Quantcast

«

»

Jan 19 2010

How to Hunt Men for Jesus

You use the “spiritually transformed firearm of Jesus Christ” of course. No seriously, that’s what some members of the military call it. Here’s what Rachel Maddow had to say about it yesterday:

Onward Christian Assholes! Nothing like compromising the entire mission in the Middle East.

53 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    AZ Superman01

    "Onward Christian Soldiers" indeed.

  2. 2
    Philosopher's Mess

    "compromising the entire mission in the Middle East"Yeah, Atheist exaggeration rears its ugly head! Wasn't that mission compromised like 8sum years ago, when we invaded the wrong country?

  3. 3
    Woof

    From the Trijicon website:• MoralityWe believe that America is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals.

  4. 4
    JD

    I guess they feel that religious verses belong on items that facilitate the killing of people. Funny that.

  5. 5
    Aaron

    Besides the fact that any seminary-trained Christian would be appalled at the way that these verses have been ripped out of context and completely misused… It would be like using a frog heart for an organ transplant in a human!

  6. 6
    tracieh

    I saw this on Yahoo yesterday as I was about to sign off. I didn't read the whole thing, but the opener was sufficient to get the gist of the story. What is wrong with these people? Why do some of them feel this insane need to just insert their religion into everything–even in arenas that go far beyond their own private choices? You cannot beat other people over the head with your religion. Please stop trying. And the moment they're called on it, it's always the god-haters, gays and liberals persecuting them.

  7. 7
    Ing

    @TraciehI think that yes they are unable to NOT put religion in everything. One of the reason I'm so frustrated is that where I live I cannot literally go one day without someone trying to force religion down your throat. we get Tony ALamo's people, Luddites handing out "Technology Help or Hindrance" fliers (hilariously they are NOT hand printed, nor engraved and appear to have been made with the help of both a print service and a photo editing program like photoshop or Coreal), anti abortionists, anti-evolutionists, Fred Phelps. It's a madhouse and to me it shows that a lot of Christians inherently are unable to allow a live and let live status quo.

  8. 8
    Ing

    …now on the actual story some badass bible quotes spouted by guntotting Jesus'Come with me and I will make you a fisher…OF MEN!""Blessed art the peacekeepers""If you light a man a fire he'll be warm for a night, but if you light a man ON fire he'll be warm for the rest of his life"

  9. 9
    Mark B

    A NY Daily News article reports that the marines are "reconsidering" the contracts with Trijicon. There's also a poll asking whether or it's appropriate to engrave these chapter nos. on the scopes. Of course the majority is "Yes" so go vote.Mikey Weinstein of MRFF is on the case as well.Also infuriating is this quote from Maj. John Redfield who is described as a spokesman for US Central Command:"The perfect parallel that I see is between the statement that's on the back of our dollar bills, which is 'In God We Trust,' and we haven't moved away from that,"

  10. 10
    Warren Grubb

    did the the military know about this and inform their troops about it? if it actually had the bible verse on the gun, it would be an open and shut case, but this is obscure enough that i would be satisfied if they just ceased the process and modified the existing guns. i sure as hell wouldn't want to be a soldier with one of those weapons after finding this out.from an interview i saw, this is evidently something this company has done for years and they continued it after the founder died in '03, so i don't know if it was something they were slipping in under the radar or not. probably not…

  11. 11
    Warren Grubb

    BTW, to answer your (probably rhetorical) questions Tracie, these people do think it is a religious war and I have little doubt that the manufacturer felt he was protecting our troops by putting these biblical references on the guns. And, sadly, I bet most Christians think the same thing. It is the reason people are so easily convinced that if they stop fighting to "keep" the U.S. a "Christian Nation" that their god will leave them and allow the downfall of the country. So those of us against things like this are not only god haters, we are implicated in the deaths of our troops.

  12. 12
    DavidCT

    As obnoxious as these people are, they like Fred Phelps are being true to their religion. "True" christians are tasked with spreading the word and they answer to a higher authority than worldly laws. To officially ignore this violation of the law is no different than turning a blind eye to animal sacrifice and genital mutilation or worse. When people answer to an invisible friend and use ambiguous holy books as justification, there is no end to the stupidity that they can come up with. Some real world fines and contract cancellations, are in order here. These fools have added to the burden of our troops and deserve more than a slap on the wrist.

  13. 13
    Martin

    PM: While the whole invasion was a big fat epic fail from the beginning, these scopes worsen the existing situation because they play right into what the Islamist radicals have been trying to tell their people all along: that this is not just a "war on terror" but a new holy war, a crusade by Western Christian aggressors against all of Islam. And it would appear, in a very real sense, that perhaps they were right about that all along. Considering how hair-trigger those people are on matters of their religion, knowing that our soldiers are the same way has more than likely re-radicalized them all over again.

  14. 14
    Ing

    "Yeah, Atheist exaggeration rears its ugly head! Wasn't that mission compromised like 8sum years ago, when we invaded the wrong country?"You're both right and wrong. The mission was a clusterfuck, but if we consider Iraq as one battlegorund in the WarOnTerror(tm) then this hugely shot ourselves in the foot. Basically we just gave Muslims on the fence whether we're incompetent or malevolent the evidence the terrorists need to convince them it's the later.

  15. 15
    Philosopher's Mess

    I'm sorry Martin but what you're saying is absurd."Re-radicalized"? Were "they" ever not radicalized? I have heard commentators on this show bemoan the logic which places blame on the "victim" aren't you doing the same thing? The point was you see everything through an atheist ideology, which ignores the reality and origins of a problem. You're talking about deadly assualt rifles and you think anyone truly cares about some letters and numbers that are on it. Is there any differnce in having a hole blown in a loved one, by a secular rifle or a Christianized one?Also I was offering a critique that it was an exaggeration to think this small stupidity compromises the "entire mission". Which seems to suggest, correct me if I'm wrong Jen, that if the mission remained secular we might be okay.Also you're mistaking cause and effect, if soldiers on both sides are viewing this as a "holy war", these rifles have very little to do with this fact. I am not saying its not weird and dangerous, just offering my opinion about its relevance.

  16. 16
    Philosopher's Mess

    @INGAll muslims are not just mindless reactionaries, sitting on a fence, waiting to either love the U.S. or ready to grab the suicide vest. Guess what they can thinksomething is stupid and offensive and not just slip into hateful behavior. Stop reducing, intelligent, thinking people, into hateful reactionaries. Which is the real problem here. They have the ability (which apparently your side doesn't) to see the difference between the actions of one corporation, and the beliefs of an entire people.

  17. 17
    Warren Grubb

    @PM- I didn't read INg's statement that way- i think he was just saying those who are on the fence might be swayed towards the fundamental side in reaction to this relationship between the military and christianity. I feel we don't need any more fuel on this fire, so any actions by the U.S. that appear to be (or are) religiously motivated are very bad. Hopefully rationally Muslims will see this as a rogue corporation and some bad elements in the military slipping their own agenda into it, but frankly I am not even sure if I believe that and i come from a U.S. military family…

  18. 18
    Philosopher's Mess

    @gfunk Who are these fence sitters you describe? Its silly and does reduce these people into reactionary machines. I would argue there are very few people in this position. If someone hates the U.S., that hate has been solidified long before this single insult. It seems you don't realize it, but you are removing the legitimacy of these peoples' anger, by reducing them into reactionaries. Why do you blame the abstract,general "U.S", or military, when the military is made up of individuals, who made a decision individually to enter the military? Scape-goating comes in many, various forms.Its nice to wash our hands of this situation, and dissolve our own responsibility in the matter, by blaming abstract organizations or people, but this is precisely the reason things are so out of whack in this world. We are so busy being smart, we absolve individuals of their own responsibility.

  19. 19
    Martin

    The point was you see everything through an atheist ideology, which ignores the reality and origins of a problem.Precisely what "reality and origins of a problem" do you think I'm ignoring? And how does this "atheist ideology" of mine have anything to do with it? I've actually lived in the middle east, and I can tell you precisely what the origins of our current terrorist problem are: 30+ years of absolutely horrible US foreign policy in the region, which can be more or less summed up as "Go Israel! Palestinians can suck it!" That isn't victim blaming — I'm not saying it justifies the terrorism. It is simply an acknowledgment of the realities on the ground over there. That is how those people think, and fueled by extremist religious zealotry, the whole region is now quite probably destabilized beyond repair.You're talking about deadly assualt rifles and you think anyone truly cares about some letters and numbers that are on it. Is there any differnce in having a hole blown in a loved one, by a secular rifle or a Christianized one?Missing the point by a mile, PM. Of course having Biblical quotes on rifle scopes will matter to the Islamists. It's all the proof they need to propagandize that they're the targets of a religious pogrom from the Satanic West, for which the label "War on Terror" is just a smokescreen. That this may not actually be the case — that these scopes are merely the product of a stupid company servicing stupid soldiers, all of whom are too stupid to know when not to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater — hardly matters. They've been given all the agitprop fuel they need to boost their jihad/terrorist activities with renewed vigor (which is what I meant by "re-radicalized").Long and short of it is, we're not doing a good job winning hearts and minds over there. And this just makes a bad situation worse.

  20. 20
    Philosopher's Mess

    @ Martin Well at least with your last response I can see you that you can understand the broader sources of the conflict, but recognize that what you listed has more to do with socio-political concerns, then a problem of religion, which is the Atheist ideology I was referring to. And where you have gone is irrelevant, a lot of people go a lot of places and it doesn't mean anything. But, and this question will reveal the problems of your atheist ideology, how would you suggest, from your secular, atheist position, we go about winning "the heart and minds" of those terrorists? Explain the lack of scientific proof in their beliefs? Maybe trash the inconsistencies in the Koran? Maybe indoctrinate them in the way of your rationalist skepticism? Yeah, that would work and be just.Oh and I’m sorry were the terrorists having trouble propagandizing their message before this? It seems to me the terrorist were doing just fine, rifle issue or not, in corralling people to do their bidding, as the consistent macabre violence of over half a century indicates. You can’t honestly evaluate all those true sources of the issue, and say this rifle issue will make one bit of difference. If those passages were not on the rifle, what would it change? There are plenty of other reasons for them to construct the conflict, as you are well aware. This rifle issue is but a drop of more fuel, which was my point all along, and why I still find your response a gross exageration. I wasn't missing the point at all. It is the real violence, the real tragedy of hate, which propels this situation, not some stupid appeal to a religious text. Ultimately, I know you agree with this (based on your own response) so I don't see what your problem is with my comments. Maybe just another example of group-think, and picking on a dissentor?

  21. 21
    Philosopher's Mess

    @ Martin (cont.)One last thing, horrible U.S. policy is not limited to the Israel/Palestinian situation, see Gulf War, see Iran, etc. But even this is dishonest and a form of scape-goating. Individuals are responsible at every step of the way, on both sides, so these broad statements about policy, or Israel,or the U.S. can only be partially true. YOU AND I ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS, so let's not keep passing the buck alright.

  22. 22
    Martin

    Well at least with your last response I can see you that you can understand the broader sources of the conflict, but recognize that what you listed has more to do with socio-political concerns, then a problem of religion, which is the Atheist ideology I was referring to.Then as I suspected, you're referring to something that you've largely invented. No atheist I know of has ever suggested that the sole problem underlying the unrest in the middle east is religion. Religion definitely is a factor, and a large one (it's hard to get past Mohammed Atta's five page list of prayers). But it's the age-old toxic mixture of religion and politics that has really lit the fuse over there. They're in an untenable political situation. Radical imams exploit the situation and paint the conflict as a war between the immoral secular west and righteous soldiers of Allah. How easy is that, especially in nations that are full-on theocracies? And where you have gone is irrelevant, a lot of people go a lot of places and it doesn't mean anything.I'm not saying I'm an expert just because I've lived there. But I've lived among and interacted with Arabs in their own lands. I'm simply pointing out I have a level of personal experience unlike that of your average 101st Fighting Keyboardist.But, and this question will reveal the problems of your atheist ideology, how would you suggest, from your secular, atheist position, we go about winning "the heart and minds" of those terrorists? Explain the lack of scientific proof in their beliefs? Maybe trash the inconsistencies in the Koran? Maybe indoctrinate them in the way of your rationalist skepticism? Yeah, that would work and be just.Come one, PM. Like Kent Hovind with his silly $250,000 Challenge, you're asking me to defend a position I have never espoused.It's senseless to ask me how I would handle the situation in the middle east from a "secular, atheist position." First off, you're conflating secularism with atheism. The former simply refers to situations of neutrality toward religion. The latter is a direct expression of disbelief in gods.You cannot build policies based on what you don't believe, only on what you do. Sure, as atheists, we'd like it if the rest of the world weren't overrun with religious loons, some of whom think it's cool to engrave holy scriptures on their weapons so they can feel even better about killing people. But a complex political situation isn't changed simply by telling a group of bomb-throwing wildasses that they're delusional. The way to settle things in the mideast would probably best be accomplished by making a number of practical changes: finding some way to establish a Palestinian state, withdrawing our military from where it's unwanted, being honest that our real motive for invading Iraq in the first place was not terrorism but to secure their oil fields. Stuff like that. Those would be secular political solutions. And I do think they'd be more effective than, say, the fevered Christian Zionism that's informed a lot of American foreign policy over there, and fed the fires of sectarian turmoil that are already burning way too hot to begin with.It is the real violence, the real tragedy of hate, which propels this situation, not some stupid appeal to a religious text.What I hope you can understand is that stupid appeals to religious texts are often what's used to justify and enable the tragedy of hate. That's what those madrasses are in business for. And it's a battle that American Christian proponents of Dispensationalism have eagerly joined.

  23. 23
    Martin

    Individuals are responsible at every step of the way, on both sides, so these broad statements about policy, or Israel,or the U.S. can only be partially true.It's all a big whole. Once people have wed themselves to a violent ideological movement, they've willingly surrendered their individuality to a bigger cause. That's what brainwashing does. That isn't to say they're entirely bereft of choice, only that the choice they made is to have no choice, to do the will of God or Allah or the Party or whatever. To whatever degree statements about policy are "partially" true, it's a bald fact that political policies and ideologies cannot be separated from the people who hold them and act upon them, and it's the radicalism that disenfranchised, easily-led individuals embrace that we have to watch out for.

  24. 24
    Philosopher's Mess

    @ Martin I am inventing things but the original post said "COMPROMISING THE ENTIRE MISSISION"? That makes sense.Everyone gather around and watchous the amazing act of a man talking out of both sides of his mouth, "No atheist I know of has ever suggested that the sole problem underlying the unrest in the middle east is religion. Religion definitely is a factor, and a large one".I don't know why it is sensless to ask you from your secular, atheist (and it is not conflation, when it is an accurate description of your set of beliefs, nouns can operate in the same sentence without conflation)position how you would suggest handeling the problem, and apparently neither do you because then you list some very sensible ways of dealing with it, all of which I agree with. And I intellectually understand your argument that it is an appeal to a text, which promotes these behaviors and I still reject it as a form of scapegoating. It is PEOPLE who choose to do these things. Words don't kill people, people kill people.Also your point about madrassas is grossly ignorant and insulting,and representative of the exact type of blind spot I accuse you of having. Not all these places teach hate, but further what type of sick cognitive dissonance allows you to list all the sources of the problems in the middle east, but then criticize those who have suffered under those things, and those who are attempting to create change?

  25. 25
    Philosopher's Mess

    @ Martin I diagree slightly with your characterization. An alligance to a certain ideology need not be absolute, or final, meaning when we join a group we don't just turn our consciousness over to them, which would once again dissolve the responsibility of the party in question. Also this same thing applies to your group, which I enjoy repeatedly pointing out, and I believe was the ultimate source for the gross exaggeration present in the original post. So yeah, isn't it ironic.

  26. 26
    Ing

    "Its silly and does reduce these people into reactionary machines."So say a few insane Muslims crashing an airplane into a major land mark would NOT cause many formerly apathetic Americans to take a negative view of Muslims? People ARE reactionary. If the majority of input they get on America is 'christian holy war nuts' they will probably not like us. As I said the danger comes from people who had a negative view of america but assumed we were morons or greedy or whatever. Now that they have evidence indicating we're actually legitamatly attacking their faith, that does make their opinion more negative of us. You assume I don't think people are reactionary meat machines. I kind of do. They get stimuli and react like any other animal. Our PR, advertisement and sociology industries are built around the fact that people in groups do react in observable and predictable ways. "A person can be smart, people are dumb, dangerous, panicy animals and you know it"

  27. 27
    Ing

    "An alligance to a certain ideology need not be absolute, or final, meaning when we join a group we don't just turn our consciousness over to them, which would once again dissolve the responsibility of the party in question"Psycology greatly disagrees with your idea. People DO in fact turn off the parts of their brain when they get under mob sway. It's what allows preachers to whip people into frenzies, get them speaking in tongues, or sharing hallucinations, it's what radicals use to start riots and what tyrants use get people to put on patriotic blinders. People can and will lower their freewill and critical thinking when under the thrall of charisma or mob pressure.

  28. 28
    Ing

    "It is PEOPLE who choose to do these things. Words don't kill people, people kill people."So Hitler was an ok guy cause he never killed anyone or even ordered the holocaust to happen right?

  29. 29
  30. 30
    Crocodile Ghandi

    PM – "It is PEOPLE who choose to do these things. Words don't kill people, people kill people."This is no different to those lamebumper stickers which read, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people". I wonder how many people I could gun down if I didn't have a gun?

  31. 31
    Ing

    "Crocadile Ghandi"Depends, how good is your aim with a repeating crossbow?I don't get PM's idea that people somehow can make ideal decisions with less than ideal data. Garbage in garbage out as they say in programing. People in the islamic world get a slanted view of america, this aids to the slant thus increasing anti-american slant in activities. The fact that some people will try to educate themselves better is besides the point. On the whole people in groups, especially groups with strong tribal/inground/usvsthem whatever you want to call it identity are reactionary rather than prudent. The religious right in our own country is an example of this. They react to bullshit news their authorities give them and then fly into outrage mode. They say stupid things, do stupid things, and sometimes one or more of them get moved to voilence, despite the fact that the data is available to them. Look at the birthers or death panel people. They even HAVE access to the entirety of information and still live in bubbles refuting that which would sooth their initial outrage. because the outrage feels good, it's easier to go with the crowd and give your sense of self to a higher 'authority'. The original false claim is given more weight because it has emotional value.

  32. 32
    Philosopher's Mess

    @ ING You are truly my favorite sycophant on this blog. You would excuse the whole of Germany, by blaming one person, and you say you have a problem with Jesus believers. So if people are just brainwashed robots, how do you uphold reason, and know your atheism isn't just the result of a similar process?@Crocodile Ghandi And how many people would be gunned down if the person didn't CHOOSE to gun them down? Next time you hear about a horrible crime, make sure to blame the tool of horror, not the person, at least if you wanna be consistent, which I am sure you probably don't. Gosh darn those inanimate, non-thinking things, for all the trouble they cause, why do they make me do it? Maybe I shouldn't yell at you for your studpidity, but instead say, "Bad Computer, Shut yourself off,right now."And duh, about the comparison to "Guns don't kill people…" that was obviously what I was reworking.

  33. 33
    Philosopher's Mess

    Definition of Irony:@ING "So Hitler was an ok guy…""They even HAVE access to the entirety of information and still live in bubbles refuting that which would sooth their initial outrage. because the outrage feels good, it's easier to go with the crowd and give your sense of self to a higher 'authority'. The original false claim is given more weight because it has emotional value."

  34. 34
    Ing

    Ok you're clearly not understanding what I'm saying. " You would excuse the whole of Germany, by blaming one person, and you say you have a problem with Jesus believers."Thanks for the strawman I will use him to keep away crows…jackass.I never excused all of Germany, to throw it back at you ..again you'd excuse Hitler because he never actually gave the order for the final solution? "So if people are just brainwashed robots, how do you uphold reason, and know your atheism isn't just the result of a similar process?"Me ". The fact that some people will try to educate themselves better is besides the point. On the whole people in groups, especially groups with strong tribal/inground/usvsthem whatever you want to call it identity are reactionary rather than prudent."To put it another way rationalism is not the default position for the human mind. Knowing what is evidence and being able to learn reason and logic is a way to prevent yourself from making bad decisions. The logical fallacies are taught because it is easy to fall into them. Now expressing my point…AGAINThere is an observed phenomena with mobs and group mania, calling me an idiot doesn't make your point which seems to be that people don't react this way. I really don't know how else I can explain it to you since you don't read what I say explaining. People==responsibility for their actions…however people don't very much LIKE being responsible so many will willingly give the responsibility for decision making over to groups or authority figures. That's not a good idea, but people do it. People over react to stuff. Saying that religious people will not take it badly when they find out we're killing them with Christian(tm) weapons, while loud mouths around them are screaming about the holy war is evidence in favor of those loud mouths. I don't CARE about whose to blame or whose responsable when I'm explaining this, I'm saying that you will in a population have a group of people susceptible to that reactionary behavior. This is the same reason there are right and wrong ways to inform the public of an emergency or a crisis. screaming "FIRE FIRE SHIT WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE RUN FIRE FIRE"in a theater gets a different response than calmly informing the people to walk quickly and calmly to the exit. I don't know how else to explain the fact that people are people…i mean take some socialology classes or psychology or human evolution class and learn about human nature. "You are truly my favorite sycophant on this blog"Thanks you're my favorite self righteous insulting, moronic troll. I don't get why you see these two things are ironic Definition of Irony:@ING"So Hitler was an ok guy…""They even HAVE access to the entirety of information and still live in bubbles refuting that which would sooth their initial outrage. because the outrage feels good, it's easier to go with the crowd and give your sense of self to a higher 'authority'. The original false claim is given more weight because it has emotional value."Um yeah I'm saying Hitler incited mob feelings. Hitler is an asshole for doing that. Hitler was responsible for manipulating people and a lot of those people were responsible for being morons and not questioning their input. It's exactly consistent with what I've been saying. These gun manufactures have some responsibility for the outrage they incite in Muslims. If you still don't understand e-mail me and I'll try to explain over skype or something.

  35. 35
    Philosopher's Mess

    @ING You brought up Hitler, not me, how's that for a straw-man? I never said "excuse" Hitler, he like all Germans operated, and is responsible as an individual. I do read your convulted dribble, and there are too many contradictions and faulty premises to spend the time pointing out each one, every time. What type of nasty hubris is it to say "I" have developed reason,but everyone else is just operating under a mob mentality? Also for the record I have taken a few different Psychology, Sociology, classes. And just because I don't blatently agree with what you write, and choose to spend my time critiquing what I don't like, doesn't mean I didn't get it. One part of the irony in the statement was that you accused me of "excusing" Hitler in one moment, and the critiqued arguments which appeal to emotionality, which is what you did. The other irony I observed was your point that people can have access to information, like maybe your knowledge of Germany pre-Hitler, but then then they can return to the emotionally comfortable position of scape-goating, or over-generalizing, like you do.

  36. 36
    Martin

    And this is the point where I put on my Admin helmet, shoulder the Loving Mallet of Correction, and kindly request everyone to take a few deep breaths, step back, come off the boil, and resume when cooler heads are prevailing.Hearty arguments encouraged. Flame wars not. Please heed.

  37. 37
    Ing

    "What type of nasty hubris is it to say "I" have developed reason,but everyone else is just operating under a mob mentality?"I never said that. I said that people CAN go into mob mentality.Ok, look you're not getting what I'm trying to say and are just attacking me, which is fine, but I'm not going to defend what I didn't say. Considering your past attitude I'm going to assume now you're just trolling and being nasty. This is the patern I'm seeing you doa) disagree with someone and conflate it with "THe TYPICAL atheist (insert thing here)b) argue with people and be snottyThe disconnect may be on my end, so if you really want to talk e-mail me or aim, my contact info is in my profile. I'm trying to be nice to you and you've called me a moron. My argumenta) Rational thought is not the default state for people, it takes practiceb) portions of a population can and will give up their free will or decision making to authorities or mob mentality. This is documented if you argue it please explain whyc) intentionally giving ammo to people who want to use point b is a bad ideaFor example imagine if it were discovered in America that white cops were using side arms with the N word written on the bullet slugs? I think it's reasonable to say that that would incite tempers and could easily lead to rash decisions and violence.

  38. 38
    Ing

    "Definition of Irony:"I don't see the ironybtwIrony: The use of words to mean something other than their literal definition.

  39. 39
    Ing

    Since I'm not sure if the problems on my end or PM, can someone else please tell me if I'm saying anything he says I am? I don't see where he's getting it and I'm having trouble seeing what at all I said was controversial.

  40. 40
    Ing

    Back on topic nowhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_military_weapons_bible_referencesIn a statement issued later by the command, Petraeus said that "cultural and religious sensitivities are important considerations in the conduct of military operations."That said, I actually think the fact that the code was discovered and is no longer secret is a bigger problem than the code actually being there. Don't get me wrong the code SHOULDN'T have been there at all and that's jackassery, but who the hell is going to recognize that unless it's pointed out? The military probably should have handled this quietly and internally to avoid giving the ammo to the extremists.

  41. 41
    Philosopher's Mess

    @ING I never called you a moron or idiot, stop saying that. I don't care if you can get more people on here to agree with you. All my statements have been simple and direct. I agreed through out this thread, that the passages on the scopes was a bad stupid, hurtful idea, so we agree on that. Yes irony, is that at and:5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected. 6. the incongruity of this. 7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing. 8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc. (dictionary.com)

  42. 42
    Philosopher's Mess

    You don't just say people CAN go into the mob mentality, you portray it as if this is the majority behavior among religious orientated people, the hubris is you think you yourself are on the side of reason.I will stop there, don't want to upset the Admin, but lastly I don't know why you keep asking me to privately contact, as this forum is allowing our interaction just fine and I clearly said in my previous posts I understand what your saying and agree with large parts, I just find it more useful to point out what I disagree with, as why would we all want to be yes-people and just stroke eachothers' ego, and previously held beliefs. Also why would you want to talk to me when you say I am trolling? That doesn't make sense to me.

  43. 43
    JD

    Looks like Trijicon caved in and has offered to stop putting the verse references on new scopes and modify existing ones to remove themhttp://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/21/rifles.bibles/index.html?hpt=Sbinthe small victories indeed.

  44. 44
    Ing

    You keep making things offensive that aren't. you're first post you nit picked about saying "compromising the ENTIRE mission" and took that 100% literal and then attacked Martain for it. Ok, look it isn't clever and it isn't cute. That is why I say you strawman. I've tried to offer a way to explain my point somewhere off site so it's easier to understand and we can track down the initial disagreement, since as far as I can tell you don't disagree you just want to accuse me of scapegoating and all sorts of nasty things because you're "notnice"(tm), and you've turned it down because I think you're happier just being reactionary. And no, this is not because "we disagree" i'm basing this opinion based on your initial behavior and your general attitude. You came into the room swinging your fists and screaming "DOUCHEBAGS!" and yeah now what you say is tainted by that bad first impression.However, our interaction has been useful since I've seen a lot of my own bad posting habits in you and now am VERY motivated to change that. I'm done if you want to keep calling me names and say I'm dumb, egotistical and a suck up, go right ahead.

  45. 45
    Martin

    Evidently the original warning was not sufficient. Ing, PM: the Mallet is now swung. Any future comments between the two of you on this thread will be killed in moderation. Neither of you are banned from the blog; I'm just calling a halt to this flamewar, now.

  46. 46
    Kazim

    It's a fair cop.

  47. 47
    Warren Grubb

    Thanks Martin, I was tempted to respond a few times but I thought it had gotten too heated and I was concerned whatever I tried to do would only fan the fire, ha. The good news is it looks like these bible references are going to be removed from existing and future hardware, so this is one less inflammatory element in this bloody and prolonged conflict, however large or miniscule its effect might have been.

  48. 48
    Ai Deng

    Long time no post here. What really concerns me about this whole situation is that it appears a majority may exist who support keeping these references on the scopes. Scary really.@ PM. Man, do you work for the company or something. What is your beef with atheism? Every group has its fundamentalists, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  49. 49
    Ai Deng

    One other thing, I saw the following comment under the recent ABC news article concerning this topic."While I understand the concerns of having bible verses on the scopes, Rachel Maddow left out one possibility that could happen from their inclusion. Has anyone thought that in religiously repressed countries, where only ISLAM is allowed and tolerated, that one might see the reference and find a way to (perhaps on the internet) learn what the verses say and perhaps out of that witness, actually convert and become a Christian? What would happen to a terrorist now faced with the claims of Christ who actually took them to heart? One thing at least, they would stop their terrorist ways! To me that's not a bad thing. Just another view point perhaps not yet thought of. I understand the verses are coming off the rifle scopes due to the pressures exerted, but I still say a Christian convert is far better than having a fundamentalist Islamist who wishes to do us harm."Such delusions aside, do you agree, this person is unknowingly advocating a crusade? Reason being, they now state they promote theistic conversion in war.

  50. 50
    Mark B

    @JD, the article also reads:"We are making every effort to remove these markings from all of our scopes and will ensure that all future procurement of these scopes will not have these types of markings"Wow, what a great punishment for guys like Maj. Freddie Wellborn who violate lower ranked atheists' rights."You are sentenced to remove the bible verses from these 300,000 rifle scopes. Here's your file."

  51. 51
    Johnboy

    Philosopher's Mess wrote:"You're talking about deadly assualt rifles and you think anyone truly cares about some letters and numbers that are on it.""They have the ability (which apparently your side doesn't) to see the difference between the actions of one corporation, and the beliefs of an entire people.""You can’t honestly evaluate all those true sources of the issue, and say this rifle issue will make one bit of difference. If those passages were not on the rifle, what would it change?"Hey PM. I think a danish cartoonist, relatives of over 100 dead people, a couple of burned down embassies and consulates in several countries and the danish prime minister who called it Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II would disagree with you.It was only a couple of cartoons in a privately owned newspaper, but it still incited violence, protests against denmark ,deaths, death threats and large boycotts throughout several islamic countries that actually hurt the danish economy. Basically everything happened what ING described here. A large group of Muslims reacted irrational and blamed all of Denmark for what a privately owned newspaper printed.

  52. 52
    Philosopher's Mess

    @johnboy I am trying to respect admin, but now I feel like my hands are being tied and people are just taking shots on defense less me. I would argue as I have argued all along that it is the pre-conditions that create these specific incidents, like the Danish cartoon. But irregardless I was NEVER defending the rifles scopes, and I am glad they are being removed. All I wanted to point out is we have to examine the larger situations which precipitate these events. Admin don't blame me for this continued debate, I am fine with it and not bothered by it, but I can respect it if this blog dosn't want to be taken over by a couple people debating(unless its a believer right?).

  53. 53
    HazMat_Research

    "holy" shit! that was beautiful! and probably going to get her fired!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>