Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Americans must respect Islam
salaam al-aqaaid    5/13/2004 10:18:35 AM
The outrageous atrocities commited by Americans at the Abu al-Grayyib prison complex speaks to a need for the United States Americans to give sensetivity training to its entire military so that they will no longer offind Muslims with the contemptious use of women as prison guards and unsavery adiction to homosexual pornographies. These things are offinsive to the Muslims community. Have you no shame? You must remove all women and homosexuals from contact with Muslim prisoners. This is offinsive.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
elcid    RE: Elephant trap? 13 years?   10/9/2004 4:45:57 PM
It has always been my position that Kurds, and Iranians, and Marsh Arabs, and Armenians, along with everyone else, matter. When one poster said a LURPS team would shoot a little girl if she saw them my unstated reaction was "not on my team - even if I have to shoot you." It is not lawful, and deep in enemy territory, matters of good order and discipline are not negotiable. We are here to accomplish a mission, not to break laws and give our enemies good propaganda to use against us." But I realised he would not understand what I was thinking. Presumably you do. I faced a few (three) situations of this kind in SE Asia, and I am not speaking entirely from a theoretical foundation. The one time the matter came to the attentio of senior officers, I found my attitude was the one officially supported. It pretty well had to be - no other policy is going to work in a democratic system. It would just generate scandle and might ultimately force a change in administration if they championed bad behavior.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE: Elephant trap and rbrooku's attidude   10/9/2004 4:55:20 PM
Mike-Golf: Since I have repeatedly said I opposed the decision to invade Iraq, and further that I believe the decision was not properly implemented once made (with respect to numbers of troops, specifically of occupation government, army engineer and military police troops), clearly I am not saying one cannot criticize the administration. Instead, my position is this: When you criticize a policy, at the same moment describe what policy is a better option. Make it clear you are in the war on our side. And when your criticism is formally considered, and rejected, go along with that rejection. We cannot have eight different war policies. The elected and appointed officials have a job to do, and in the end must select one policy. In the case of Iraq, I was wrong, and Bush was right: it has not turned out to be as messy or expensive as I feared it might, although it could have been a good deal less messy and expensive if my second criticism, about numbers, had been taken, so I was right about that. Further, there is clearly no will even in this administration to confront North Korea - the next place on my list. Even if I turn out to be right this is a horrible error - one that costs us NYC and DC - in the absence of the will to act on it- we should be acting somewhere. We can't do everything at once, and we should not be doing nothing at all. The process DID involve critics, and they DID listen to the idea of seeking international support. I blame the international community (minus UK and the many dozens of nations that support us) for failing to support, not Bush for failing to ask for that support.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Pacifist Christianity - timon_phocas   10/9/2004 5:03:31 PM
Since God does not contradict himself, "turn the other cheek" does not mean the military is bad. It clearly applies to personal conduct. Frankly, I have no respect for a person who can easily be provoked. But likewise I have no respect for someone who will stand by and watch murder of an innocent if they are not helpless. And as a soldier I would not - and have not - stood by. Regardless of the diplomatic niceties. Better not do it in front of me. Real Christians believe "they are all God's children" and that we are individually agents of God's will. As Colin Powell said at his confirmation hearings "Some things are worth fighting for."
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Pacifist Christianity    10/9/2004 5:06:40 PM
You are not reading the same history I do. Really early Christianity was not passive, and that is why Constintine coopted it. It was a MILITARY/psychological advantage to believe his men were Christians. Even if they were not, painting crosses on their shields made it look like they were.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Pacifist Christianity - timon_phocas   10/9/2004 5:51:13 PM
elcid, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not Christian so the strictures of the New Testament and other Christian teachings are only matters of intellectual interest for me. I'm simply pointing out that the "turn the other cheek" citation is what has been used for nearly 2000 years to justify pacifism by some (not all, nor even the majority) of Christian groups. As to your point that there were militant Christian groups, I agree. The Roman Empire certainly found Christianity to be, overall, a useful thing, especially with the Army. I am neither arguing that all Christian history is pacifist nor that all of it is militant. I am pointing out that both exist. And that, like every other regligious teachings I have read, one can find arguments supporting just about any position within it. And each of those positions can claim to be "real". In fact, this is similar to the current political situation, where everyone is busy citing the facts they like and ignoring the facts they don't.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE: Nuclear proliferation and el cid   10/9/2004 8:08:53 PM
El Cid- if you are going to agree with me like that give me advance notice!! So I can prepare myself:). I only hope you are wrong about NYC or any city in the world going the way of Hiroshima.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Pacifist Christianity - timon_phocas   10/9/2004 8:18:46 PM
El Cid- early Christanity I was refering to was previous to becoming a state religon first in Armenia then in Rome and then in Ethopia... however, they have been phases in Chrisitan history when it has beem more pacifist than militant... One of major points of the Papal Bull that launched the Crusades was to argue that warriors could redeem themselves by enjoining the Crusades. As Mike-golf has pointed out there are many Chrisitan sects or movement that remain even today dedicated to pacifism e.g Quakers. In comparison with other Abrahamic monothesims I would hazard a suggestion that Chrisitanity has had a stonger pacifist strand.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:What is fascist hatred? -- M_G   10/9/2004 11:42:10 PM
"Jim, have I ever mentioned that I always read your posts? Often I find I don't have to reply because you said what I was thinking so well. You're not half bad for an airedale! You do know the difference between the air force and the boy scouts, right?" -- mike_golf ----- Hey, thanks, I consider that quite a compliment. Right back at you, big guy. You the man. :-) Ummm, no, I don't know the difference between the air force and the boy scouts, and I hesitate to ask, but lay it on me--tankerboy. Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:What is fascist hatred? -- M_G   10/10/2004 1:25:03 AM
DJ wrote: "Ummm, no, I don't know the difference between the air force and the boy scouts, and I hesitate to ask, but lay it on me--tankerboy." The boy scouts have adult supervision ;-)
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:What is fascist hatred? -- M_G   10/10/2004 6:58:21 AM
And the tanker slightly misused Navy slang. An "airdale" is a NAVY aviator, or aviation support rating, not USAF.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics