From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 05:43:07 MDT
This is an interesting article, but I think the "Crusade" reference
undermines some good points in it (and some facts):
The general is clearly a religious nut who in private meetings spoke of how
he saw various engagements.
[He said 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."
It is likely that these ARE some of the reasons radical Islamists hate the
USA and perhaps he was referring to the Islamist label for America "The
Great Satan"?
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."
Whilst this is cringe worthy, it is simply a private conviction, expressed
to a private meeting. His other opinion, that ""[Bush is] in the White House
because God put him there" is also nothing more than a statement of belief
typical of true believers, but fairly harmless. Unless his private beliefs
interfere with his war fighting abilities, I think they are irrelevant.
Notice that the article says the general is "at odds with Bush and an
administration that have laboured to insist that the war on terrorism is not
a religious conflict" and that in his public remarks "Boykin has also said
that radical Muslims who resort to terrorism are not representative of the
Islamic faith...[comparing] Islamic extremists to "hooded Christians" who
terrorized blacks, Catholics, Jews and others from beneath the robes of the
Ku Klux Klan".
Is this praise for Bush and his tolerant, Muslim courting administration?
The article dredges up the unfortunate "crusade" reference by Bush shortly
after 9/11. It is odd that liberal commentators will go to great lengths to
point out Jihad means "struggle" as well as "Holy War" but are reluctant to
concede that crusade means "a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and
enthusiasm" (which we all know he meant).
Whilst Bush "quickly retracted the word when told that, to Muslim ears, it
recalled the medieval Christian crusaders' brutal invasions of Islamic
nations" nearly one thousand years ago, yesterday a Muslim head of state -
Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia - demanded that Muslims unify against Jews who
control the world.
I think we are focusing on the wrong targets if it is hate mongering and
religious corruption of secular affairs we are fighting. That a US general
mention the fact that the West arises from a Judeo-Christian tradition is
utterly harmless compared to Mohamad's hate mongering.
There is an odd double standard which I notice in several political areas.
One group (the designated "oppressor group") to extraordinary lengths to
avoid insulting another group (the "victim group") whilst the aggrieved
group takes every opportunity to complain about putative motives and intent
after insults, disrespectful attitudes, insensitivity are extracted from
even the most innocent of statements. The fuss about Bush's use of the word
"crusade" was an example of this. The double standard worsens the
niggardliness of goodwill on the part of the self-appointed victim and
provokes the designated oppressor.
A simple and stern "Don't be silly, you know what he meant" was all that was
required instead of the obsequious appeasement that we witnessed instead.
Appeasement of bogus complaints and hypersensitivity lends legitimacy to
those claims and reinforces the overly sensitive behaviour. Eventually we
have a situation where all trust and good faith are gone so every word is
analysed for negative intent, every ambiguity mined for slight and injury,
every gaff exploited for gain and every interpretation coloured by the
search for offensiveness or disrespect.
Bush has "made a point of praising Islam as "a religion of peace."...has
invited Muslim clerics to the White House for Ramadan dinners and has
criticized evangelicals who called Islam a dangerous faith" yet he is
considered anti-Muslim and widely hated by Muslims. His words count for
naught. A prejudice exists that defeats claims and words. That prejudice is
fed by bigotry on both sides.
Here we have a senior general in trouble because he spoke of his private
religious beliefs. The allegation is that this will inflame anti-US
sentiments who will take exception to his beliefs. I suppose one might ask
the LA times why it is publishing this generals private comments if curbing
Muslim hatred was the mission? I see little point in fussing about the
Muslim street anyway. Statements and efforts by US officials will have
little effect on ordinary Muslims whilst Muslim leaders, heads of state,
teachers and media drive home a relentless anti-
Western/Jewish/Christian/American message.
It is, as they say in South Africa, farting against the wind.
Boykin should be ordered to keep his views to himself. There is no thought
crime (yet) in the USA. It would be a pity to see him persecuted for his
beliefs, a reversal of a 300 year old trend towards greater tolerance.
Simply make his silence on religious matters a condition of his new job and
request that in the interests of community relations Boykin's private
beliefs not be over reported. End of story.
Lastly, I had to laugh at this:
"Pollster John Zogby says that public opinion surveys throughout the Arab
and Islamic world show strong negative reactions to any statement by a U.S.
official that suggests a conflict between religions or cultures."
Mr Zogby (is that a ZOG - Zionist Occupation Government- reference? I feel
offended!), you might find that public opinion surveys throughout the Arab
and Islamic world show strong negative reactions to any statement by a U.S.
official FULL STOP
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 16 October 2003 20:44
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: General Casts War in Religious Terms
[Blunderov]
Crusade? What crusade?
Best Regards
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-general16oct16.story
By Richard T. Cooper, Times Staff Writer
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.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 05:43:36 MDT