolutely essential to America having victory over terrorism. America needs to thank God for sparing this brave, good man who can help our nation at such a time as this.

Boykin has been, as they say, "To hell and back" for the citizens of this nation. Everything imaginable has happened to General Boykin as he has again and again tried to give his life for this country -- yes, everything except one thing: He has never been stabbed in the back by an American. Not until recently.

Now this all-American hero is doing as men and women of his character and stature always do in times like these. He is standing tall and brave as a quiet professional warrior ... bleeding -- bleeding real, red American blood for the sake of our nation. General Boykin has spilled enough blood for this great country in battles against its enemies and he should not have to spill one more drop from a stab in the back by a few political operatives.

We should applaud Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for their good sense in supporting General Boykin. We should be ashamed of those who so foolishly attacked him.

Every God-fearing American should pray, pray, pray for General Boykin and his family. Someone said, "We all sleep better when men like General Boykin guard America!" I agree with that and I despise the unthinkable and asinine fact that some take cheap backstabbing shots at a real God-fearing American hero who continually risks his life to protect all of us.

God bless America, General Boykin and all those brave warriors like him.

[yotanka]

<EM>These are the written words of a retired Special Forces operator who graciously gave me permission to publish his letter on my blog (http://www.jenmartinez.com/mt/). He also asked me to spread the word. It seems the Fayetteville Observer found the good Sergeant Major's words to be so un-politically correct that they refused to publish this in their "Opinions" section.</EM>

It seems that Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, is the first person in the Bush Administration to properly assess the Muslim terrorist threat our country faces, or at least he is the first to talk freely about the threat. When our President says that Islam is the "Religion of Peace" and that we are only threatened by a few fundamentalist Muslims, he is either attempting to mislead the American people, or he is trying to mislead our enemies, and it is difficult to determine by his actions which it is.

What our President could and should say is that there are over one billion Muslims in the world and all of them can be divided into two categories, fundamentalist Muslims and moderate Muslims. A fundamentalist Muslim believes that his God demands that he must either kill or convert the Infidel (non-believer), and he is actively striving to obey his God. A moderate Muslim believes that his God demands that he must either kill or convert the Infidel, and he has not yet had either the means or opportunity to obey his God.

Any person who would have you believe that a moderate Muslim is no different than a Catholic, Protestant, or a Buddhist has either never conducted research into the creation and history of the Islamic faith, or he is simply trying to deceive you. Those knowledgeable in the basic tenets of Islam understand that it is not just a religion but an all encompassing and all controlling way of life as was Stalinist Communism. The only difference being that Stalin ruled under the threat of death, and Islam rules under the threat of eternal damnation.

There is no half measure in Islam. For a Muslim, the Koran is either followed to the letter or the violator is condemned to hell. There is no law but God's law, and if given a choice, a Muslim must select a government (Caliphate) ruled by the Mullahs (Clergy) of his faith and follow God’s laws as written in the Koran. It is the divinely ordained duty of all Muslims to fight in the literal sense until manmade law has been replaced by God's law, the Sharia, and Islamic law has conquered the entire world. With this in mind, it is clear that Muslim immigrants do not come to this country to become Americans, follow our laws, and enjoy the freedoms that our Constitution guarantees but only come to spread Islam as required of them by their Koran.

The Koran was written between the 6th and 13th century AD and has changed very little since then. It has effectively kept its followers locked in the dark ages and now it threatens to pull the civilized world into its abyss. Ironically, it is we who have given them the means for our own destruction through our generous payment for their oil. Instead of using this largess to pull themselves out of their medieval existence, they have used it in an attempt to drag us in with them.

How does a country defend its self from such a threat? Defend is the wrong term to use. The slogan "The best offense is a good defense" reflects a defeatist (read French) attitude that will only lead to the fall of a nation. There is no substitute for a good offense. When a nation is threatened, its leaders must identify the source of that threat and eliminate it. General Boykin has taken the first step in this process; he has positively identified the threat. The next step, elimination, depends on the courage of our President and the unwavering support of the American people.

Donald J. Taylor
Sergeant Major
U.S. Army Special Forces (Retired)
Fayetteville, NC

[yotanka]

Ok so I lied. Here's one last thing and then I'll go away so as to make everyone happy again.

[Bohr Adam]

Sorry Jen, but I've known too many Muslim soldiers who joined AFTER "9/11" out of an overwhelming desire to help purge that region of shitheads as well. If you believe what this SGM(R) Taylor wrote- and if enough people believe this - then essentially you are saying that our current foreign policy is a sham and there is ZERO hope for a resolution to the current war. I will not - cannot - accept this. To do so puts us in the same category as those running around avoiding black helicopters while wearing tin-foil hats. "my government is lying to me, blah, blah, blah."

I also think it gives no assist to LTG Boykin to be further dragged down into the extremes on this issue. The fact remains that the LA times had every tape and video Boykin ever made, and the most controversial stuff they could find required expert lead in and set-up by the author in order to make people hear things he never even said.

Boykins was definitely stabbed in the back, but there is no need to drag him down in the mud with hate-filled religious rhetoric. A fundamentalist of any sort can be rather scary. I could get every bit as ugly about "Christianity" - but I will not. For SGM (Ret) Taylor to say that non-radical and America-hating muslims are "bad" Muslims is a bit over the top - heck, it sounds like something the terrorists would say. Then again, the similarities between some of the rhetoric of the radical "Christian" right and Bin Laden have always struck me as frighteningly similar.

Does this Donald Taylor have any particular operational experience in that AO that bears on this current issue? The fact that he offers not one anecdote makes me doubt that. If he's right, we need to just nuke that whole part of the world from orbit - it's the only way to be sure. I refuse to accept that he could be right - then again I went to college around some pretty extreme "Christians" and have seen true hate manifest itself - and like to think I understand the mentality we are up against on both sides.

Boykin put the issue in real terms that we can all understand - anyone whose "God" tells them to hate and kill is a false god - what a powerful message to convey to unite Christian, Jew, and Muslim alike - except those on either side so wrapped up in their owne self-righteous BS that they can imagine no other life.

[Sweetbriar]

I'll go away so as to make everyone happy again.

yotanka, the quality here has dropped without you. If 'everyone' needs his typing fingers ripped off, I'll be glad to handle it. Good to see you back. :)

[ktek01]

Originally posted by yotanka
Ok so I lied. Here's one last thing and then I'll go away so as to make everyone happy again.

Dont go away, I think most of us look forward to reading your posts. Good stuff. I find it hard to disagree with LTG Boykin, there may be some peacefull Muslims out there, but I have yet to meet one.

[yotanka]

Thanks Sweetbriar but I find that a bit hard to believe (the quality part).

Adam, I am not a fundamentalist and certainly would never do anything to "drag" the good General down. If you'd like the Sergeant Major's email address, PM or email me and I'll give it to you. I cannot answer those questions about his military experience or what and why he feels the way he does.

For the record, my God doesn't "tell me" that I have to convert everyone or else they must die.

Jennifer Martinez sends

[CPTAUSRET]

Originally posted by Sweetbriar
yotanka, the quality here has dropped without you.

Jen:

I will second that response:

Nice to see you posting again, stick around it is nice to see your smiling face::)

Terry

[Bohr Adam]

Originally posted by yotanka
Thanks Sweetbriar but I find that a bit hard to believe (the quality part).

Adam, I am not a fundamentalist and certainly would never do anything to "drag" the good General down. If you'd like the Sergeant Major's email address, PM or email me and I'll give it to you. I cannot answer those questions about his military experience or what and why he feels the way he does.

For the record, my God doesn't "tell me" that I have to convert everyone or else they must die.

Jennifer Martinez sends

I know we are on the same side here. I just can't help but be bothered by what I view as counterproductive religion bashing - especially when it, IMHO, undermines the whole "hearts and minds" effort.

I may be wrong, but weren't all the warriors we fought with, and for, in Afghanistan - Muslim?

There have been surfacings of various so-called Christians throughout history that HAVE believed that their God told them they have to convert everyone or they must die. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind.

These kind of arguments just really sour me on the whole religon thing. Honestly, if you haven't seen it in a while - go rent "Children of the Corn." For some reason that movie, IMHO, sums up our struggle in the middle east to a "T." Besides, it is good Halloween fare.

Yes, BTW, I know I'm a but weird. ;)

[Teutates]

Originally posted by Adam White
Sorry Jen, but I've known too many Muslim soldiers who joined AFTER "9/11" out of an overwhelming desire to help purge that region of shitheads as well. If you believe what this SGM(R) Taylor wrote- and if enough people believe this - then essentially you are saying that our current foreign policy is a sham and there is ZERO hope for a resolution to the current war. I will not - cannot - accept this. To do so puts us in the same category as those running around avoiding black helicopters while wearing tin-foil hats. "my government is lying to me, blah, blah, blah."

I also think it gives no assist to LTG Boykin to be further dragged down into the extremes on this issue. The fact remains that the LA times had every tape and video Boykin ever made, and the most controversial stuff they could find required expert lead in and set-up by the author in order to make people hear things he never even said.

Boykins was definitely stabbed in the back, but there is no need to drag him down in the mud with hate-filled religious rhetoric. A fundamentalist of any sort can be rather scary. I could get every bit as ugly about "Christianity" - but I will not. For SGM (Ret) Taylor to say that non-radical and America-hating muslims are "bad" Muslims is a bit over the top - heck, it sounds like something the terrorists would say. Then again, the similarities between some of the rhetoric of the radical "Christian" right and Bin Laden have always struck me as frighteningly similar.

Does this Donald Taylor have any particular operational experience in that AO that bears on this current issue? The fact that he offers not one anecdote makes me doubt that. If he's right, we need to just nuke that whole part of the world from orbit - it's the only way to be sure. I refuse to accept that he could be right - then again I went to college around some pretty extreme "Christians" and have seen true hate manifest itself - and like to think I understand the mentality we are up against on both sides.

Boykin put the issue in real terms that we can all understand - anyone whose "God" tells them to hate and kill is a false god - what a powerful message to convey to unite Christian, Jew, and Muslim alike - except those on either side so wrapped up in their owne self-righteous BS that they can imagine no other life.

Sorry Adam, but this tells a story that hits the mark. You need to do a little more research on your muslim friends.
I have yet to see a million muslim march condemning the suicide bombings.

Poll: Majority of Palestinians Back Suicide Bombing
Sun Oct 19, 9:31 AM ET

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Seventy-five percent of Palestinians support the suicide bombing at an Israeli restaurant two weeks ago in which 21 people, including four children, were killed, a Palestinian survey showed Sunday.

The survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, which questioned 1,318 respondents in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (news - web sites), also showed that 85 percent of Palestinians support a "mutual cessation of violence by both sides."

The poll found considerable anti-American feeling among Palestinians. Just over 95 percent of respondents said the United States was "not sincere" when it says it seeks to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

In a question asking whether they supported or opposed the October 4 bombing in the northern city of Haifa, 75 percent said they either supported the attack or strongly supported it.

Seventeen percent of respondents said they opposed the bombing and 4.4 percent said they strongly opposed the attack.

Ayoub Mustafa, one of the pollsters, told Reuters the number may have been artificially high because respondents were not told in the question that all the 21 dead were civilians.

He said 55 percent of respondents said they supported "armed attacks" in Israel and this number might be more reflective of Palestinian support for the Haifa attack as it was the first time they had surveyed support for specific bombings.

The Haifa bombing was carried out by a woman who said she was avenging Israel's killing of her brother, an Islamic Jihad militant who the army said was planning a car-bomb attack.

Just over 89 percent of Palestinians surveyed backed attacks against Jewish settlers living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, land occupied by Israel which Palestinians want for a state. A similar number supported attacks against Israeli soldiers.

On the political front, President Yasser Arafat (news - web sites)'s popularity rose to its highest level in five years with 50 percent of Palestinians saying they would vote for him again if there were elections, up from 35 percent last year, the poll showed. About 80 percent of respondents attributed Arafat's rise in popularity to Israel's plans to expel him from the Palestinian territories.

Almost 97 percent said the United States, Israel's main ally, was biased in favor of the Jewish state.

The United States drew up a peace "road map" with the United Nations (news - web sites), the European Union (news - web sites) and Russia this year which set out reciprocal steps for ending violence and establishing a Palestinian state in 2005. Progress on the road map has stalled.

LOL, add to this the shit that just came out of the mouth of the Malaysian PM, and your opinion is sucking.

Malaysian PM urges Muslims to unite against 'Jewish domination'
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday told a summit of Islamic leaders that "Jews rule the world by proxy" and the world's 1.3 billion Muslims should unite, using nonviolent means for a "final victory."

Megawati applauded Mahathir attack on Jews
Date: October 18 2003
By Mark Riley, Tom Allard and Matthew Moore

The Indonesian President, Megawati Soekarnoputri, joined a standing ovation for her Malaysian counterpart, Mahathir Mohamad, after he called on Muslims to consider Jews as their enemy, it has been revealed.

All 57 leaders at a Conference of Islamic Nations summit applauded the comments, which have renewed regional tensions ahead of next week's APEC leaders' conference. Among them were several key figures in the post-September 11 world, including Ms Megawati; the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai; President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

One the largest muslim countries in the world. Guess Boykin, Taylors (and you can include me,) we're all wrong concerning the poor misunderstood muslims of the world.

Trust me Adam, if and when the muslims every obtain a nuclear weapon it will be used, and most likely on our turf.

Teutates
Master Sergeant
Special Forces
retired

[RipperTOW]

The militant Islamists are not waging a war against Christians. They lived for centuries with Christians and Jews (called dhimmi) in their midst and were far more tolerant of them than most Europeans were of anyone in the 19th and 20th centuries. The militant Islamists are against the wealth and material prosperity of the West. The infidels, as the term was originally coined, referred to the polytheistic tribes of North Africa and in the Middle-East in the time of Muhammad's life and shortly thereafter. Christians who lived in Islamic realms were not killed, as polytheists were, but were relatively protected. It was the polytheistic tribes whose only option was: convert or die.

The wealth and prosperity they are so focused on are the products of science and a secular outlook that is uniquely Western, but which has happened in spite of Christianity - not because of it. Latin and South America are far more Christian than America is. So are many countries in that region. If it's a war against Christianity, why aren't these countries the target of all the militant Islamist's venom? If they hated our Christianity, why go after the WTC (the monument to Capitalism, if ever there was one?). Why not hit the Vatican, or Notre Dam, or some cathedral over here?

[ktek01]

The hell with any "Hearts and Minds" campaign, we need a Heads on Sticks campaign.

[Bohr Adam]

Now how did I get myself cast in the "poor, misunderstood terrorists" crowd?

Normally I am accused of being an evil Zionist conspirator.

I just refuse to believe this is an issue of religion. it IS an issue of power, though - and one that I believe can best be won if we successful USE religion to our advantage. The leaders of the muslim world use religion to control their subjects - this is not unprecedented by any means.

We can either,

1) Kill them all

2) Convert them all

3) Convince them that their "leadership" is morally void and has bastardized the teachings of their prophet for their own nefarious purposes.

The latter is the option we seem to have chosen. Casting their God not as the same God as the Christian and Jewish God - but as the anti-christ - does not help in supporting this effort.

That is my only point.

The fanatical Muslim leaders of the world are trying to paint htis as a religious war. If yours and others take on this is truly what most Americans believe, then they are telling their followers the truth. If so, we have our work cut out for us, and we have completely wasted our time and efforts since 11 Sep 01.

[ktek01]

I dont really care what their religion is, if they support those that would fly planes into our buildings they die. If they try to interfere with us getting those who would fly planes into our building they die. Really pretty cut and dry to me, if they want to work with us fine, but it better be more than lip service, action speaks for itself.

[Snowball]

The casting of the present conflict in religious terms is not of our doing. BUT, if we fail to see how the enemy sees the conflict, we are out manuvered at the outset and can only fall behind as time goes along. If we are responding to the enemy (even in the conceptual front) we are not leading. Their goal is the destruction of our society, not conquest of our territory. This is a fundamental difference, so do not lose sight of it.

Has anyone frogotten the scenes played just after 9-11 wherein the civilian in palestine were celebrating the victory? It is not just the volunteers, but the entire society which was revelling. Can anyone believe that these people condemn the acts of 9-11? I, for one, do not have any illusions what is needed, and it is not a pleasant thought.

Wars are dirty, rotten, smelly affairs, and as Robt. E. Lee said (could have been Sheridan or ?) "It is good that war is so terrible lest we grow fond of it." I think that everyone agrees that you must bring the war to the enemy, not respond to the enemy's moves. Close and destroy, defeat in detail!

In the final analysis, wars are won by bringing death and destruction to the enemy to the point that he no longer can or will fight; the point at which the society just doesn't want to fight. I leave it to your imagination where that point is.

respectfully submitted.

[Snowball]

btw
Welcome back Yotanka, you bring a valued viewpoint. Thanks.

[Special Forces]

Adam:

I hate to disagree with you, but consider this.

The average member of a predominately Moslem nation, if he has access to a TV, watches the local media and Al Jazeera. In case you missed it, they don't run too many positive stories about us, regardless of what we do. The masses in these countries get their news from the cleric down at the Mosque, or in the madrassas.

Have you seen a Moslem cleric stand up and express sympathy for our losses of 9/11, or condemn the hijackers? I haven't. What I have seen are plenty of images of supposedly moderate Moslems glorifying them and their actions, though. We are dealing with a religion which seems to have stagnated in development several hundred years ago. Suppressing women's rights, limiting educational opportunities, calling for suicide bombings, and genocide, do not seem to smack of a progressive faith to me.

Until the moderate Moslems (if there are any) step forward and denounce their radical brothers, and the Moslem on the street is presented both sides, and the education to decide the merits for himself, I see few options for us via good will and muzzling our personal beliefs.

We are only going to win hearts and minds face to face, or by credible propagandizing via PSYOPs in US friendly nations, and there are very few of those.

All others can, at best, be taught the meaning of the words "fear", "power", and "respect".

As the President said, "You are either with us, or you are against us." You take up arms against this country, or support those who do, you should be afforded the most expeditious means possible to visit your 72 virgins.

Good luck all.

TR

[Bohr Adam]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Adam:

I hate to disagree with you, but consider this.

The average member of a predominately Moslem nation, if he has access to a TV, watches the local media and Al Jazeera. In case you missed it, they don't run too many positive stories about us, regardless of what we do. The masses in these countries get their news from the cleric down at the Mosque, or in the madrassas.

Have you seen a Moslem cleric stand up and express sympathy for our losses of 9/11, or condemn the hijackers? I haven't. What I have seen are plenty of images of supposedly moderate Moslems glorifying them and their actions, though. We are dealing with a religion which seems to have stagnated in development several hundred years ago. Suppressing women's rights, limiting educational opportunities, calling for suicide bombings, and genocide, do not seem to smack of a progressive faith to me.

Until the moderate Moslems (if there are any) step forward and denounce their radical brothers, and the Moslem on the street is presented both sides, and the education to decide the merits for himself, I see few options for us via good will and muzzling our personal beliefs.

We are only going to win hearts and minds face to face, or by credible propagandizing via PSYOPs in US friendly nations, and there are very few of those.

All others can, at best, be taught the meaning of the words "fear", "power", and "respect".

As the President said, "You are either with us, or you are against us." You take up arms against this country, or support those who do, you should be afforded the most expeditious means possible to visit your 72 virgins.

Good luck all.

TR

Great post sir - and I agree with you. I just can't help but think we are losing the propaganda war if we allow ourselves to paint this as a religious war - that is exactly what those clerics you speak of are saying.

I think it is easier to convince someone his leadership has betrayed their faith than to tell him his whole religion is a sham.

Heck, we are losing the "hearts and minds" campaign with Arabs in THIS country - a group that is not exposed only to state-run media. I fear most of this is due to the religion issue.

[troy2k]

"if we allow ourselves to paint this as a religious war"
Just because your religion has nothing to do with the war, does not make it a war without religious roots. If it is Arab related, it is religious in nature. It permeates every aspect of their culture.

[Snowball]

When the cleric ceases to preach war because too many have died, when the mother no longer wishes for her son to be a martyr because all of her other sons have died, when the children no longer desire to kill because all of the other children have died, and when the father no longer permits his children to be told to kill by his community because he no longer wants to have his children killed, that is when the war will end and not before. Until then, the enemy's will to fight has not been broken. Not a pretty thought, but no less real.

[SF Trainee]

Not my quote but, the war will end when these Muslim Jihadist Extremists begin to "love their children more than they hate us."

Until then, they are going to be on the receiving end of our military might.

[Purple36]

The General has a right to his religious beliefs and the right to state his opinions at his or any other church. Period.
Leave it to the press, to try to fry this man. I wouldn't doubt if CAIR is somewhere behind this.....those paragons of moderate Islamic virtue.

[MZap]

From the little I've read, those who reject the "jihad" mentality are referred to as liberal muslims, and they're in the minority. I've only skimmed through it, but I've heard that many passages in the Koran, if taken literally, actually justify what these terrorist assholes do. Check out some of conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza's work on this. It should shed some more light.

Although, I remember Christopher Hitchens saying that there's actually a good deal of support for the War on Terror in Indonesia, where open trials of Al Qaeda are held. He said he's seen many muslim clerics in white robes cursing the accused, so that's encouraging.

[NewportBarGuy]

He spoke his mind and belief and got strung up for it. A General in his position should realise that in his position, regardless of his beliefs, will be held to a greater scrutiny than most others.

I applaude him for his candor, he spoke from his heart and soul. Unfortunately, in this day and time you cannot do such things because someone is always recording and you must distance yourself at that rank. Only because of the media's fierce tentales at this point.

Anything of this sort will be seized upon as a religious war, whether he meant to say so or not. I think we all caught his drift in the message. Unfortunately, those that seek to oppose us can use this as anti-islam rhetoric in their current recruitment drive.

There is not boot camp or AIT for these folks. They hear a message, are compelled by it's meaning and act. What we need to do is compel them to see that the future of Iraq holds more promise than the previous regime.

Hard sell... But we can pull it off. If we do not, it's more of the bogged down scenario with us waging house to house battles. I'm sure all of us here understand the futility of that.

It can be won, it will be won, it MUST be won. It's only a willingness of will we win. I hope that after the fight for the 87B things for the troops will not become so involved. It's only a hope.

[DY]

I think that he has faced America with this question. IS it a religious war to us? Clearly he thinks so. It is recognized throughout the American church that the southern hemisphere is far more Christian than the north at this time. But it is also true that the majority of the founding fathers were Christian. So do we choose to identify ourselves with God and, ahem, Jesus, or not? "Fundamental" Islamists not only call us Christian infidels, but hypocrates as well.

By donning the American uniform and displaying it in a Baptist church, and by saying what he did, did he inflame Eastern perceptions? I personally am inspired by that as well as the Methodist preacher who wore his Colonel's uniform to church before enlisting the majority of his congregation for the War of Independence. But, pose a question; Why did SOF guys wear civvies and beards in Afghanistan? Perception? There is a time for everything. The General made a loud statement by his words and actions and I stand behind him.

So far as what these religions stand for, much gets mispercieved between documentation/scripture and history. There are periods of Christian induced violence and periods of Moslem induced tolerance. But the Koran and the Bible make accommodations for both types of action. What is required is more than a passing glance. God of the Bible is described as someone who is capable of great peace and compassion as well as someone who can and will create more terror than has been seen on this Earth yet. Allah is described to possess mercy and terror as well. But the mandates from these two gods to their beleivers are vastly different. If someone wants me to look up such verses to validate I will. But I need to get to work, now.

[yotanka]

Yes CAIR is involved, naturally. They were the first to call for the good General to be reassigned (http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=154&page=AA). CAIR supports Hamas and Hizbollah, why they are allowed to operate in my Country is beyond me. Here's their action alert (http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=32772&page=NB).

islam isn't a sham, it's a cult. Normally I wouldn't care what religion a person chooses to practice, live and let live. However, islam's goal is to impose their religion and Sharia over the USA and every other nation. Unacceptable in my book.

Dem Presidential candidate Howard Dean tells Arabs (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=3641408) that the American flag doesn't belong to LTG. Boykin. The Arabs were very excited to hear this and cheered loudly. F*** Dean. How dare that fat ass speak about a man who has given more for this Country than most. If Dean has made any positive contributions to this Country, they are nothing compared to Boykin's. Which reminds me, I need to call Dean's office and let them know what I think about this.

LTG. Boykin is not "politically correct" and that's where the so called "problem" lies. He offended muslims.... gasp... the horror.

I think he was right on target in regards to what he said to a Somali warlord. What the Somalis did ..... was unspeakable horror. Obviously not the work of a deeply religious person following God.

"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is 'Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston

My .02 and you probably won't like it!

Jennifer Martinez sends

[yotanka]

Well I have to say that I agree with you, Navy Mom. For lots of fun you should try calling CAIR. I've done it numerous times. First they lie about everything, next they tell you they have to go and finally they hang up on you.

Rep. Cass Ballenger, (R-NC) says that CAIR is a fund raising arm for terrorist groups and that he reported them to the FBI and CIA. The Representative's wife referred to CAIR as "that gang across the street and that they are questionable." Naturally when that hit the news wires CAIR called them bigots.

As far as I'm concerned, CAIR can get the hell out of my Country. No, I'm not prejudiced. I could care less what color a person's skin is, it's the fact that islam is a threat to our national security, our freedoms and our way of life. Buy hey, you don't have to take my word for it. Believe whatever you choose.

Jennifer Martinez sends

[RipperTOW]

I don't have any problem with framing this thing as a religious war, if what people mean by that is that there is a group of militant religionists who are waging war against the American way of life - a material, this worldly, culture of freedom and individualism. If, on the other hand, people mean that we are in a world struggle for the supremacy of the Christian religion over the Muslim religion, then I am sorry to say it but I think they are ultimately just as dangerous as the Taliban. If we're reduced to quibbling about which religion will rule the world, then we truly have stooped to their level. LTG Boykin sounds dangerously close to the latter case IMO, and if he's being criticized for it I think he deserves it. That's no defense of Howard Dean, who is a loser par excellence, but Boykin is waaaaay off the mark with that religious war rhetoric (in the sense that it is the Christians vs the Muslims). He does have the right to say it, I don't disagree with that. But having the right to say it doesn't and shouldn't exempt him from any and all criticism.

[specwarnet]

I agree with Ripper on this one; he's made some good points that seem to be ignored.

I'm not christian; fundamentalist muslims are at war with me too. So this is NOT strictly a muslim vs christianity war. This is a war against America.

No, I'm not prejudiced.

Yes, you are. Prejudice is about more than skin color. But prejudice is a fact of culture and there's nothing wrong with it; we're all prejudiced. Perhaps you meant racist?

[Teutates]

Originally posted by yotanka

My .02 and you probably won't like it!

Jennifer Martinez sends

I like it. So there!!!!!

Glad to "see you" back.

Teutates

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by yotanka
islam isn't a sham, it's a cult. Normally I wouldn't care what religion a person chooses to practice, live and let live. However, islam's goal is to impose their religion and Sharia over the USA and every other nation. Unacceptable in my book.

LTG. Boykin is not "politically correct" and that's where the so called "problem" lies. He offended muslims.... gasp... the horror.


Jen,
While I appreciate your enthusiam for the subject you are entirely wrong on this subject.

Islam as a whole does not seek to impose sharia on everyone. A few (2-3 million) Muslims believe and support a certain interpretation of Islam that calls for a turning back to 'traditional' Islamic values. As misguided and wrong as this interpretation is, it is not the view of all Muslims. If it were, we would not be seeing the call for debate in Iran (led largely by women). If it were, Turkey would not be trying to join the EU. If it were, countries of Africa would not be grappling with the issue of how to deal with towns that have adopted sharia law.

LTG. Boykin does not need to be "politically correct", but as a political appointee to one of the higher positions in the intelligence community he damn well better be sure of how his words will play out. Right now, and again on Friday HIS words will be used by those seeking to hurt and destroy us to recruit more people. Several Egyptian government officials are already using transcripts and copies of his videos to do their propaganda effort for them.

LTG. Boykin may be a very capable, brave and accomplished operator, but while he is wearing that uniform and in his appointed position, he is speaking for all of us. I don't know if that thought crossed his mind.

[Bohr Adam]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Jen,
While I appreciate your enthusiam for the subject you are entirely wrong on this subject.

Islam as a whole does not seek to impose sharia on everyone. A few (2-3 million) Muslims believe and support a certain interpretation of Islam that calls for a turning back to 'traditional' Islamic values. As misguided and wrong as this interpretation is, it is not the view of all Muslims. If it were, we would not be seeing the call for debate in Iran (led largely by women). If it were, Turkey would not be trying to join the EU. If it were, countries of Africa would not be grappling with the issue of how to deal with towns that have adopted sharia law.

LTG. Boykin does not need to be "politically correct", but as a political appointee to one of the higher positions in the intelligence community he damn well better be sure of how his words will play out. Right now, and again on Friday HIS words will be used by those seeking to hurt and destroy us to recruit more people. Several Egyptian government officials are already using transcripts and copies of his videos to do their propaganda effort for them.

LTG. Boykin may be a very capable, brave and accomplished operator, but while he is wearing that uniform and in his appointed position, he is speaking for all of us. I don't know if that thought crossed his mind.

I agree with almost everything you say, but disagree with your take on Boykin - please note my first post here. What really concerns me, is that everyone seems to want him to be anti-Islam, supporters and detractors alike. We are falling right in to the hands of the terrorist propaganda artists, and allowing us to divide ourselves based oin the name of a religion.

While I think Boykin did not intend what the spin is saying - it is clear to me from this thread that both sides of the issue do. From the sounds of it, we are in for a world of hurt unless we can keep up some amazing pressure. The leftists believe this is a war against Islam - and so apparently do the a crapload of military supporters on this site.

Islam is a lot bigger than the few countries we are overwhelmingly involved in now. This doesn't give me a warm fuzzy at all.

If we fail to present this as a war for the soul of Islam, and instead present it as a war against Islam - we are in for a long and ugly fight.

[BMT]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/21/153509.shtml

[Teutates]

Originally posted by Adam White
I agree with almost everything you say, but disagree with your take on Boykin - please note my first post here. What really concerns me, is that everyone seems to want him to be anti-Islam, supporters and detractors alike. We are falling right in to the hands of the terrorist propaganda artists, and allowing us to divide ourselves based oin the name of a religion.

While I think Boykin did not intend what the spin is saying - it is clear to me from this thread that both sides of the issue do. From the sounds of it, we are in for a world of hurt unless we can keep up some amazing pressure. The leftists believe this is a war against Islam - and so apparently do the a crapload of military supporters on this site.

Islam is a lot bigger than the few countries we are overwhelmingly involved in now. This doesn't give me a warm fuzzy at all.

If we fail to present this as a war for the soul of Islam, and instead present it as a war against Islam - we are in for a long and ugly fight.

Adam,

I did not realize you knew LTG Boykin? From your writing it would seem you know the good general on a personal level.

You might be surprised to know that there are a few on this board that know the general on a personal level, and some have even run a few missions with him. FYI

Teutates

[C-M-R]

President Bush has again and again that we are not at war aginst Islam. We are at war against terrorism.

For the Army, the issue of officers expressing religious opinions publicly has been a sensitive problem for many years, according to a former head of the Army Judge Advocate General's office who is now retired but continues to serve in government as a civilian.

"The Army has struggled with this issue over the years. It gets really, really touchy because what you're talking about is freedom of expression," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"What usually happens is that somebody has a quiet chat with the person," the retired general said.
_______________________

[MZap]

[MZap]

Originally posted by C-M-R
President Bush has again and again that we are not at war aginst Islam. We are at war against terrorism.


_______________________

Hitchens coined the term "Islamo-fascism." I think that's a more accurate description, as the word "terrorism" encompasses a wide variety of groups such as the IRA, Baader Meinhof(sp?),etc...

[Bohr Adam]

Originally posted by Teutates
Adam,

I did not realize you knew LTG Boykin? From your writing it would seem you know the good general on a personal level.

You might be surprised to know that there are a few on this board that know the general on a personal level, and some have even run a few missions with him. FYI

I don't know him, and my assessment of this is purely based on my cynicism of the media types who surfaced this "news" and my careful analyzing of their reports.

With all the tapes and videos they dug up - and they showed stacks of them on the NBC news report - they could not find even one mention of the word "Allah" or "Islam" and they thus had to imply that in their lead in to his quote about the guy in Somalia.

If my take from the purely "analyze the news article from my cynical perspective" technique is not enough, I will re-emphasize this from the above posted article:


Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, said he has spoken to Boykin recently and is
confident his fellow general "does not see this battle as a
battle between religions."

He said Boykin wishes he had chosen his words more
carefully. "He sees it as a battle between good and evil,"
Pace said of Boykin. "He sees it as the evil being the acts
of individuals, not the acts of any religion or affiliation
with religion."


Sounds exactly what I said when this whole thing kicked off. I don't feel fit to question GEN Pace, or LTG Boykin.

I still cling to my belief that we do ourselves a disservice if we do as the leftists want - and make this whole war out to be aginast a religion by name. I don't care how true it may seem for some groups. We cannot afford to antagonize potential allies with our own short-sightedness.

[HappyGuy]

The Gen. is a very distinguished and capable officer and I appreciate his service to the country. However, he has embarrassed the administration and exploited the pulpit, while in uniform, to air his unconventional views-which have nothing to do with doing his appointed job. This is NOT a case of the media against the general. The media is just a convenient boggieman to justify the remarks and paint the General as being persecuted. No individual is bigger than the US military and US government, and no general can claim to speak for both. He's become a distraction-can him.

Douglas MacArthur was also a great warrior, but he went beyond the parameters of his position, and paid with his job. Discipline and obeyance of the civilian leadership applies to all military members. Generals are supposed to plan, fight and win wars, not make policy statements. He was out of line and he shouldn't be treated any differently than any other officer. However, next year IS an election year and President Bush has to appease the Christian right faction of his party, so the White House may try to paste this over.

I like to think our nation is on a higher cultural and intellectual plane than that of the Arab/Muslim world, which still has one foot firmly planted in the 8th century. So, in the most technologically advanced and competent military in the history of the planet, our top officers should not be delivering fire and brimstone speeches infused with medieval imagery. Leave the hate and histronics to the ayatollahs and imans. We're better than that.

[Special Forces]

Originally posted by HappyGuy
The Gen. is a very distinguished and capable officer and I appreciate his service to the country. However, he has embarrassed the administration and exploited the pulpit, while in uniform, to air his unconventional views-which have nothing to do with doing his appointed job. This is NOT a case of the media against the general. The media is just a convenient boggieman to justify the remarks and paint the General as being persecuted. No individual is bigger than the US military and US government, and no general can claim to speak for both. He's become a distraction-can him.

Douglas MacArthur was also a great warrior, but he went beyond the parameters of his position, and paid with his job. Discipline and obeyance of the civilian leadership applies to all military members. Generals are supposed to plan, fight and win wars, not make policy statements. He was out of line and he shouldn't be treated any differently than any other officer. However, next year IS an election year and President Bush has to appease the Christian right faction of his party, so the White House may try to paste this over.

I like to think our nation is on a higher cultural and intellectual plane than that of the Arab/Muslim world, which still has one foot firmly planted in the 8th century. So, in the most technologically advanced and competent military in the history of the planet, our top officers should not be delivering fire and brimstone speeches infused with medieval imagery. Leave the hate and histronics to the ayatollahs and imans. We're better than that.

HappyGuy:

You do not know LTG Boykin, you do not understand the circumstances, it appears that you are unaware of certain portions of the Constitution of the United States, and frankly, don't seem to reflect too credibly on your branch of service.

He is clearly the victim of a smear campaign by certain media elements, because of his religious views, and he is being railroaded by them. This situation is totally unlike the one you use for comparison of GEN MacArthur, who deliberately defied an order from the President and went to the media to make his case. In this case, the General was invited to churches over the past few years to state his views as a Christian and a soldier, was taped, and enemies of Christianity and the military in general, and LTG Boykin specifically, have pored through hours of tape to find a few isolated statements out of context in an attempt to vilify him and get him relieved. Would you like to have tapes of the last several years of your life analyzed by me and selected statements put on the news as typical of your actions? Hatchet job.

While you are entitled to an opinion, you should make efforts to make it a well-informed one.

If I get up in my church, or one I am visiting, to state my opinion and give some of my personal experiences, I do not think that I am "making a policy statement". These tapes covered several years time, some may have predated 9-11, and he was not in his current position as a DUSD.

If you refer to the Joint Ethics Regulation and other applicable regs, I think you will find that the General was not actually violating any regulation. Hopefully, the IG will do a thorough job and the chips will fall where they may. That is not our call.

Regardless, LTG Boykin is uniquely qualified to serve in his current position, regardless of his personal convictions, his loyalty is unquestionable, and you are, IMHO, an arrogant ass for your myopic assessment of the situation and character assassination attempt on the General.

TR

[Bohr Adam]

Originally posted by HappyGuy


Douglas MacArthur was also a great warrior

Douglas McArthur abandoned his troops under cover of darkness in the Philippines out of an over-inflated sense of self worth. He then led his troops in Korea to a death trap in an overzealous race to the Yalu river with little or no thought of security. Sorry, but "great warrior" is pushing it.


Generals are supposed to plan, fight and win wars, not make policy statements. He was out of line and he shouldn't be treated any differently than any other officer.

Please point out anywhere where he did as you claim. I do not recall seeing that - and I believe I have seen every published quote.

[yotanka]

Hmm ok. Lot's of opinions here. I don't believe any islam followers can ever truly be our allies.

LTG. Boykin: I would not question a former D Boy Commander.

As for the enemy, it just so happens that they are all followers of islam. Coincidence?

It's possible that every follower of islam is not *with* the enemy; not all Americans support the war and the warrior. Our current Administration seems to feel that many followers of islam are kind and good and are our friends. Fulbright scholarships are now being offered to Iraqis who will begin streaming into our Country in January, if I remember correctly.

Yes there is a war, the enemy, who happens to be comprised of mostly Arabs and who follows the cult of islam, is out to destroy us. They hate America and her citizens, I would imagine for a variety of reasons. They also hate anyone who "sides" with us and all Westerners. Recent events in Somalia are a good example, Westerners being murdered. The State Dept. has issued a travel advisory stating that Americans are targets. How comforting. UBL made it very clear that ALL Americans are targets, that includes every man, woman and child. Like their friends the Palestinians, they do not differentiate between civilians and military personnel.

The administration says one thing. The counter-terrorism experts I talk to say another. I listen to and believe the CT experts.

Jennifer Martinez sends

[C-M-R]

Originally posted by HappyGuy
The Gen. is a very distinguished and capable officer and I appreciate his service to the country. However, he has embarrassed the administration and exploited the pulpit, while in uniform, to air his unconventional views-which have nothing to do with doing his appointed job.


He wasn't airing his views at a briefing. He made comments from the sanctity and privacy of his Church. He did not embarrass the Admin. They can allow themselves to be embarrassed if they like, but he didn't do it. Sec Rumsfeld doesn't seem to be in too much of a flap over it.

If it had nothing to do with his job then it's his private life and shoul dbe left alone.

[C-M-R]

Originally posted by yotanka
Hmm ok. Lot's of opinions here. I don't believe any islam followers can ever truly be our allies.



Jennifer, I know of at least one member of this very board who is a follower of Islam. That person is also a soldier and serving honorably in the United States Army.

To say that person is not an ally is disrespectful in the extreme. To say that ANY follower of Islam cannot be an ally is missing the contributions of thousands of Americans.


In my opinion, it's wrong to bash religion or the religious practices of others.

[yotanka]

Can the General? Ok, I must have missed that one. I feel that it is sacrilegious to backstab the General. "Sacrilegious" is not the correct word but it's as close as I can get to what I feel.

CMR, you and I never agree on anything, but I respect your opinion. I personally don't feel that I'm bashing a religion.

Jennifer Martinez sends

[C-M-R]

Originally posted by yotanka


CMR, you and I never agree on anything, but I respect your opinion. I personally don't feel that I'm bashing a religion.

Jennifer Martinez sends

And I yours.

When the media pokes pins in Gen Boykin they are digging in his private life and mocking his religious fervor. When we defend him by slandering Islam we are just as bad as they are. Can we trust the Catholics? Anyone here read about the actions of some Irishmen during WWII? I will leave recently Priestly events and actions alone. How about that Pope and his attitude toward the US?

[Purple36]

I caught the tail end of a segnment on MSNBC last night . Showed part of the tape. The General was in front of the congregation and was indicating to some slides that were up on the screeen showing pictures of the Muslim men, probably Taleban guys. He stated, as he gestured to the pictures....that "these are not our enemy" and "our enemy is Satan" then quoted a verse that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood"

I wish I could see the whole tape and if anyone knows of transcripts, please point me to them......because.....if that is what he said.....the press has twisted his words to such an extent that they should be sued.

If his talk at the church continued in the same vein, what he was trying to say is that this IS NOT a war against a group of humans in which we are to hate Muslims...but a spiritual war to be waged through prayer. It is the very opposite of what he has been portrayed as saying.

WE ALL KNOW THE PRESS SCREWS THINGS UP AND TWISTS SITUATIONS.....so wouldn't it be nice to see just what he said?

Bet it comes out nothing like what the media has made it to be.
Just that 1 minute segment cleared up quite a bit.

[zog]

"My bad. FIDO"

And that would be that

[nepqu]

Originally posted by zog
"My bad. FIDO"

And that would be that


Zog:

Is it normal for the media to pick up something like this on their own? Do you think this was spoonfed to NBC? Just curious.

[yotanka]

The thought occurred to me, how did this all begin? Who decided to do such a thing to the good General and why? Those are the big questions. Somebody has an agenda, I don't know what it is but it certainly cannot be good.

I saw talk of transcripts on the Internet yesterday. As of yesterday, from what I read, even though Mr. Arkin said he would gladly provide his transcripts, he has yet to do so. And darn it but I don't have the URL for where I read that at.

Jennifer Martinez sends

[zog]

NBC got a tip before the general assumed his duties at the Pentagon, but after it became known he was headed there. I asked someone at NBC if it came from an Islamic source and the response was "Feck no! It was an inside job."

Translation: Someone in the loop, either Pentagon, Congress (include staff) or administration wanted this out, probably before any Hill confirmation. But it took quite awhile to run down the tapes, video, etc. So what we have is a story about what he said before he assumed his policy decision.

We get stories from open sources, tips, digging, tripping over 'em, etc. All kinds of ways.

What I always consider whenever I get a tip is "What's in it for the tipper?" There's lots of backstabbing, fuck-yer-buddy BS that goes on in this town. It sucks.

RANT ALERT

That's why I'm doing my best to get back into local coverage, where real people have real problems and real issues that affect everyday life. Gimme someone in BDUs or a coverall with that "Ernie" oval on the chest over some fuckchop (thanks, DH) who choses his shirt, tie and jacket to look good on a TV camera's color-match. I'm rereading Ernie Pyle (before and during war) and Bill Mauldin (during and after -- some of his stuff on what happened to veterans after the war is scathing) to get that common-man feel.

I'm fed up up with all the sliming and spinning. Life's too damned short. Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, Tip O'Neill would answer "yes," "no," or "go to hell." Too damned few of 'em anymore at that level.

OK, the Resperidal is kicking in.

PS, Nepqu: Fill out your profile.

[nepqu]

Zog:

That's what I guessed.

[zog]

doubledink

[zog]

That's a question for some of the BTDTs who have been in positions to know. I'd have no reliable idea beyond a dangerously little-informed WAG. A little knowledge is more dangerous than complete ignorance. It can mean establish false assumptions leading to stupid conclusions.

[nepqu]

You are exactly right, my fault. I will edit my profile as well!

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Originally posted by The Reaper
HappyGuy:

You do not know LTG Boykin, you do not understand the circumstances, it appears that you are unaware of certain portions of the Constitution of the United States, and frankly, don't seem to reflect too credibly on your branch of service.

He is clearly the victim of a smear campaign by certain media elements, because of his religious views, and he is being railroaded by them. This situation is totally unlike the one you use for comparison of GEN MacArthur, who deliberately defied an order from the President and went to the media to make his case. In this case, the General was invited to churches over the past few years to state his views as a Christian and a soldier, was taped, and enemies of Christianity and the military in general, and LTG Boykin specifically, have pored through hours of tape to find a few isolated statements out of context in an attempt to vilify him and get him relieved. Would you like to have tapes of the last several years of your life analyzed by me and selected statements put on the news as typical of your actions? Hatchet job.

While you are entitled to an opinion, you should make efforts to make it a well-informed one.

If I get up in my church, or one I am visiting, to state my opinion and give some of my personal experiences, I do not think that I am "making a policy statement". These tapes covered several years time, some may have predated 9-11, and he was not in his current position as a DUSD.

If you refer to the Joint Ethics Regulation and other applicable regs, I think you will find that the General was not actually violating any regulation. Hopefully, the IG will do a thorough job and the chips will fall where they may. That is not our call.

Regardless, LTG Boykin is uniquely qualified to serve in his current position, regardless of his personal convictions, his loyalty is unquestionable, and you are, IMHO, an arrogant ass for your myopic assessment of the situation and character assassination attempt on the General.
TR

I love it when you do that.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by yotanka
The administration says one thing. The counter-terrorism experts I talk to say another. I listen to and believe the CT experts.

Uhhh...what CT experts are these? Are these pointy-end CT guys or holistic CT guys?

[Bohr Adam]

Originally posted by Purple36
I caught the tail end of a segnment on MSNBC last night . Showed part of the tape. The General was in front of the congregation and was indicating to some slides that were up on the screeen showing pictures of the Muslim men, probably Taleban guys. He stated, as he gestured to the pictures....that "these are not our enemy" and "our enemy is Satan" then quoted a verse that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood"

I wish I could see the whole tape and if anyone knows of transcripts, please point me to them......because.....if that is what he said.....the press has twisted his words to such an extent that they should be sued.

If his talk at the church continued in the same vein, what he was trying to say is that this IS NOT a war against a group of humans in which we are to hate Muslims...but a spiritual war to be waged through prayer. It is the very opposite of what he has been portrayed as saying.

WE ALL KNOW THE PRESS SCREWS THINGS UP AND TWISTS SITUATIONS.....so wouldn't it be nice to see just what he said?

Bet it comes out nothing like what the media has made it to be.
Just that 1 minute segment cleared up quite a bit.


Here is the original article, with a link to the video segment from NBC and another link to quotes.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/980764.asp?0cv=NB10

Decide for yourself. Pay careful attention what he actually SAYS, not what they imply he says with lead in comments, etc.

Believe me, had he said anything specific against Islam, etc. - they would have quoted it. The fact they did not quote any such thing is very telling.

Of note, the LA times writer who first broke the story even admitted that he used similar rhetoric against the KKK - yet they claim to be Christian. So is he saying that the Christian God is a false one? Or is he saying that, despite their claims, they are worshipping another god?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

hey Legal Beagles,
If general Boykin has to step aside, does he have a claim under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin?

[C-M-R]

Originally posted by Adam White


Of note, the LA times writer who first broke the story even admitted that he used similar rhetoric against the KKK - yet they claim to be Christian.

It was my understanding that the reporter who gathered the story gave it to NBC prior to publishing his story. By doing that, the tv news had given it a short blurb then he was able to publish his story with more background and much increased interest.

That being the case, the reporter probably has an agenda of some sort and NBC was a bunch of suckers for being duped.

[Bohr Adam]

Originally posted by C-M-R


That being the case, the reporter probably has an agenda of some sort and NBC was a bunch of suckers for being duped.


NBC - no, not suckers. This is the same network that rigged trucks with explosives and tried to claim that they blew up on their own. The same network that continuously showed background footage of people firing full-auto short-barreled rifles when commenting on the 1994 Crime Bill "Assault Weapons" legislation back when it was in congress (which incidentally, had nothing to do with the weapons shown).

Not suckers. Dishonest crooks maybe, but not suckers.

[Marauder]

Just to get this out of the way before I step on the Bouncing Betty and wade in, I personaly think that fundamentalist Christians and Jews are just as morally bankrupt and ignorant as fundamentalists Muslims are. Listening to Jerry Fallwell spew his venom physically turns my stomach.

yotanka:
CMR, you and I never agree on anything, but I respect your opinion. I personally don't feel that I'm bashing a religion.

If I might just ask for a bit of clarification, do you feel that you are not bashing a religion because you construe Islam to be a "cult" and not a "religion", per se?

Given that you deem all pratitioners of Islam to be detrimental to America with no exception, do you favour discharging and then ousting serving members of the armed forces who are adherents to the Islamic faith?

[Special Forces]

Interesting that you mention this. Here is another version, note the bold text explaining how the tapes were obtained:

Washington Times
October 22, 2003
Pg. 23

Gen. Boykin's Fighting Spirit

A politically incorrect witness to Christianity

By Tony Blankley

The latest proposed victim in our struggle against terrorism is Army Lt.Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, recently named deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. His mission is to reinvigorate the search for Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and other leaders of global terrorism. By training and experience, he is marvelously prepared for his new duties - having risen from a Delta Force commando to top-secret Joint Special Operations Command, through the CIA, to command of the Army's Special Forces. For a quarter century, he has been fighting terror with his bare hands, his fine mind and his faith-shaped soul.

It is that last matter - his faith, and his willingness to give politically incorrect witness to that faith in Christian churches - that has drawn furious media and political fire in the last week. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Howard Dean, the Egyptian foreign minister and other less lofty entities have all called for his removal from office, because of his expressed religious views. And, of course, these calls for his head are all
made on behalf of religious tolerance.

While the full text of the general's comments will not be released by the Los Angeles Times columnist who secretly recorded them during the general's witness in churches in Oklahoma, Oregon and Florida, the purportedly scandalous bits have been selectively published in print and on television.

Gen. Boykin said the terrorists come from "the principalities of darkness," that they are "demonic" and they hate us because "We're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian and the enemy is a guy named Satan." The general also recounted the time he was chasing down a Somali warlord who was bragging that the Americans would not capture him because his God, Allah, would protect him. "Well," Gen. Boykin responded, "my God is bigger than his God. I knew my God was a real God and his was an idol."

In short, Gen. Boykin is being accused of calling America a Judeo-Christian country, the war on terrorism a religious war, and of expressing his belief in the truth of the New Testament of the Bible. While his critics concede that he has a right to express his religious views, they argue that his expressed opinions of the Islamic and Christian religions make him unfit to perform his duties of helping to lead in the war on terrorism. I am inclined
to believe that he is splendidly fit for such combat, and I thank God that we have such a man as Gen. Boykin in our midst.

The purported fear is that the general's comments may have ruffled the feathers of our esteemed enemy - the millions and millions of fanatical Islamists, or that his statement may so inflame the passions of the millions of good Muslims that they will discard their peaceable ways and pick up the bloody sword of jihad. What utter balderdash.

Whether or not American officials chose to call this a religious war, it is unambiguously clear that our enemy, bin Laden and the other terrorists, are motivated by Islamic religious fanaticism. They say so in their founding documents and every day, in every way, around the world. However peaceably we may interpret the Koran or assess the history of Islam, at this time and in these places one would have to be swayed by a spirit of detachment from the facts not to see that a sizeable percentage of Muslims believe they are in a religious war with non-Muslims. They are consciously at religious war with the Jews in the Middle East, with Hindus in the subcontinent and with Christians everywhere. It shouldn't be a firing offense for the occasional American general to return the compliment. Indeed, I am heartened by Gen. Boykin's fighting spirit.

Nor is it factually wrong or religiously insensitive to point out that the United States is a Judeo-Christian country. We are. It is an uncontestable historic and cultural fact. We are also a country that strives in both law and habit to be impeccably tolerant and respectful to all other religions and to those who believe in no religion at all. But in rallying our countrymen to the defense of our lives and property at this time of peril, we are entitled to invoke - as Lincoln once did with such dignity and passion - the mystic chords of our memory.

It is well to recall that when Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met in Placentia Bay off Newfoundland on the heavy cruiser Augusta on Aug. 9, 1941, to rally our nations to our common defense, they sang three songs with the assembled sailors: "O God, Our Help in Ages Past," "Eternal Father, Strong to Save" and "Onward, Christian Soldiers."

Tony Blankley is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. His column appears on Wednesdays.

Smear campaign and yellow journalism, anyone?

He was the target of a concerted effort to discredit him, over an extended period of time. LA Times investigative reporter did the deed, the paper and NBC broke the story.

Who would do this, and has zog has asked, what would their motive be?

TR

[Special Forces]

Double tap due to lag.

[EchoFiveMike]

Remember "S" is only two keys away from "F" on the keyboard:) S/F...Ken M

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Double tap due to lag.

it was worth posting twice.

[Special Forces]

Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
it was worth posting twice.

Then you will appreciate this one as well.

BTW, I worked for LTG Boykin, as a Navy buddy put it, I would follow him into Hell itself with a 'Low Fuel' warning light.

TR


Washington Times
October 22, 2003

Pg. 21

Muzzling The Wrong Dog

By Cal Thomas

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a much decorated soldier, was wounded by the political correctness movement last week over comments he made comparing the war against militant Islam to a battle against Satan. Gen. Boykin, who is deputy undersecretary of defense, had told evangelical Christian audiences that radical Islam threatens to destroy America "because we're a Christian nation." He has also said, according to tapes of his remarks obtained by the Los Angeles Times and NBC News, that Muslims worship an "idol" and not "a real God."

After the predictable uproar in certain circles, Gen. Boykin issued the familiar "if I have offended anyone" boilerplate apology. There should have been a debate about the substance of his remarks. By silencing him and ordering retreat, the Pentagon apparently thinks it will mollify those whose language and actions are far more incendiary than whatever perceived sin the general has committed.

Why don't members of the Islamic faith silence some of their own? They can start with speakers at the Organization of Islamic Conference last week in Malaysia. Mahathir Mohamad, the Malaysian prime minister, told an applauding audience made up of kings, presidents and emirs that Jews are running and ruining the world. Jews, he claimed, "invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others."

These are not "extremist" views held by a radical minority. These are mainstream Islamic views, as evidenced by the favorable response from the Egyptian foreign minister, who called the remarks, "a very, very wise assessment." Afghan President Hamid Karzai, an American ally whose country would still be governed by the Taliban were it not for American soldiers, some of whom are Jewish, called the speech "very correct."

The Bush administration is making a fundamental mistake when it promotes the fiction that our enemies can be made less threatening by what America says and does. That should now be obvious to Democratic senator and presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, who spoke last Friday to an Arab American Institute meeting in Dearborn, Mich. Mr. Lieberman, who is Jewish, noted that Jews and Muslims are descendants of Abraham. "I am your brother," he said, and added, "Whatever differences we may have on the issues of the day are differences of ideas, not of religion or nationality." Members of the audience heckled him.

This notion that religion is not at the heart of the hatred directed at America from outside and now inside the country qualifies as extreme denial. Throughout the Muslim world, America is condemned not mainly because of its ideas but because Islamists believe we are infidels opposed to God. Take the Palestinian Authority (PA), as one of many examples. During the war with Iraq, the PA actively endorsed the killing of Americans, producing a music video celebrating the death of U.S. soldiers that was repeatedly broadcast on PA television. Since major combat ended, anti-U.S. rhetoric has not abated. Sermons on PA television denounce America for religious reasons. Last February, a broadcast sermon described the United States as "the foremost enemy of the Muslim nation." A more recent sermon broadcast last month contained this gem: "If we go back 1,400 years in time, we find that history is repeating itself. ... The Prophet Mohammed was besieged by two powers, Persia in the east and Rome in the west. These represent the Soviet Union and America of today. ... Persia fell first in the east, and America will fall, may it be Allah's will, just as Rome fell."

There are no calls in the Islamic world for any of these speakers - from prime ministers to imams - to tone down, retract or repent for their rhetoric. There are only calls for Americans to remain silent about this growing threat.

The problem is illustrated by this story: There are two dogs; one is vicious and the other friendly. The vicious dog regularly attacks the friendly dog. The owner of the friendly dog decides to muzzle his dog, hoping this will demonstrate to the vicious dog that the friendly dog means him no harm. The vicious dog sees his opportunity and kills the muzzled friendly dog.

In muzzling Gen. Boykin, the Pentagon has not converted those who believe they have a religious mandate to destroy us. It is silencing, instead of sounding, the alarm that this enemy is bigger than any threat America has ever faced.

Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Lovin' it boss, keep 'em coming!

I don't know him, but if you say...

[yotanka]

I believe that islam is a cult. You asked, there's my answer, you won't like it.

As for followers of islam in the Armed Forces, I'm not going there. The military will take care of any situations that need to be taken care of. Gitmo for example. It's being handled.

Jennifer Martinez sends

Originally posted by Marauder
do you feel that you are not bashing a religion because you construe Islam to be a "cult" and not a "religion", per se?

Given that you deem all pratitioners of Islam to be detrimental to America with no exception, do you favour discharging and then ousting serving members of the armed forces who are adherents to the Islamic faith?

[yotanka]

What the hell is a "holistic" CT expert? What do you mean by "pointy-end?" Tip of the spear types?

Tip of the spear, yes.
Founder, yes.
Desert One (among others), yes.

Jennifer Martinez sends

Originally posted by Jimbo
Uhhh...what CT experts are these? Are these pointy-end CT guys or holistic CT guys?

[Georgia]

Washington Times
October 21, 2003

Enemy sightings (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/fgaffney.htm)

By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

The biggest imponderable concerning the war on terror is whether the American people and their leaders are clear on a central question: Exactly who is the enemy in this war? We are, after all, not fighting some abstraction called "terror." The truth is we are engaged in a death struggle with people who use terror - usually involving the deliberate murder of innocent civilians - as an instrument to advance their agendas.

As to precisely who those people are, the past 25 months have brought to light a bewildering array of terrorist organizations pursuing a variety of stated objectives, usually with help from this or that rogue state-sponsor. But one thing should be clear after September 11, 2001: The most determined, numerous and dangerous of these enemies are radical, violent Muslims known as "Islamists."

Most experts believe the Islamists are, at present, a small percentage of the Muslim faithful worldwide. The danger is that, since there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims, even a small percentage could mean there are millions available to serve as cannon fodder for the radicals. Worse yet, all things being equal, their numbers will continue to grow, thanks in no small measure to the assiduous efforts of Islamist regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran (the former of the Sunni Wahhabi stripe, the latter favoring Shi'ite extremism).

All too often, such efforts are accompanied - and systematically advanced - by an insidious disinformation campaign. Its main thrust is that anyone who dares to point out the threat posed by the Islamists is a racist, bigot or ignoramus. Why? Because, we are told, such observations impugn all Muslims.

This is, of course, absurd. Law-abiding and tolerant Muslims first and foremost understand there are real differences between themselves and the Islamists - so much so the radicals view their peaceable co-religionists with at least as much hostility as they do people of other faiths.

Among those most aggressively promoting the idea that Islamists are indistinguishable from any other Muslims are a number of Arab-American and Muslim-American organizations long associated with jihadists and their causes. Since September 11, they have tried to obscure their true colors by promoting the fiction that they are defenders of all people of the Islamic
faith, rather than what they actually are: apologists for the radicals among them, focused on initiatives that have the effect of excusing, protecting or otherwise benefiting the latter.

Fortunately, some of these organizations (notably several founded by or associated with Abdurahman Alamoudi - the Islamist-sympathizer indicted last month for receiving illegal funding from Libya) have recently come under increasing scrutiny from law enforcement and the Congress. The American Muslim Council, the American Muslim Foundation, the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim Student Association have had officials arrested and/or troubling questions raised on Capitol Hill about their activities in our prisons, military chaplain corps, mosques and colleges.

In light of the arrests and worrisome revelations, it is all the more astounding that such groups enjoy any credibility at all when they denounce those who warn of Islamists hijacking and perverting the Muslim faith. The latest example of this phenomenon has been an attack mounted in the past week by the Islamists' proponents on one of the nation's most highly regarded, experienced and decorated Special Forces officers, Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin. Gen. Boykin recently assumed the post of Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. In that capacity, he is charged with the priority tasks of hunting down Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and their ilk.

This respected Pentagon official became the subject of intense and mostly hostile media attention after an inveterate leftist activist-turned columnist and TV commentator named William Arkin circulated videotaped and other materials. In them, the general professed his Christian faith and reviled Muslim extremists - yes, extremists - on both religious and strategic grounds.

Whatever one thinks of Gen. Boykin's obviously deeply held personal beliefs, he must be credited with one thing: He understands that Islamists have declared war on this country and that we have no alternative but to defeat them.

For stating this truth, the general has been roundly criticized by the Islamists' admirers and their friends. Notably, one of the most visible of the professional Muslim agitators -CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad - has accused Gen. Boykin of "ignorance," having "extremist views" and exhibiting sufficiently defective judgment as to require his reassignment.

To their credit, President Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Richard Myers have thus far declined to accede to this sort of pressure. While the administration's party line remains that the United States has no interest in waging war against Islam, it would be a significant breakthrough if
American officials can now frankly address the nature of our most dangerous foes: Radicals seeking to justify their terror by masquerading as bonafide adherents to the Islamic faith.

If we are to fight the Islamists effectively, we need to appreciate and highlight the threat they pose not only to non-Muslims but also to the non-jihadist Muslim world. This will, in turn, require the sharpest possible clarity about whether, to paraphrase President Bush, Muslims - at home and abroad - are with us, or with the Islamists.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is the president of the Center for Security Policy (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/) and a columnist for The Washington Times.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by yotanka
What the hell is a "holistic" CT expert?

Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.

You know Beckwith. Good for you.

[HappyGuy]

HappyGuy:

You do not know LTG Boykin, you do not understand the circumstances, it appears that you are unaware of certain portions of the Constitution of the United States, and frankly, don't seem to reflect too credibly on your branch of service.

He is clearly the victim of a smear campaign by certain media elements, because of his religious views, and he is being railroaded by them. This situation is totally unlike the one you use for comparison of GEN MacArthur, who deliberately defied an order from the President and went to the media to make his case. In this case, the General was invited to churches over the past few years to state his views as a Christian and a soldier, was taped, and enemies of Christianity and the military in general, and LTG Boykin specifically, have pored through hours of tape to find a few isolated statements out of context in an attempt to vilify him and get him relieved. Would you like to have tapes of the last several years of your life analyzed by me and selected statements put on the news as typical of your actions? Hatchet job.

While you are entitled to an opinion, you should make efforts to make it a well-informed one.

If I get up in my church, or one I am visiting, to state my opinion and give some of my personal experiences, I do not think that I am "making a policy statement". These tapes covered several years time, some may have predated 9-11, and he was not in his current position as a DUSD.

If you refer to the Joint Ethics Regulation and other applicable regs, I think you will find that the General was not actually violating any regulation. Hopefully, the IG will do a thorough job and the chips will fall where they may. That is not our call.

Regardless, LTG Boykin is uniquely qualified to serve in his current position, regardless of his personal convictions, his loyalty is unquestionable, and you are, IMHO, an arrogant ass for your myopic assessment of the situation and character assassination attempt on the General.
TR

----------------------

Reaper,

As you said, I'm entitled to my opinion, and I don't believe my opinion is a reflection one way or another on my branch of service.

Of course I don't know Gen. Boykin. I'm just another citizen with an opinion; but most of us do not actually know the public figures who serve the country except through their actions and words, and those through the distorted prism of the press. You're in a unique position where you know the man, which gives you a more personal perspective than me, but you know, you may actually be a little too close to the individual to make a balanced judgement on anything said about him. Hence, writing me off as just another arrogant ass bent on "character assassination". Then again, maybe not. History is always skewed-no one really has the dope when it comes to situations like this.

You said " Would you like to have tapes of the last several years of your life analyzed by me and selected statements put on the news as typical of your actions? Hatchet job."

Of course not, but if I was a PUBLIC FIGURE in an extremely high-profile and sensitive position, I would EXPECT this to happen and I (hope) I would exercise appropriate judgement. I did not say ANYTHING about the General's actual religious views, but I think he exercised poor judgement in airing them, whatever they are, when they are in direct conflict with the stated policy of the administration.

The President and other top officials have said often that the United States is not engaged in a religious war. Hell, maybe it IS a religious war-it certainly is to "Them"-but what the President said is policy, whether we agree with it or not. General Boykin should not be undermining that policy, subjecting his country to international embarrassment and providing ammunition for those who portray the war against terror as a war against Islam.

"If I get up in my church, or one I am visiting, to state my opinion and give some of my personal experiences, I do not think that I am "making a policy statement".

I don't either, but we are not in Gen. Boykin's position as a key planner in the War on Terrorism. I don't believe that General Boykin was exercising the free speech rights of a private citizen. Speaking as he did in uniform the day after he was appointed deputy under secretary was not, IHMO, a responsible action. As a high-ranking government official, he made remarks that espoused a single religious view and potentially damaged the national security policy of the USA.

"If you refer to the Joint Ethics Regulation and other applicable regs, I think you will find that the General was not actually violating any regulation. Hopefully, the IG will do a thorough job and the chips will fall where they may. That is not our call."

My ignorance of the constitution aside, I think that any officer or public official can be fired at any time, regardless of whether or not he breached ANY regs. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I do recall quite a few general officers getting the ax over the years from their civilian masters for not toeing the political line. At the General's lofty position as an undersecretary, he serves at the leisure of the President.

Honestly, I'd feel a lot safer if the generals and admirals leading our military are no-nonsense and combat-hardened, but the reality is that even they have to have at least some degree of political saavy. This, to me, demonstrates not only toughness, but shrewdness and resourcefulness, and this War on Terrorism is not only a shooting war. Again, I don't know for sure, but maybe, just maybe, the General was much better at hunting down Somali warlords than dealing with the byzantine ways of the political jungle in Washington. Doesn't mean he's not a good man. I truly admire and respect his record, but I have enough distance (or ignorance, if you will) to separate his combat record from his current performance/position. Am I a character assassin? Nope. I just think the national security of the USA has precedent over this individual.

"Regardless, LTG Boykin is uniquely qualified to serve in his current position, regardless of his personal convictions, his loyalty is unquestionable, and you are, IMHO, an arrogant ass for your myopic assessment of the situation and character assassination attempt on the General."

I'm sure he's qualified and there's no doubt here of his loyalty and personal convictions. Does that give him a free pass to crossed a line and put the President and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in a difficult position? No. In the interview with Gen. Meyers, you could practically see him squirm, trying his best NOT to criticize his colleague and subordinate-although his comments were not exactly supportive, either. General Boytin has had a fine career, but there does come a time to leave, sometimes sooner rather than later. You call my assessment myopic, but I feel that I'm looking at the situation from a much broader perspective-that of the long term interests of the USA in the war on terror.

As I said in my first post, I don't think we need to lower ourselves, on the rhetorical scale at least, to that of the mullahs and ayatollahs. This only proves to be a liability. In the midst of a war-one with undefined boundries and no end in sight, the country needs to be COMPLETELY UNIFIED in its command structure. I don't think we can afford loose cannons.

[Purple36]

I just checked the MSNBC link and that WAS THE MOST NON ISSUE STORY I'VE SEEN in a long time. Uhm, the guy is espousing mainstream Christian thought. HE SAID THAT THE BAD GUYS WEREN'T THE ENEMY, but rather that Satan is the enemy. He also said that the US is being attacked for being a Christian country....well shoot, how is that controversial-he's simply parroting what all the terrorists are saying. Based solely upon the MSNBC link....he never said that the US is conducting a war against Muslims or Islam.

Many have pointed out that he is contradicting the president's policy....excuse me, but where in that story did he say one thing contradicting our policies? And Gee, if the media hadn't dug up something on it and PLASTERED IT ALL OVER THE NIGHTLY NEWS, WHO WOULD EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT???????? So, WHO THE HELL IS AT FAULT HERE?

The only thing in my opinion that he might have done differently, is to not wear the uniform. But hindsight is 20/20 and I'm sure they would've tried to make it an issue either way.

At what rank do we lose our freedom to express our own religious views in our churches? E-7, 0-4, 0-6?

[Marauder]

Here's the thing that gets me. I don't know how it works south of the Great Lakes, but when I am in uniform (be it DEUs or combats), I am a representative of my unit, my brigade, the Army, the Canadian Forces, and by extension, the government of Canada. I am 100% accountable for anything that comes out of my mouth while I wear that uniform. As Citizen Marauder, I can stand up in the middle of public and yell "Chretien is a fucking idiot, and should have been kicked out the door years ago!!!". That's my right as a citizen of my country.
Now, if I did that in uniform, as Corporal Marauder, I would be brought up on charges (and only charges if the planets were aligned properly and I had a dozen horseshoes tightly jammed up my colon), and rightly so.
Thank God the media has never tried to interview me in uniform, because I know they would ask about Afghanistan and all other kinds of shit I'm not qualifed to talk about, and the only tape to air would be me stammering and saying "Call Brigade, talk to the PAffO."

Boykin had every right to say any-damn-thing he wanted to in any church of his choosing, but when he wears the uniform, he should be expected to realize the media might try to pull the stunt it did. Out of uniform, in Sunday best, it's a non-issue. In uniform, with General's stars glowing, it's a whole other ballgame.

[Bushmaster]

I hate to see what is apparently a damn fine soldier get ram rodded like this, but he should not have said what he did.

3 star generals should know better. The fact that the media IS blowing this thing and every PC limp wristed liberal is trying to lay waste to him for being a "Jesus freak" is proof positive you just can't say things like this.

The sad thing is, if some dipshit at the Pentagon decides they can't take the heat the press is bringing, it will apparently deprive the American people of a top notch general who has done a fair amount of ass kicking in his 30+ years.

I hope this thing goes away.

[HappyGuy]

NavyMom,

"Glad to see you on the side of CAIR. Interesting buddies. They show as much tolerance as you have."

What is CAIR?

[C-M-R]

Originally posted by HappyGuy
NavyMom,

"Glad to see you on the side of CAIR. Interesting buddies. They show as much tolerance as you have."

What is CAIR?

Council on American Islamic Relations

Sorry!

[HappyGuy]

Originally posted by HappyGuy
NavyMom,

"Glad to see you on the side of CAIR. Interesting buddies. They show as much tolerance as you have."

What is CAIR?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Council on American Islamic Relations

Sorry!

-----------------------------
Thanks for the clarification, C-M-R.

That sorta smarts, being associated with an organization like that. If you only knew how far off the mark that comment is as far as my views. Also, I doubt CAIR would give me a membership card if they knew what I did in my past military life.

[Bohr Adam]

Originally posted by HappyGuy


I don't either, but we are not in Gen. Boykin's position as a key planner in the War on Terrorism. I don't believe that General Boykin was exercising the free speech rights of a private citizen. Speaking as he did in uniform the day after he was appointed deputy under secretary was not, IHMO, a responsible action. As a high-ranking government official, he made remarks that espoused a single religious view and potentially damaged the national security policy of the USA.


You lack even the reading comprehension skills I expect of my 18 year old privates!

He never spoke "as he did in uniform the day after he was appointed" - these were comments he made OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS! Long before his appointment, and the most recent was in June! - OVER 4 MONTHS AGO!

If you can't get these basic facts straight - after you have had them re-explained and re-stated to you countless times - including in the post you just responded to - why should we give a crap about your "opinion?"

You are the kind of audience that the media loves - easily manipulated. You believe he said things he NEVER SAID, and at a TIME HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING. I recommmend you work on reasoning skills before you spend your life savings on snake oil from some late night infomercial.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Originally posted by Adam White
You lack even the reading comprehension skills I expect of my 18 year old privates!

I recommmend you work on reasoning skills before you spend your life savings on snake oil from some late night infomercial.

And college can help you with both of those recommendations. I highly recommend Harvard.

[HappyGuy]

He never spoke "as he did in uniform the day after he was appointed" - these were comments he made OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS! Long before his appointment, and the most recent was in June! - OVER 4 MONTHS AGO!

If you can't get these basic facts straight - after you have had them re-explained and re-stated to you countless times - including in the post you just responded to - why should we give a crap about your "opinion?"

You are the kind of audience that the media loves - easily manipulated. You believe he said things he NEVER SAID, and at a TIME HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING. I recommmend you work on reasoning skills before you spend your life savings on snake oil from some late night infomercial.


What he said, or when-apparently over a period, on several occasions-and June is not so long ago-is not really my point. You're splitting hairs here.

Bottom line, public officials, like it or not, have to be on the same page as the people who hired them. That's not really debateable, not at that level, not to my knowledge. I can't imagine Donald Rumsfeld all of a sudden coming out against the war, or the way it's being prosecuted, or John Ashcroft, all of a sudden, saying the current anti-terrorist measures are a sham, and surviving.

My resoning skills can always use improvement, as can anyone's. I hope to never stop learning.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Originally posted by HappyGuy
What he said, or when-apparently over a period, on several occasions-and June is not so long ago-is not really my point. You're splitting hairs here.

Bottom line, public officials, like it or not, have to be on the same page as the people who hired them. That's not really debateable, not at that level, not to my knowledge. I can't imagine Donald Rumsfeld all of a sudden coming out against the war, or the way it's being prosecuted, or John Ashcroft, all of a sudden, saying the current anti-terrorist measures are a sham, and surviving.

My resoning skills can always use improvement, as can anyone's. I hope to never stop learning.

1) When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.
2) Not on the same page. A million soldiers disagreed with Bill Clinton for 8 years - didn't stop them from doing their jobs. Colin Powell often disagrees with President Bush - he does his job.
3) Because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it couldn't happen. But you don't normally pick a SECDEF if he's a pacifist.

Your spelling skills could use some improvement as well - especially if you're looking for a debate with the people you insist on arguing with on this board. Trust me here junior, you're looking for a hit in the World Series with a Little League bat here.

[Purple36]

Happy Guy,
Well.....again just going with what MSNBC reported....the General DID NOT say anything contradicting our policies. The media opinion is stating that he did, but where is the proof?

If I state that the terrorists are waging a war against Jews and Christians, am I contradicting our policy? No. I'm quoting from Osama's Fatwa: Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders.

Now if I state that our fight against terrorists is a war against Islam, then I would be failing to support the President's policy. You show me where he did that.

[HappyGuy]

1) When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.
2) Not on the same page. A million soldiers disagreed with Bill Clinton for 8 years - didn't stop them from doing their jobs. Colin Powell often disagrees with President Bush - he does his job.
3) Because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it couldn't happen. But you don't normally pick a SECDEF if he's a pacifist.

Your spelling skills could use some improvement as well - especially if you're looking for a debate with the people you insist on arguing with on this board. Trust me here junior, you're looking for a hit in the World Series with a Little League bat here.

Sure a lot of soldiers disagreed with Clinton, and so did I; everyone did their job, and so, no doubt, so would Gen. Boykin. Apples and oranges-he's an ASSISTANT UNDERSECRETARY, he doesn't really have the option to go on public record with his views, as the rank and file do, if in fact even they have that option. Am I wrong here? Colin Powell keeps a stiff upper lip, and I think he tries to keep a lid on it. The reason he still even has a job is a little more complicated, I think. That's for another thread.

John McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War, was no pacificst-eventually he went cold on the War and he was put out to pasture-a nice cushy job as head of the World Bank.

I've never been a very good speller-when spell check's available I use it, but I also find that someone who picks-up on a spelling error or two tends to be grasping at straws-nitpicking. I'm not LOOKING for a debate. I just stated my opinion-I don't consider it a "right" or a wrong opinion, just an opinion; if that leads to a debate, that's okay, too. Isn't that what this part of the forum is all about?

As for the World Series-if you think this is it, in terms of political discussion, then I don't feel out of place, but if this really was the Big Leagues of debate, neither of us would be here.


Purple36 - I thought our policy was to NOT paint this war as one on Islam. Now General Boykin may not have said, directely, "We're locked in a life and death struggle with Islam.", but he "painted" the situation in those terms. Even Condolezza Rice criticized the statements-why would she do that if there was no reason to do so. I'm not saying anything original here.

As far as terrorists waging a war against Jews and Christians, I agree with that statement, but I would add that their war is a war against the anyone who is NOT a fundumentalist Muslim-remember, terrorist groups staging from Kashimir are killing Hindus, and other groups are killing OTHER Muslims as they did in Saudi earlier this year.

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
...Trust me here junior, you're looking for a hit in the World Series with a Little League bat here.

Oh Damn!

James D

[Special Forces]

Originally posted by HappyGuy
Sure a lot of soldiers disagreed with Clinton, and so did I; everyone did their job, and so, no doubt, so would Gen. Boykin. Apples and oranges-he's an ASSISTANT UNDERSECRETARY, he doesn't really have the option to go on public record with his views, as the rank and file do, if in fact even they have that option. Am I wrong here? Colin Powell keeps a stiff upper lip, and I think he tries to keep a lid on it. The reason he still even has a job is a little more complicated, I think. That's for another thread.

John McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War, was no pacificst-eventually he went cold on the War and he was put out to pasture-a nice cushy job as head of the World Bank.

I've never been a very good speller-when spell check's available I use it, but I also find that someone who picks-up on a spelling error or two tends to be grasping at straws-nitpicking. I'm not LOOKING for a debate. I just stated my opinion-I don't consider it a "right" or a wrong opinion, just an opinion; if that leads to a debate, that's okay, too. Isn't that what this part of the forum is all about?

As for the World Series-if you think this is it, in terms of political discussion, then I don't feel out of place, but if this really was the Big Leagues of debate, neither of us would be here.


Purple36 - I thought our policy was to NOT paint this war as one on Islam. Now General Boykin may not have said, directely, "We're locked in a life and death struggle with Islam.", but he "painted" the situation in those terms. Even Condolezza Rice criticized the statements-why would she do that if there was no reason to do so. I'm not saying anything original here.

As far as terrorists waging a war against Jews and Christians, I agree with that statement, but I would add that their war is a war against the anyone who is NOT a fundumentalist Muslim-remember, terrorist groups staging from Kashimir are killing Hindus, and other groups are killing OTHER Muslims as they did in Saudi earlier this year.

1. LTG Boykin (then MG Boykin) was not a DUSD when he made those comments.

2. The only place he spoke out against the NCA's policy was in your mind, and the minds of the media who are educating you. Where is the smoking gun?

3. John McNamara is a buddy of mine from 7th SFGA. If you are referring to Robert S. McNamara, former Sec Def, you need to do some research, your ignorance and lack of credibility are showing (remember those sound bites you are parroting? Look it up for yourself, you were an Intel guy).

4. We didn't start this war. We have not framed its belligerents. OBL and the Muslim clerics spewing hatred have done that. Our job (as soldiers) is to eliminate the threat and return us to peace. LTG Boykin is emminently qualified to do that.

5. Did I miss the part where being a military member meant abrogation of almost all of my Constitutional rights? I guess Washington should have kept his mouth shut as well.

You seem to be believing the sound bites and media assumptions, after a reporter followed around LTG Boykin (MG Boykin was then the SWCS School Commander) surreptitiously taping him over a couple of years, and that was ALL they got.

Someone had an axe to grind with the General, and the enforcers of PC are working hard to remove him and further handicap our ability to wage war on the jihadists.

Your responses indicate that you are playing right into their hands.

TR

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by HappyGuy
As far as terrorists waging a war against Jews and Christians, I agree with that statement, but I would add that their war is a war against the anyone who is NOT a fundumentalist Muslim-remember, terrorist groups staging from Kashimir are killing Hindus, and other groups are killing OTHER Muslims as they did in Saudi earlier this year.

If their war is a war against anyone who does not espouse their brand of militant islam, then does it not stand to reason that we ARE in fact engaged in a religious war?

For an Intel Analyst, you sure don't spend much time doing any analysis. I read the General's comments and the context under which they were said and I see absolutely nothing wrong with anything he did, particularly sufficient grounds to call for his removal.

What I do see is a media that fears devout christianity far more than it does militant Islamists. The General made his comments in a church to a crowd of christians, not on a podium addressing his counterparts from other countries. His comments, in my opinion, were largely correct and certainly far less virilant than the media portrays them to be. In this PC world that the media has created, it is far easier to demonize a devout christian than it is an islamic militant.

The most amusing part of this whole non-story is the supposition on the part of the media that we espouse our commonality with moderate Islam as a means of winning them over to our side. Do you think that Bush's comments about our war not being a war against muslims ever makes it to the airwaves or print in Islamic countries? Frankly it is a wasted effort on our part and it hinders our effectiveness in countering the true threat, islamic miltancy. We need to face up to the fact that we are at war with more than just a couple of thousand fanatics, we are at war with an ideology and a culture that is diametrically opposed to peace.

Personally I do believe that islam is a false religion, created by a power-hungry aggressor to control his subjects and utilized by religious and political leaders ever since as a means of controlling their populace and grounds for hostility against their rivals. The history of islam is one of violence and hatred. I believe it is a cult and a perversion and our failure to address its rise, particularly the rise of mitiant islam in the 20th century will be recorded in history as a great mistake.

As far as the General is concerned, I don't know him and have never met him however men whose opinions I highly respect, the Reaper and Teutates among them, stand up for him and that is more than good enough for me.

[HappyGuy]

1. LTG Boykin (then MG Boykin) was not a DUSD when he made those comments.

2. The only place he spoke out against the NCA's policy was in your mind, and the minds of the media who are educating you. Where is the smoking gun?

3. John McNamara is a buddy of mine from 7th SFGA. If you are referring to Robert S. McNamara, former Sec Def, you need to do some research, your ignorance and lack of credibility are showing (remember those sound bites you are parroting? Look it up for yourself, you were an Intel guy).

4. We didn't start this war. We have not framed its belligerents. OBL and the Muslim clerics spewing hatred have done that. Our job (as soldiers) is to eliminate the threat and return us to peace. LTG Boykin is emminently qualified to do that.

5. Did I miss the part where being a military member meant abrogation of almost all of my Constitutional rights? I guess Washington should have kept his mouth shut as well.

You seem to be believing the sound bites and media assumptions, after a reporter followed around LTG Boykin (MG Boykin was then the SWCS School Commander) surreptitiously taping him over a couple of years, and that was ALL they got.

Someone had an axe to grind with the General, and the enforcers of PC are working hard to remove him and further handicap our ability to wage war on the jihadists.

Your responses indicate that you are playing right into their hands.

TR


__________________
#1 - The last comments on this were made in June. Even if that was before he attained his current position, I see it as problematic.
#2 - If this is all in my mind, then WHY has Condolezza Rice come out and criticized the remarks?

1. LTG Boykin (then MG Boykin) was not a DUSD when he made those comments.

2. The only place he spoke out against the NCA's policy was in your mind, and the minds of the media who are educating you. Where is the smoking gun?

3. John McNamara is a buddy of mine from 7th SFGA. If you are referring to Robert S. McNamara, former Sec Def, you need to do some research, your ignorance and lack of credibility are showing (remember those sound bites you are parroting? Look it up for yourself, you were an Intel guy).

4. We didn't start this war. We have not framed its belligerents. OBL and the Muslim clerics spewing hatred have done that. Our job (as soldiers) is to eliminate the threat and return us to peace. LTG Boykin is emminently qualified to do that.

5. Did I miss the part where being a military member meant abrogation of almost all of my Constitutional rights? I guess Washington should have kept his mouth shut as well.

You seem to be believing the sound bites and media assumptions, after a reporter followed around LTG Boykin (MG Boykin was then the SWCS School Commander) surreptitiously taping him over a couple of years, and that was ALL they got.

Someone had an axe to grind with the General, and the enforcers of PC are working hard to remove him and further handicap our ability to wage war on the jihadists.

Your responses indicate that you are playing right into their hands.

TR


__________________
#1 - The last comments on this were made in June. Even if that was before he attained his current position, I see it as problematic.
#2 - If this is all in my mind WHY has Condolezza Rice come out and criticized the remarks? As the President's point person on foreign policy-she echoes his views. Is she dreaming too?

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,215656,00.html

I haven't known the President to back down on something or someone that he supports. The General painted the war as a religious war. I don't believe everything I read in the media, but some things ring true. Why did this reporter follow around the General in the first place? There are many other generals; why him specifically, unless there was a story to be had? Didn't General Boykin invite a group of evangelical ministers to Ft. Bragg for a demonstration of Special Forces capabilities-as presented by Spec. Forces instructors? You are in a position to say that this is also much ado about nothing, or, that it never even happend. If it did, then I think its newsworthy. Point is, this stuff DOES NOT come from out of thin air-the General has a history.
#3 - ROBERT MacNamara-thanks for the correction. A simple mistake doesn't equate to ignorance, but if you needed an excuse to question my credibility and intelligence, here you go... I know all about him-Robert, that is. Which sound bites did I parrot, exactly?
#4 - Agree. Totally.
#5 - The military, last I heard, is not a democracy. Military personnel are not so free to go yakking to the press or make grand pronoucements, unilaterally, from a bully pulpit. You MAY voice your opinion publicly just like anyone else; just make sure that what you say is totally in line with the policies of the US Government. Otherwise, even a whiff of dissent may put your career in jeapordy. It's even more sensitive for a general officer, or ANY non-elected public official. I think you know this.

I have no axe to grind with the General, or anyone else in the military. I haven't, yet, seen an instance where the PC enforcers have handcuffed our military's ability to wage war, but maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

Actually I don't think he should be fired, if the Bush administration can somehow salvage his career without great risk to its own political skin. I think the best solution here is for the Bush administration, if possible, to give General Boytin a combat command-not in exile to Siberia, but in one of the active theaters of operations (or even S. Korea), where his ability and aggressiveness are great assets, and just the knowledge of his presence will scare some of the less insane of our enemies into self-doubt. A crusader mentality is not so bad in wartime, but it belongs in combat-not in Washington, IMHO.

Standing by your President and the government's stated policy is imperative for senior leaders. My first comment, that we don't need to sink to the level of the ayatollahs and mullahs was my primary point.

I made my point and I think you made yours, as did some other people. I am now conducting a tactical withdrawal. I also have to go on a business trip starting tomorrow, so it's a good time to wrap this up. I've enjoyed this discussion, hope that I didn't ruffle any feathers-nothing like a vigorous give and take without too much mud slinging; no hard feelings-we're on the same side-really, and hope to do it again soon.

(still) HappyGuy


JustANavyMom - "Silly me, I sorta thought since CAIR called for his resignation (they were a lead or mention in every article), it's incumbent for the debater to know of what he speaks. "

I don't remember seeing the acronym; I haven't read every article on this issue and don't follow the activities of domestic Islamic organizations. But I appreciate you looking it up for me. Now I know. Since I once wrote a paper in college advocating a US takeover of the Saudi oil fields, with Saudi being paid a 15-20% royalty on subsequent oil sales-and that going directly into a trust managed by US bureacrats to pay for social programs in the Kingdom-I doubt CAIR and I have much in common. Thanks for providing the link anyway.

[zog]

Happy Guy, his comments WERE before he got to Pentagon.
Whatever

and ... don't state an opinion in unless you truly believe it and will back it up. Not just here, everywhere. Otherwise you're just a shit-stirrer.

(dont mean to overstep my guest status here)

[HappyGuy]

Okay, I can't resist a last response...

If their war is a war against anyone who does not espouse their brand of militant islam, then does it not stand to reason that we ARE in fact engaged in a religious war?

For an Intel Analyst, you sure don't spend much time doing any analysis. I read the General's comments and the context under which they were said and I see absolutely nothing wrong with anything he did, particularly sufficient grounds to call for his removal.

What I do see is a media that fears devout christianity far more than it does militant Islamists. The General made his comments in a church to a crowd of christians, not on a podium addressing his counterparts from other countries. His comments, in my opinion, were largely correct and certainly far less virilant than the media portrays them to be. In this PC world that the media has created, it is far easier to demonize a devout christian than it is an islamic militant.

The most amusing part of this whole non-story is the supposition on the part of the media that we espouse our commonality with moderate Islam as a means of winning them over to our side. Do you think that Bush's comments about our war not being a war against muslims ever makes it to the airwaves or print in Islamic countries? Frankly it is a wasted effort on our part and it hinders our effectiveness in countering the true threat, islamic miltancy. We need to face up to the fact that we are at war with more than just a couple of thousand fanatics, we are at war with an ideology and a culture that is diametrically opposed to peace.

Personally I do believe that islam is a false religion, created by a power-hungry aggressor to control his subjects and utilized by religious and political leaders ever since as a means of controlling their populace and grounds for hostility against their rivals. The history of islam is one of violence and hatred. I believe it is a cult and a perversion and our failure to address its rise, particularly the rise of mitiant islam in the 20th century will be recorded in history as a great mistake.

As far as the General is concerned, I don't know him and have never met him however men whose opinions I highly respect, the Reaper and Teutates among them, stand up for him and that is more than good enough for me.

-------------------

"Islam is a false religion" Hmmmm...so that makes the other religions "True". Religion is a BELIEF system-it's as true as its believers want it to be. Religion, any religion, has ALWAYS been used by power-hungry aggressors and cynical rulers as an instrument to control their subjects. What do you think led to the Protestant Reformation-the corruption and abuses of the Roman Catholic Church. When Roman society began to disintegrate, what ideology became the glue that managed to maintain control for another 50 years or so? We, Christians and Jews, have had to deal with our own fanatics and still do; there are people out there in the heartland of the US-Christian Identity types, who actually CHEERED when the WTC collapsed. So I don't buy that "Our religion is better than theirs." That makes us as bad as them. What we have that IS superior is our CULTURE and our democratic and free institutions, and those, in the end, will defeat the armies of Muslim fanatics.

You are looking at this in black/white, good/evil terms, which is one perspective, but one that if we actually followed, would probably result in a 100 year war against a billion Muslims. That's not a very good outlook.

We are NOT engaged in a religious war. Our enemies are. We(and Israel) are engaged in a war of national survival-a war that, to LOSE, would mean our destruction, literally. That's the only way we can look at it, and I don't think a lot of people realize this two years after 9/11. Don't waste time demonizing the enemy-just destroy him, and use anything to do it with, including our enemies' moderate bretheren. We are smarter and more subtle than they are and our trump card, the force that will, finally, help in destroying the terror of Islamic fundumentalism, is in fact moderate Muslims. It's going to take more than guns and bombs to finish the job. These people-moderates-have built a way of life for themselves, beyond the filth and ignorance of their cousins-they are not necessarily content to stay in the muck and blame the West for every ill in Muslim countries, and they don't want to see what they built destroyed anymore than we want our lives destroyed. But we have to work on them; the Bush administration is correct-this group has to be massaged, persuaded and infiltrated. It's just another weapon at our disposal-propaganda.

The media...it's always the media's fault. Yeah, they're the boogieman allright-like, for instance, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, The Washington Times, George Will, Wm. F. Buckley, ABC News, etc. There are PLENTY in the media who wholly support the US Government's efforts, and it's not such a bad thing that a loose cannon gets called on his remarks. Without dissenting views-in congress and the media, this country would look a whole lot different-it would look like some of the Muslim countries that we're fighting. That's democracy-horribly flawed, but still the best system out there, to paraphrase Churchill.

[Cazador 01]

Today's Editorial in the Washington Times. Real warriors are hard to find and we need every one of them now.

"Hysteria and the general"

Nothing is more predictable than hysteria when Democrats say boo to a certain species of Republican. Sen. John Warner of Virginia, like a horse-country gent arriving late to the fox hunt, yesterday joined the hue and cry to take out Lt. Gen. William Boykin for his remarks, already widely distorted, decrying radical Islam's violent expression of a hijacked faith.
Mr. Warner, we are sad to say, joined Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat, to urge Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to "temporarily reassign" the general until the Pentagon's inspector general "reviews" the episode. This sounds like Washingtonspeak for "get rid of him." Mr. Levin, no doubt, feels the heat from his Muslim constituents, who make up a significant minority of the Michigan electorate. We're not sure what's driving Mr. Warner.
From faraway Australia, even President Bush felt it necessary to say again that he regards Islam as a religion of peace and that he doesn't agree with Gen. Boykin. In their rush to politically correct judgment, the distinguished Republican gentlemen may be overlooking what it was, exactly, that the general, an evangelical Christian, said in his remarks to evangelical Christian congregations.
Referring to the boast of an evil Somali warlord that he would never be captured by the general's commandos because Allah protected him, Gen. Boykin said: "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."
This is of a piece with Mr. Bush's stated view that the radical Islamists — the thugs of the Taliban and al Qaeda — have "hijacked" a peaceful religion. The general's remark, as reported, was respectful of Islam as a peaceful religion. He was contemptuous only of the Somali warlord's view of his "faith" as a writ for murder and mayhem. How could a peaceful Muslim disagree with that?
The Pentagon has so far offered, at least in public, a level-headed view of the controversy, a controversy stirred up by the Los Angeles Times (fresh from its smash tour of the California recall campaign) and endorsed by The Washington Post, whose contempt for evangelical Christians ("poorly educated and easy to command") is well known. A spokesman for Mr. Rumsfeld noted yesterday that Gen. Boykin had apologized, promised not to make any more speeches, requested an official review and has a distinguished military record besides: "When you weigh the preponderance of all these things, nobody is thinking about asking him to step aside."
We hope so. We hope our suspicion is wrong that the review is but a prelude to sacking the general as a sacrifice to the secular gods of political correctness. Such gods are never appeased, as some Republicans never learn. Gen. Boykin's remarks were not made to his troops or in an official capacity, but to like-minded congregations of evangelical Christians. The general has a right to his faith, and he has a right to testify to that faith in a way dictated by his own conscience. The Pentagon's inspector general is not the theologian general, and he must keep that in mind in conducting his review. The distinguished members of the world's greatest deliberative body who are so eager to critique Gen. Boykin's remarks to his Christian brothers should sit down, shut up and deliberate quietly.

[Purple36]

Alrighty Then! Have an super day HappyGuy and just remember to monitor your thoughts and words; don't say anything that someone else might possibly misconstrue as somehow violating some policy of ours. You just might find that the political minders are watching you to ensure your ideological purity. Oh, wait.....that's in China and North Korea (and once upon a time: Bagdhad) where I have to worry about such things....Whew, good thing this is the US!

[C-M-R]

Happy guy - I'm having a lot of trouble following your posts. Mostly because you aren't using the quote option. You may have some points that I'd like to address, however, they get lost with the points made by others that you are answering.

[Cazador 01]

Even the Washington Post has some questions!

The Media, the General and God

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 20, 2003; 9:06 AM


Sometimes how the media get the story is as interesting as the story itself.

Take, for example, the scoop about the Christian general whose controversial comments about religion sparked repeated questioning of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Here's how the piece began on the front page of Thursday's Los Angeles Times:

"The Pentagon has assigned the task of tracking down and eliminating Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other high-profile targets to an Army general who sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan."

Lt. General William Boykin was described as "an outspoken evangelical Christian who appeared in dress uniform and polished jump boots before a religious group in Oregon in June to declare that radical Islamists hated the United States 'because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian and the enemy is a guy named Satan.' "

The LAT piece also said: "Audio and videotapes of Boykin's appearances before religious groups over the last two years were obtained exclusively by NBC News, which reported on them Wednesday night on the 'Nightly News with Tom Brokaw.' " The paper noted that its military columnist, Bill Arkin, "writes in an article on the op-ed page of today's Times that Boykin's appointment 'is a frightening blunder at a time that there is widespread acknowledgment that America's position in the Islamic world has never been worse.' "

But here's how an MSNBC report handled the credit issue:

"NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin, who's been investigating Boykin for the Los Angeles Times, says the general casts the war on terror as a religious war: 'I think that it is not only at odds with what the president believes, but it is a dangerous, extreme and pernicious view that really has no place.' "

So was NBC following the LAT, or the L.A. paper following the Brokaw broadcast?

The oddity was raised by Hugh Hewitt, a California radio host who often chats me up. Here's what he says on his Web site:

"I interviewed Arkin today and discovered that he developed the story on his own initiative as a columnist for the Times, and he decided with the full knowledge and approval of editors at the Los Angeles Times to provide NBC News with the story so that NBC could run the story before the paper ran Arkin's op-ed and the front-page story. He stated that the idea was to get the story some pop by using the audio and video.

"The Los Angeles Times thus gave away a scoop on a story that ended up on its front page. Why would it do that? It may have a precedent in the world of journalism, but to me it stinks. Didn't the Times engage in manipulation of the news to increase its impact on the audience? Or did the paper need cover for the story and gave it to NBC in order to generate that cover:

"Arkin: It was all coordinated, and I think that NBC's contribution was really its ability to showcase the video and audio of General Boykin which I think is much more powerful than anything I could put into words on paper.

"Hewitt: So the Los Angeles Times agreed to let NBC go first?

"Arkin: Yes."

Go figure.

Boykin, by the way, apologized Friday to "those who have been offended," the LAT reports.

[Gulf Yankee]

Am I the only guy here wondering if HappyGuy is really KidA posting under another name?

I am warming up the ignore button just in case.

[Georgia]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Am I the only guy here wondering if HappyGuy is really KidA posting under another name?

No you are not.

[Gypsy]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Am I the only guy here wondering if HappyGuy is really KidA posting under another name?

I am warming up the ignore button just in case.

You beat me to this post.

[Purple36]

I also was wondering if that might be KidA.

[Story]

Who Is William Arkin?
A look at the Greenpeace activist cum L.A. Times military affairs columnist who's taking after Gen. Jerry Boykin.
by Hugh Hewitt
10/23/2003 12:00:00 AM

Arkin is a veteran of four years in the Army (he served from 1974 to 1978) and many of his bylines from the past two decades described him as a "military intelligence analyst" during his service (his rank and units are not readily apparent). He received his BS from the University of Maryland.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/279oetfg.asp

[zog]

GO TERPS!

FEAR THE TURTLE!

[Gulf Yankee]

The answer is best found in Arkin's own speech to an audience at the U.S. Naval War College on September 25, 2002. In this lengthy and vitriolic attack on the Bush administration, Arkin admitted to feeling "cynical about the fact that we are going to war to enhance the economic interests of the Enron class," and declared that "the war against terrorism is overstated." Arkin believed, in fact, that the war "is not the core United States national security interest today."

Is this what passes for objective journalism at the LA Times?


He rhetorically asked the audience: "Aren't I just another leftist, self-hating American?"

Yes, you are.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

I would like to see the General and Ass Clown Arkin enter Thunder Dome!

Prelim match - Jimbo and Yotanka!

Battle Royal - Guy and Everybody!

Thunder Dome! Thunder Dome!

[zog]

Arkin is a columnist and published on the opinion pages.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
I would like to see the General and Ass Clown Arkin enter Thunder Dome!

Prelim match - Jimbo and Yotanka!

Battle Royal - Guy and Everybody!

Thunder Dome! Thunder Dome!



Opening match: Echoes & Kid A :p :D

[zog]

Where do BenningBound and Lusid fit on the fight card?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Opening match: Echoes & Kid A :p :D

That could be a Caged Death Match very easily.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by zog
GO TERPS!

FEAR THE TURTLE!

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
hey Legal Beagles,
If general Boykin has to step aside, does he have a claim under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin?

The answer is maybe, but probably not. :D

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
The answer is maybe, but probably not. :D

Typical. I guess I owe the four hour minimum now?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Am I the only guy here wondering if HappyGuy is really KidA posting under another name?


No, but I'm leaning against it currently.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
Typical. I guess I owe the four hour minimum now?

I'll settle for the boots. :D

[BMT]

http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html

Guys go to this link and post your SUPPORT and Questions!!!

BMT

[wolfhound227]

I'm just a simpleton but what I got from the General's speech was that he felt that this was a war against Satan.

From the exerpts of the speech that I've seen he actually illustrated his point and while I'm not a religious person myself I can see where he's coming from. In Somalia the bodies of the Pakistanis, the flight crews from the downed Blackhawks of the 101st and the 160th were mutilated, Islam has strict rules about the handling of the dead - even the dead of your enemy. The Somalis failed to act in accordance with their "faith".
Islam also has strict rules about killing noncombatants (women & Children and folks who've not raised a sword in your direction) and yet the 9/11 hijackers are held in many parts of the Moslem world as marters for Islam and therefore - heroes. Not all Moslems feel this way but they are drowned out by the Islamist-Facists.

Satanism is in essence the absence of God, you are never farther away from God then when you hold the will to commit acts of terror in your heart. Like I said before, I'm not the brightest guy but I'm pretty sure that God was absent in the cockpits of the three hijacks airliners on September 11th .

As for the good General, I'm glad that he's where he is today because I'd rather have a guy who's motivated by something else other than getting his next star in a crittical slot. He's more likely to be aggressive than cover his own ass in crunch-time.

Just my .02

[DY]

As for the good General, I'm glad that he's where he is today because I'd rather have a guy who's motivated by something else other than getting his next star in a crittical slot. He's more likely to be aggressive than cover his own ass in crunch-time.
Absolutely, he's the right man for the job. Let's face it, if their is a God like the General says, He's smiling on the guy right now...

[HappyGuy]

Am I the only guy here wondering if HappyGuy is really KidA posting under another name?

I'm back from my trip, but I see the discussion has fizzled out.

However, just in case anyone is still following this, I am NOT, and HAVE NEVER BEEN "KidA". However, I have read some of his posts. He and I are not on the same ideological wave length.

That being said, I do have to admit that he brought something to these discussions by looking beyond the "Party Line", even if some of his positions were misguided and his style somewhat shrill. Quite a lot of people who opposed his views-which is fine in and of itself-made it into something more personal.

[Teutates]

Originally posted by HappyGuy
That being said, I do have to admit that he brought something to these discussions by looking beyond the "Party Line", even if some of his positions were misguided and his style somewhat shrill. Quite a lot of people who opposed his views-which is fine in and of itself-made it into something more personal.

Careful FNG.

Before you come into our house and piss on our furniture it would probably be in your best interest to become a more informed individual and appreciate whose house you’re standing in first.

“What comes around goes around, and when it’s coming around for the second time it’s usually moving much quicker.”


Teutates
Master Sergeant
Special Forces
(retired)

[Solid]

Satanism is in essence the absence of God, you are never farther away from God then when you hold the will to commit acts of terror in your heart.

I'd agree, but I think it should be recognized that 'acts of terror' covers a broad array of acts with different ethical and moral standards attached to them.
For example, what the US rebels did during the Independence War was, in strategic or military terms, terrorism. However, it was for a good cause and the majority of acts were against military or non-human targets.

I am by NO MEANS SUPPORTING THE ACTS OF AQ ETC AS MORAL OR ETHICAL. Please don't see the above argument as that. However, I wanted to point out that 'terror' can be a legitimate tactic. The ethics and morals, however, have to do with a) who the acts are directly against (ie; civilians or military targets) and b) what the objective of the terrorism is.
I feel that the terrorism being committed by AQ and other Islamic extremist groups is utterly revoluting.
My .02,
Solid

[HappyGuy]

Careful FNG.

Before you come into our house and piss on our furniture it would probably be in your best interest to become a more informed individual and appreciate whose house you're standing in first.

what comes around goes around, and when it's coming around for the second time it's usually moving much quicker.
---------------

Point taken, Teutates. As a FNG, I'm not entirely sure why what I wrote could be construed as pissing on anyone-or their furniture, but if someone thinks that's what it is, then that's what it is. I will do my best to apply caution and rigor to any and all future posts.

[Bohr Adam]

Originally posted by Solid

For example, what the US rebels did during the Independence War was, in strategic or military terms, terrorism. However, it was for a good cause and the majority of acts were against military or non-human targets.

Solid

WHAT?!?!?!

I have heard the "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" BS before - but usually only from leftist jackasses, which you do not seem to be.

I am willing to be open-minded, and I realize you stated that most were not, so please point out where the colonists in the war for independance deliberately targeted woman, children, or any civilians, and other such classic terrorist tactics.

If you are talking about classic insurgency tactics, such as the bombing of the USS Cole, we are in agreement. That was a legitimate military target, and we simply failed to recognize the degree of the threat. Just because we didn't declare a war, did not mean we weren't in the middle of one.

I agree that we use the word "terorism" too often - attacks against military targets and such should be classified differently.

Perhaps we could use the term, "terroism?" ;)

[Special Forces]

Originally posted by Solid
I'd agree, but I think it should be recognized that 'acts of terror' covers a broad array of acts with different ethical and moral standards attached to them.
For example, what the US rebels did during the Independence War was, in strategic or military terms, terrorism. However, it was for a good cause and the majority of acts were against military or non-human targets.
Solid

Solid:

You lack of knowledge and education is shocking in this regard. If this is the product of your educational system, I feel the future of your generation is at serious risk.

The American War for Independence was primarily fought conventionally in stand-up battles, and the Americans lost most battles before finally winning against Cornwallis (with the help of the French).

I doubt you can actually differentiate between strategic, operational, and tactical terms without looking it up.

I admire your persistance and appreciate your right to a differing opinion, but would remind you that when lacking knowledge, "it is better to keep one's mouth closed, and appear stupid, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Good day.

TR

[Anakin]

Originally posted by Solid
For example, what the US rebels did during the Independence War was, in strategic or military terms, terrorism. However, it was for a good cause and the majority of acts were against military or non-human targets.


Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they use Guerilla tactics?

[Special Forces]

Originally posted by Anakin
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they use Guerilla tactics?

Common misconception. Only as a very small part of the overall war, more like harrassment and attacks on support structures.

Throughout the war, the Americans had a regular force, a militia force, and irregulars. Guerrillas do not field conventional forces until the final stages of an insurgency.

A good bit of the fighting was between those for independence, and Loyalists. Much was small unit action (frequently platoon sized or smaller), though militias of both flavors supported regular forces. In that manner, there was something of a civil war to the whole thing.

The militia when called on to fight alongside the regulars, frequently would run in the face of the Brit regulars, causing failure of the line and loss of the battle.

At one of the final battles, the American general, who I believe was Nathaniel Greene, told the militia members, "Just give me two volleys before you go and the girls will love you."

They gave him several and the Americans won.

You guys need to do some reading.

TR

[echoes]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Solid:

You lack of knowledge and education is shocking in this regard. If this is the product of your educational system, I feel the future of your generation is at serious risk.

The American War for Independence was primarily fought conventionally in stand-up battles, and the Americans lost most battles before finally winning against Cornwallis (with the help of the French).

I doubt you can actually differentiate between strategic, operational, and tactical terms without looking it up.

I admire your persistance and appreciate your right to a differing opinion, but would remind you that when lacking knowledge, "it is better to keep one's mouth closed, and appear stupid, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Good day.

TR


Reaper: Brilliant Sir! :) Another fine example of why we should all "fear The Reaper"! :)

Sir Sneaky...A caged Death Match, huh? OK! But only if I get to wear your Boots!!!

Holly

[Solid]

I made the mistake of not distinguishing terrorism of the modern variety from 'classic insurgency tactics' which aim to CAUSE terror. I assumed that they would be grouped under the general heading of 'terrorism'.

As for the Independence war, I was referring to 'show pieces' like the Boston Tea party and pre-declaration ambushes on Royal soldiers. The latter did not happen on any large scale, but presumably instilled fear into the ranks of the British Army. I moderated my post (the 'majority of attacks') because I was not completely sure that attacks were not made against loyalist civilian targets. As far as I know, hangings of civilian loyalists did occur on a very small scale; I can find some facts if neccesary. I mistakenly wrote 'independence war' instead of 'pre independence war'.

"one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist"

This is not what I intended for my post to be interpreted as. While to a small-scale degree the above quote is true, when held up to generally accepted moral and ethical standards freedom fighters and terrorists (in the modern sense) are very, very different. By small-scale I mean that to a small village of illiterate and misinformed farmers, the acts of AQ might be considered heroic when they are in reality [and generally recognized as] atrocities against humankind.

I apologize for the errors in my post, and hope that the above modifications resolve any inaccuracies. I also apologize if this post is rude in any way, as this is not my intent.

Thank you,

Solid

[Special Forces]

Solid:

Thank you for your clarification.

Your point was not so much rude as misinformed.

There were small scale attacks on both Tory and Independence civilians by both parties, particularly in the South, and while murders and arson did occur, they were not of the AQ "nihilistic" cause, but for or against the very real goal of independence. More than guerrillas, the American forces conducting the sort of operations you reference against the British army were irregular forces, particularly since they were in support of a regular force.

The guerrilla seeks to overthrow an existing power and establish a government of their own. It also traditionally has popular support, and external sponsorship, and tends to follow a set of steps of increasing violence and military capability. Terrorists attempt to change public opinion or policy by acts of violence.

The Americans were attempting to obtain their independence by forcing the occupying colonial power to leave, a rather novel concept in those days. They already had their own government, conventional military forces, and external support was limited to specific areas where they were deficient.

To pursue this parallel, or to define AQ as guerrillas, please define what AQ's real goals are, what government they seek to establish, who provides their popular support, and who is their external sponsor.

TR

[Solid]

Sir,
I was not trying, by any means, to portray AQ as guerillas [and thereby substantiate their actions]. I was trying to explain that the broad term 'terrorism' has many different meanings, each with their own moral value.

In my opinion, the word 'terrorism' has taken on additional criteria due to the actions of Islamic Extremist groups. Whereas it was previously taken to mean:

'the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments' (Princeton University),

it now more closely means:

'The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.'

The addition of the concept of 'unlawfulness' is most likely a result of the 'terrorism' employed by Islamic Extremist groups.

The connotations of the contemporary 'terrorism' are more in-synch with the abhorrent acts of AQ et al. However, terrorism in the old sense could be used to describe the guerrila tactics used by US irregulars and civilians to instill fear in [terrify] British soldiers and loyalists. I think that we are arguing over the definition of the old term.

I absolutely agree with the idea that US guerilla 'terror' tactics (or so they could be called as they attempted to change public policy) 'to overthrow an existing power and establish a government of their own. It also traditionally has popular support, and external sponsorship, and tends to follow a set of steps of increasing violence and military capability', whereas contemporary 'terrorism' like that of AQ is, as you say, nihilistic.

Thank you very much for these corrections, especially the last post. Your distinction between 'terrorism' and 'guerilla warfare' helped me understand several things which I had been thinking about.

Solid

[Anakin]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Common misconception. Only as a very small part of the overall war, more like harrassment and attacks on support structures.

Throughout the war, the Americans had a regular force, a militia force, and irregulars. Guerrillas do not field conventional forces until the final stages of an insurgency.

A good bit of the fighting was between those for independence, and Loyalists. Much was small unit action (frequently platoon sized or smaller), though militias of both flavors supported regular forces. In that manner, there was something of a civil war to the whole thing.

The militia when called on to fight alongside the regulars, frequently would run in the face of the Brit regulars, causing failure of the line and loss of the battle.

At one of the final battles, the American general, who I believe was Nathaniel Greene, told the militia members, "Just give me two volleys before you go and the girls will love you."

They gave him several and the Americans won.

You guys need to do some reading.

TR

My point was that while the Americans did fight against the British in conventional battles, they also used tactics which were Guerilla tactics and not Terrorism even if they were only a small part of the war.

Al Qaeda from what I understand wish to form an "Islamic Superstate" from the North Africa and the Arabian Peninsular to South East Asia.

Isn't it more the tactics as opposed to the goal which defines the terrorists and the Guerilla fighter?
If a group seeks to overthrow an existing power and establish a Government of their own but they use tactics such as blowing up buses with civilians on, they are Terrorists even though they have the same goals as a Guerilla fighter?

[Special Forces]

Originally posted by Anakin
My point was that while the Americans did fight against the British in conventional battles, they also used tactics which were Guerilla tactics and not Terrorism even if they were only a small part of the war.

Al Qaeda from what I understand wish to form an "Islamic Superstate" from the North Africa and the Arabian Peninsular to South East Asia.

Isn't it more the tactics as opposed to the goal which defines the terrorists and the Guerilla fighter?
If a group seeks to overthrow an existing power and establish a Government of their own but they use tactics such as blowing up buses with civilians on, they are Terrorists even though they have the same goals as a Guerilla fighter?

Anakin:

Define "guerrilla tactics".

How is a raid conducted by conventional, guerrilla, or terrorists different in its "tactics"? I would submit that the execution itself is the same.

The bus scenario depends. Legitimacy of the target may be determined by a number of factors. Does destruction of your bus of civilians by conventional forces (collateral damage), guerrillas, or terrorists vary in its effects on the victims, or is it different in the effects it is intended to cause on the larger populace, or even globally via the media? What is the purpose of destruction of the bus? I can envision few scenarios which the destruction of a bus of civilians would cause increased popular support for the guerrilla anti-gov cause, unless the civilians were of a privileged class or were government functionaries.

FWIW, I cannot see AQ forming a government any more than I can see the SL or EIJ forming one. I do not think their plan realistically extends that far. Their purpose appears to me to be to strike out against the West, in general and the U.S., in particular and change popular opinion (U.S. and Moslem), not ultimate achievement of a military victory.

A guerrilla movement, as it progresses, eventually transforms itself into a conventional military struggle. Do you see them doing that?

Again, I would recommend that you take a few minutes to do a Google search to familiarize yourself with the terms and basic theory of this, I do not have the time to continue debating with people who do not have the background to participate effectively in the discussion, or the motivation to educate themselves. If I were a teacher, and you came to my Guerrilla vs. Terrorism 101 class this poorly prepared, I would give you a failing grade. Do the research, learn the basics, and clarify confusion or elicit discussion of differing viewpoints here from an educated perspective. Do not engage in noise pollution merely to be making noise, or to pad your post count. I am not impressed.

TR

[Jimbo]

If I may direct Solid and Anakin to this thread:
http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29574

[Bohr Adam]

I probably confused things with my post.

My post was purely an emotional response to the idea that the independence movement involved "terrorist" activity.

I have not formally studied the definitions of the terms as many others here clearly have. Folks here liek the Reaper have made a career out of understanding Guerilla fighters and their motivations, I most definitley have not.

I simply cannot see how ANYONE can say that breaking onto a boat and dumping tea into a harbor is anywhere near akin to bombing a busload of kids. I doubt killing civilians was the last thing even the most die-hard of Samual Adams's drinking buddies would have wanted to do.

[SGTROCK]

Bottom line...LTG Boykin is a Warrior and I would gladly come out of "retirement" to serve under this man! He is in the position he is cause he knows who we are dealing with and how to get the job done. This charachter assasintaion of his religious beliefs is obviously being done by someone without half the balls that the good General has. If anyone cannot see what is happening here then you are a complete blind jackass and have never been in a position to see how politics works and should refrain for speaking on what you know nothing about. He is a breath of fresh air in a military world of shit bags!!!

ROCK

[NewportBarGuy]

Solid,

http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/timeline/revolutionary_war.html

Not exactly the complete history, but a fairly good look at the overall period.

My favorite quote on that page is...

"May 22, 1782, After receiving a letter from one of his officers, Lewis Nicola, suggesting that Washington become King of the United States, Washington writes back to Nicola rebuking him for suggesting that a monarchy be established in America rather than a republic. Washington commands Nicola "to banish these thoughts from your mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or anyone else, a sentiment of the like nature."

[Solid]

Jimbo- that's one damn fine link, thank you for providing it. Putting on my reading glasses :)

I simply cannot see how ANYONE can say that breaking onto a boat and dumping tea into a harbor is anywhere near akin to bombing a busload of kids. I doubt killing civilians was the last thing even the most die-hard of Samual Adams's drinking buddies would have wanted to do.

This is my point: the goal of the two might be similar- both create pandemonium, give the activist group the spotlight, and perhaps terrorise either the general population (in regards to the bus bombing) or the tea merchants/loyalists (in regards to the tea-throwing).

As this is the goal of the action, it might be classified as 'terrorism' (in the old defintion, as previously discussed) ie: an action designed to cause terror. HOWEVER, the moral and ethical differences in the action is what differentiates the two. If the category was visualised, imagine a big bar of 'terrorist' activity, with a meter at the side judging the morality and ethics of the act. AQ would be at negative some-huger-number, and the Sons of Liberty would be (in regards to this specific act) at positive 100. My point was only that within the old definition of terrorism there are many moral and ethical variations which make it dangerous to generalize and say that 'all terror is evil'.

Rock: Amen.

NBG: Thanks for the link. I took AP US History two years ago (and then was sick and dropped back a year :( ), so it's rusty. This will no doubt help.

Thanks everyone,

Solid

[ktek01]

Originally posted by Solid

NBG: Thanks for the link. I took AP US History two years ago (and then was sick and dropped back a year :( ), so it's rusty. This will no doubt help.

Thanks everyone,

Solid

Yeah, but you took it in England. Here's a quick refresher for you on the American War for Independence, you lost. :p

[JumpmasterK]

Originally posted by SGTROCK
Bottom line...LTG Boykin is a Warrior and I would gladly come out of "retirement" to serve under this man! He is in the position he is cause he knows who we are dealing with and how to get the job done. This charachter assasintaion of his religious beliefs is obviously being done by someone without half the balls that the good General has. If anyone cannot see what is happening here then you are a complete blind jackass and have never been in a position to see how politics works and should refrain for speaking on what you know nothing about. He is a breath of fresh air in a military world of shit bags!!!

ROCK I think that is what scares the shitbags. They all just want to fuckin' tiptoe around what is reality. They all want to pretend that the Muslims and their ilk are actually peace lovin' people, and that Islam is a religion of peace. I would like to believe that myself, but have yet to see any proof. SHOW ME PEACE! Where is it?

[Solid]

What?! England LOST the Independence War? You'd better check your history books, Ktek... I have it right here in my 'A Very British History of The World':

'After much fighting, the colonists decided to surrender and our Good King May His Name Be Spoken With Ardent Pride was once again King of The World. For more information on 'America', see Chapter 30: World War Two: How England Saved 'America' and The World.'

Thankfully, AP US History was taught by a Vietnam vet at my very American school.

Solid

[Cazador 01]

Since September 11th, I have queried friends and former colleagues: Who and where is the "Wild Bill" Donovan of our time?

No one has had the answer. The answer to the question is coming clearer.


Cazador

[specwarnet]

Originally posted by Adam White
I simply cannot see how ANYONE can say that breaking onto a boat and dumping tea into a harbor is anywhere near akin to bombing a busload of kids.

How about labeling activists who blow up scientific research labs terrorists? In both cases property is lost and it's done as a form of protest or action against a perceived wrong activity but there is no loss of life (I'm specifically NOT mentioning the stupid release of animals).

Not saying that your statement about tea vs kids is invalid. I'm just curious about your reaction to comparing the two.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Cazador 01
Who and where is the "Wild Bill" Donovan of our time?
I nominate Mike Vickers.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Originally posted by Jimbo
I nominate Mike Vickers.

Who dat?

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
Who dat?
A former Special Forces Officer and CIA Operations Officer with extensive operational experience, Mr. Vickers holds advanced degrees in strategic studies and economics from Johns Hopkins University and in business administration from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. He is in the final stages of completing a doctoral dissertation and book manuscript on the structure of military revolutions.

I don't have the book handy, but if I remember correctly he has received awards for his performance in combat. I have also heard that he favors 'wacking' more people.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Mike Vickers played guitar in Manfred Mann for a couple of years and then left. As you do. Anyway, he was in the band long enough for Paul to write about him in The One in the Middle!

Name: Michael Vickers

DoB: April 18th 1941.

Place of Birth: Southampton, UK

Plays: Saxophone and guitar. Mainly guitar.

Role in the band: He played guitar. Tom McGuinness took over as lead guitarist when Mike left.


I KNEW IT! You homo anglophile!

http://www.geocities.com/come_tomorrow/mikevickers.jpg

[Jimbo]

So wrong. I was talking about the esteemed archeolo...digger guy.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~vickers/

[Sneaky SF Dude]

LOL - You ARE the Mighty Quinn.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Sneaky SF Dude
LOL - You ARE the Mighty Quinn.

You see, there's internet confusion again. I'm IN Mighty Quinn. I jam on the synth. http://www.themightyquinnband.com/

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Originally posted by Jimbo
You see, there's internet confusion again. I'm IN Mighty Quinn. I jam on the synth. http://www.themightyquinnband.com/

LOL - now we know what Doc's doin' in Ohio.

[Doc]

Cover's blown. :D

[Scotty]

As in, Dr. Quinn, Medicine Eskimo?

"I like to go just like the rest, I like my sugar sweet
But jumping queues and makin' haste, just ain't my cup of meat
Everyone's beneath the trees, feedin' pigeons on a limb
But when Quinn the Eskimo gets here
All the pigeons gonna run to him"

Sing it, Doc!

Scotty