NationStates Jolt Archive

Wed Aug 18, 2004 10:21 PM ET
By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Army general violated Pentagon rules by failing to properly clear speeches in which he described the war on terror as a Christian battle against Satan and should be punished, according to an inspector general's report obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.

The Department of Defense's watchdog agency said Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a top-ranking intelligence officer, used official data in some of the 23 religious-oriented speeches he gave after January 2002 which should have been cleared by the Pentagon.

Boykin touched off a firestorm last October after giving speeches while in uniform in which he referred to the war on terror as a battle with Satan and said America had been targeted "because we're a Christian nation." He said later he was not anti-Islam or any other religion.

Boykin was obliged to clear the speeches, given "the sensitive nature of his remarks concerning U.S. policy and the likelihood that he would be perceived by his audiences as a DOD spokesman based on his official position and his appearance in uniform," the report said.

Boykin, an evangelical Christian, also violated rules by failing to issue a required disclaimer at the speeches that he was not representing official Pentagon policy, it said.
More ...
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6013165

Is it rapture yet? When are the fundies returning to their respective heavens so we earth lovers can repair the damage they've done?

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion, but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law." -- Thomas Paine

:headbang:

He should be removed from his position and replaced with someone who is not an idiot.

I just don't like how my UPN affiliate os hijacked by the Christian Broadcasting Network...I've never seen more Kerry bashing on any other program and church and state are supposed to be separate? They have people on there talking about the moral downfall if Kerry is elected and how Bush is the greatest christian president, ARE YOU NUTS?

But then other evangelicals feel God decides our leaders, so technically God rigged Florida, meaning God sinned? Oh well if God wants to rig elections thats cool maybe it rigged FLA to teach us what happens when conservative nutcases and tv evangelists get a stake in government. So thanks God you did a good job now rig it so Kerry wins by 30%

I feel bad for people who gave to the Bush campaign, all that wasted money for a profiteer and his cross eyed wife.

:headbang:

He should be removed from his position and replaced with someone who is not an idiot.
He SHOULD...but is it going to happen? doubt it.

He should be removed from his position and replaced with someone who is not an idiot.

And there is the problem. Murphy's law would demand that if he was removed from his position, he would only be replaced with a different idiot. Moreover, all the similiarly like minded idiots will now go into hiding. After all it's not what a person says that worries me, it's what he does. If he says nothing but still believes and does things that makes me worry, now all I have is parinoia, because I don't know who I should worry about.

::very sarcastic:: oh no religion and government in the same sentence! Armageddon is upon us! and that mean army general said something to offend our FUCKING ENEMIES ::end sarcasm:: Cmon people! This political correctness crap has gone too far! What we are not allowed to hurt our enemies feelings now? Great if kerry gets into office america will become a group of big liberal pussies.

::very sarcastic:: oh no religion and government in the same sentence! Armageddon is upon us! and that mean army general said something to offend our FUCKING ENEMIES ::end sarcasm:: Cmon people! This political correctness crap has gone too far! What we are not allowed to hurt our enemies feelings now? Great if kerry gets into office america will become a group of big liberal pussies.

Go suck an egg, bitch.

And there is the problem. Murphy's law would demand that if he was removed from his position, he would only be replaced with a different idiot. Moreover, all the similiarly like minded idiots will now go into hiding. After all it's not what a person says that worries me, it's what he does. If he says nothing but still believes and does things that makes me worry, now all I have is parinoia, because I don't know who I should worry about.

ah yes I must say you have a good point here. It's better that they are out int he open with their idiocy.

I'm tired of religious zealots like this one giving my country a bad reputation worldwide. I wish we would teach logic and critical thinking public schools, then we might be able to stem the tide of irrational religiocity.

Go suck an egg, bitch.

way to spam kid

way to spam kid

You sayin' I should have been more PC?

How amusing ...

:headbang:

He should be removed from his position and replaced with someone who is not an idiot.
Or dragged out into the street and shot.

The Steel Legions: Iran's waiting for you. Don't look back.

A U.S. Army general violated Pentagon rules by failing to properly clear speeches in which he described the war on terror as a Christian battle against Satan . . .

Stupid right-wing nutjob . . .

The Steel Legions: Iran's waiting for you. Don't look back.

Now what does mocking my point of view have to do with this thread or politics in general? If you are going to post something then make it worth reading not just this stupid "u sux0rz lololololololollolo!1!!1!11!1" This is why 15 year old should not be allowed to discuss politics because all's they do is flame other people's points of view. If you are not going to present a valid point of view and just mock what other people think then get lost you little punk.

:headbang:

He should be removed from his position and replaced with someone who is not an idiot.

Yeah, well good luck finding THAT rare gem of an American serviceman...

Isn't funny how people love to assume what people's ages are over the internet as if that would somehow give me credulance to their viewpoint.

If it was not obviously inferable from my post already, I am firmly for seperation of church and state. You opinion seems to be the contrary. I pointed out a government that embraces union of church and state, Iran, a nice little theocracy with no "big liberal pussies" you seem to dislike so much.

You can hardly call me on not "presenting a valid point of view" when you hardly did so in your post. Political correctness has nothing to do with the issue at hand, government officials stating that the war in Iraq is some kind of Christian Jihad does.

Well, he should be discharged from the armed forces. However, I do think he is partially correct. There are other reasons terrorists are targeting the U.S. though, like the fact the terrorists are just hateful, cold-blooded murderers. But their perception of the U.S. as a "Christian" nation is one of the reasons.

Obviously, he should not be "dragged into the street and shot", like our "peaceful" neighbor from Even-norther Dakota suggested.

Yeah, well good luck finding THAT rare gem of an American serviceman...

Is it just American soldiers you hate, or all soldiers?

::very sarcastic:: oh no religion and government in the same sentence! Armageddon is upon us! and that mean army general said something to offend our FUCKING ENEMIES ::end sarcasm::
And who says they are our enemies, hmmmm? Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Ashcroft? Ridge? Certainly not the people of the US, that's for-fucking-sure.

Get crucial.

And get a fucking clue. What this guy implied was a new crusade "against the brown man who doesn't believe in our god". Do you want that sort of bullshit again? Do you want to go back to the middle fucking ages?

And who says they are our enemies, hmmmm? Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Ashcroft? Ridge? Certainly not the people of the US, that's for-fucking-sure.

Get crucial.

And get a fucking clue. What this guy implied was a new crusade "against the brown man who doesn't believe in our god". Do you want that sort of bullshit again? Do you want to go back to the middle fucking ages?

Not the people of the US huh? So suddenly you speak for the US? I bet the people who hate the war are the little bitches who couldnt even cut it in the Air Force. the Inquisition got the muslims out of spain did it not? and lets see peolple who kill hundreds of innocent people by crashing planes into building are not our enemies? What kinda pinko commie are you?

Yes I am a bastard and damn proud of it, also proud to be part of the American military so you can piss off. I used to try and be nice about things like this but I late decided being nice does not work so back to being a bastard, besides its more fun.

Yeah, well good luck finding THAT rare gem of an American serviceman...


..Excuse me?

Are you saying all people in the military are idiots or something? If so, I'd really like to point out to you how many happen to have degrees, are successful, ect. I dont know where you got your opinion from, but before you go off making generalizations like that, you should bother to get to know a few sometime.
Yes, granted you've probably met a few on forums and such, and they might have acted like the stereotypical 'AOL L337 L0LZ0RZ!' guy, but I can guarantee that there are many, many more out there who are FAR from being stupid.

I seriously would like to know where people find their opinions, because so many times, its an assumption made without any actual experience or evidence. And for that matter, I'd like to know why people hate American Soldiers so much. Its not like we say "Hey, I wanna go invade a country today." Hell, for any one of them, any day that youre not in a fight or in danger of being in one is a VERY GOOD day. But I suppose so many get the image of blood thirsty neanderthals wanting nothing more than a good ol' fashioned killin....and get it from nowhere but a pre-built assumption perpetuated by so many people since the vietnam era.

Sad, really. Quite sad.

..Excuse me?

Are you saying all people in the military are idiots or something? If so, I'd really like to point out to you how many happen to have degrees, are successful, ect. I dont know where you got your opinion from, but before you go off making generalizations like that, you should bother to get to know a few sometime.
Yes, granted you've probably met a few on forums and such, and they might have acted like the stereotypical 'AOL L337 L0LZ0RZ!' guy, but I can guarantee that there are many, many more out there who are FAR from being stupid.

I seriously would like to know where people find their opinions, because so many times, its an assumption made without any actual experience or evidence. And for that matter, I'd like to know why people hate American Soldiers so much. Its not like we say "Hey, I wanna go invade a country today." Hell, for any one of them, any day that youre not in a fight or in danger of being in one is a VERY GOOD day. But I suppose so many get the image of blood thirsty neanderthals wanting nothing more than a good ol' fashioned killin....and get it from nowhere but a pre-built assumption perpetuated by so many people since the vietnam era.

Sad, really. Quite sad.

It's probably idiotic statements from people like Steel Legions in the post above that gives him that impression. Not that I think all servicemen are idiots. There is good and bad in all walks of life. Dumbasses and geniuses everywhere.

Getting back to the orginal topic of this thread, I believe it was best put by Frank Herbert in his book Dune, "When religion and politics go in the same cart the whirlwind follows. Beware the man at the head of the cart for he shall lead you to your doom."

I bet the people who hate the war are the little bitches who couldnt even cut it in the Air Force.

Gee, is it as fun to make moronic generalizations as it looks? LOL U DISAGREE WIT WAR UR LIBERAL COMMUNIST GO SMOEK POT U HAPPIE


and lets see peolple who kill hundreds of innocent people by crashing planes into building are not our enemies?

I didn't know that all Muslims want to crash planes into our buildings. Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

Is it just American soldiers you hate, or all soldiers?

Nice. So, is it just your spouse you beat, or others?

Yes, it's nearly as stupid a question as the one you posed. Good thing, too. I don't want anyone thinking I'm actually inferring you're abusive in your personal life. So why would you want to infer that I am hateful? I'd yet to say anything about hatred, Galtania. Where do you come off bringing that supposition of yours into the matter?

I agree that we need to remove Gen. Boykin, but not because of what he said about the War on Terror. Rather, I want to see him removed (and demoted to a private) for his blantant and unjustified disclosure of highly sensitive information. On top of that, he should be relieved of his duties.

Hey, Dobbs, my posting up above was aimed directly for you, actually, so if you could explain to me why you think we're all stupid or some such....

I rather hate seeing a whole lot of my friends (Who I know are QUITE intelligent and such) as well as myself typecast into being morons, simply because we choose to wear a uniform.

I bet the people who hate the war are the little bitches who couldnt even cut it in the Air Force.

Excuse me?

I hate the war ...

Try Bravo Company, 1st BN US Army Rangers, Desert Storm.

Go suck an egg, bitch.

Hey, Blackwolf Order, I know your post was directed at me. You think I'm blind, as well as hateful and ignorant? I read it. I'll get back to you in a bit. At my leisure. Sheesh. Whaddaya think I am, some semi-autonomus drone who has to jump when you bark? No, wait- those must be your intelligent friends in uniform...

Oh, and in case I forget to mention, I've had several friends serve in the military, including one childhood friend who sustained some permanent injuries commanding a tank in Bosnia-Hercegovina. So save your breath with your suppositions.

I rather hate seeing a whole lot of my friends (Who I know are QUITE intelligent and such) as well as myself typecast into being morons, simply because we choose to wear a uniform.

I hate being type-cast as a die-hard, guaranteed Republican voting Christian just because of my uniform much more so.

I'm a left-wing, progressive, liberal Pagan Democrat (I wore, and still wear, a pentagram on my tags) and my military record is air tight. I wasn't an officer ... I worked for a living. (SSG 18B, if anyone wants to know)

Maybe I should run for President!

Bump because I bloody well can and I want more Vets to speak out against "The Steel Legions"...

I hate being type-cast as a die-hard, guaranteed Republican voting Christian just because of my uniform much more so.

I'm a left-wing, progressive, liberal Pagan Democrat (I wore, and still wear, a pentagram on my tags) and my military record is air tight. I wasn't an officer ... I worked for a living. (SSG 18B, if anyone wants to know)

Maybe I should run for President!

I don't know if you're allowed to get elected if you can prove you were 'there'...

Blackwolf Order, in an earlier post, you began by asking whether I was stating that, “all people in the military are idiots or something”, and then went on a harangue assuming that I was. Well, I don’t feel that all members of the military ARE idiots, actually. Unfortunately, many intelligent people have served, do serve, and will continue to serve the military, and more’s the pity for it.

So, many of them possess degrees. So, many of them are successful. Neither of those things necessarily infers high intelligence by the way. It’s interesting that you draw a correlation between them, though. But I’ll grant that you and your friends are intelligent nonetheless.

I don’t believe in armed conflict. Or in guns. I feel that forcibly removing life is wrong, immoral, and unethical. Murder is not a good thing, under any circumstance. And so naturally enough, I am against the institution of the military, and those who seek to propogate it. Weren’t you and your friends trained, in a number of diverse methods, in the means to kill your fellowmen?

You can say, ‘well we were trained how to kill enemies’, you can try parcelling up the population into discrete piles of ‘us’ and ‘them’, but I can’t see things in black and white. I’m not trained to see things that way. There isn’t an enemy. There are just people, Blackwolf. People. Fellow humans, with names and faces and loved ones, dreams, memories, and aspirations. We are your fellowmen. The lives of your fellowmen are just as valid, Blackwolf, as your own. As my own.

I say there is no reason for guns or any other form of armament. I know that the only way to resolve conflict is with dialogue. A long time ago I read Foundation, by Isaac Asimov. In it, a character was fond of saying that, ‘Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent’, and it struck a very deep chord within me. I have lived a life free of, and from, violence ever since. The very last time I looked in the mirror and saw cuts and bruises from a schoolyard fist fight, I felt ashamed. And I had won the fight! I was ashamed because I’d proven my incompetence. I’d failed to resolve a dispute, fought over it, and would later be made to atone for it. A very hollow victory.

I don’t think for a minute that all the members of the military are bloodthirsty neanderthals. I am troubled by the fact that you’re all proficient in methods of dealing death to your fellows, but my discomfort is, I believe, understandable. I disapprove. Strongly.

Being a member of the military means that you are indicating your readiness to follow orders dispatched through a chain of command with few or no compunctions about the forcible removal of human life. You are stating that you are willing to directly or indirectly expend lives, possibly including your own, to satisfy the needs of the chain of command. I see nothing to indicate that intelligence is a necessary prerequisite to military experience.

Congratulations on being ‘lettered men’. Congratulations on your success. It’s nice to hear you describing yourselves as intelligent. Most people do, of course.

To reiterate: Blackwolf and his friends consider themselves intelligent. I have no reason to disagree. Not everyone in the military is a bloodthirsty neanderthal. Okay, I’m with you. But I say that not everyone in the military is, or needs to be, intelligent, either. I also think it’s frightening as all get-out that you’re trained killers. As far as the institution of the military goes, I am most wholly opposed to it. I’m not under the illusion that soldiers, American or otherwise, ever say, "Hey, I wanna go invade a country today"- but the executive could. Has. Continues to, with plans for the future. I am greatly troubled by the thought that people who consider themselves intelligent continue to feed into an institution that practices state-sanctioned murder. Perhaps intelligence is not as valuable as competence, after all.

...First. I meant no insult or condecending tone or whatnot, so if you took offense (which, it appeared to me, you did), my mistake.
Secondly...Damn good argument you got yourself there. Solid beliefs you got yerself there too.

There is one note I'd like to make, however. People who join the military aren't always fine with the idea of killing others. In fact, they're quite against it themselves.
Example: I remember in basic training, we were getting an Ethics breif from a JAG Captain. When she opened up the floor for questions, one of the first ones came from a guy up front, who was in my company. "In the Army," he asked, "will I ever have to.....shoot someone?"
He couldn't handle the idea...so, why, would you ask, did he join the military? His job was to be a secretary for a National Guard unit. He'd been told the chances of him going to a war were nonexistant, and that as a secretary, he'd not have to worry about fighting.
My point here is, there are a number of people who join the military under the belief they wont see combat, wont have to decide whether or not to take another person's life.
Just a thought regarding some people's position on the matter, while being in the military.
As for people who consider themselves or people around them to be intelligent to be feeding into the military...think of this. What if the only people joining where fools and brutes, who really DID believe in the 'fun' of killing another person? I'd much rather have an organization who'd think about their orders, and really decide in the appropriate situations whether or not the orders they recieved are legal...rather than my aforementioned 'bloodthirsty neanderthals' who'd more than happily burn that orphanage over there.

By the way, Dobbs, thanks for replyin to me. Got sturdy beliefs, and glad you stick to 'em.....not like you need my approval, of course. Just complimenting. ....And I think I've hijacked this thread long enough, sorry about that.

I don’t believe in armed conflict. Or in guns. I feel that forcibly removing life is wrong, immoral, and unethical. Murder is not a good thing, under any circumstance....


How can you not 'belive' in armed conflict? I guess that you mean to say, you don't agree with it as a philosophy... but, ultimately, that doesn't matter. We live in a violent world. People - just like all the other animals - are creatures of impulse, and sometimes those impulses endanger their fellow lifeforms. Under those circumstances, any lifeform that doesn't, or cannot, fight back hard enough - becomes a historical entity.

Just by the way, are you a vegitarian? Or is it only 'human' life that is worth the distinction.

How do you feel about euthanasia, abortion, suicide?

What about the death penalty?

The issue I have with people that just fundamentally set themselves up in opposition to military presence, is that they live protected lives. The only reason you live today, is because people died yesterday. Christian or not, we are all indebted to a saviours' blood.

If you 'don't believe' in guns and violence, why not preach your peace message? Go to Gaza and tell the Israeli Army and the Palestinian Partisans to lower their weapons. Stand in front of the Israeli tanks as they demolish more homes in refugee camps, and explain to the Palestinians why it is immoral of them to fight. Then you can spend a few days in Sudan explaining why the 'peasants' shouldn't oppose the government... and how 'immoral' their crusade to avoid genocide is.

I say there is no reason for guns or any other form of armament. I know that the only way to resolve conflict is with dialogue. A long time ago I read Foundation, by Isaac Asimov. In it, a character was fond of saying that, ‘Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent’, and it struck a very deep chord within me. I have lived a life free of, and from, violence ever since. The very last time I looked in the mirror and saw cuts and bruises from a schoolyard fist fight, I felt ashamed. And I had won the fight! I was ashamed because I’d proven my incompetence. I’d failed to resolve a dispute, fought over it, and would later be made to atone for it. A very hollow victory.

I also read the Foundation books as a youth, but I think you missed the point. "Violence is the last refuge"... but being 'last' doesn't mean non-existent. Sometimes, violence is not only competent and right, but also ethical and moral.

Asimov is a very talented writer, but he isn't the Messiah. If you were going to learn anything from Asimov, you could have learned that 'life is conflict'. You could have learned that people always have to 'fight for what is right'. You could have learned that we are all brothers, 'underneath the skin'.

And, without the guidance of Seldon, sometimes "the last resort of the incompetent" is the best route.

Blackwolf Order, thank you for your kind words. I take my hat off to you. My apologies if I seemed somewhat vehement in my last post, but I felt passionately about the things I wrote.

I feel like people like myself have been asked to forgo our convictions in order to facilitate some pretty ham-handed misdirection on the part of the current American administration. And that's frustrating, to say the least.

And Mr. Idle, yes, I really honestly, wholeheartedly, super-duper with ice cream and sprinkles on top, cross my heart and hope to die, etc, etc, etc, am utterly opposed to violence. And I know, not think, or believe, but KNOW, that the only lasting form of peace comes from words, and not action. Give me another moent to digest your post, and I'll respond.

I'd like to express my salutations and appreciation for BlackWolf Order and Dobbs Town's communication on this thread. It is rare that two obviously intelligent individuals with possibly VERY differing points of view/opinion can reach and share this kind of maturity.

Straughn, thank you.

But now, I want to respond to Mr. Idle. Okay, here goes:

Well, we're now so far off-topic it's making my head swim.

Mr. Idle, you asked how can I not 'believe' in armed conflict, and then went on to say that you assume I disagree with armed conflict as a philosophy.

Well- belief is a subjective experience. I can believe in God, I can believe in Buddha, I can BELIEVE- anything I want. And I don't believe in armed conflict as a solution for anything. So...that would mean that, in the context of Israel/Palestine (and remember, this was your example, not mine), that a) it's wrong to kill Palestinians with helicopter gunships, and b) it's wrong to kill Israelis with pipe bombs. Feel free to substitute weapons. Feel free to substitute combatants and choice of venue, for that matter. Like this: Did shooting into crowds of angry Irish Catholics with rubber bullets do anything to help the British to advance a lasting peace in Northern Ireland? Did blowing up shopping malls filled with Irish Protestants secure worldwide sympathy for the IRA?

In this case, I don't have to believe it didn't, I KNOW it didn't. All those actions did was to pass on grief to another bunch of people who didn't need it, want it, or ask for it.

I'm not inclined to go to Gaza, or Sudan, or any of the other places on the planet where deluded humans are killing each other. I'm not a messiah, and I don't have any magical powers to make deluded people not kill one another. The best I can do is to talk with people, try to understand their point of view, and have them try to understand mine. Or would you prefer it if I'd instead elect to go get myself blown up on a battlefield while raving and drooling about everybody loving each other? Wouldn't that be rather pointless? How would that help advance my beliefs?

You say that people are like animals- driven by impulse. You infer a natural prediliction of violence in the human animal, because you feel this is an intrinsically violent world. I've gone down this avenue before, with people going to great lengths to describe the work of Jane Goodall and her Chimpanzees, our apparently closest primate relatives. The Chimps settled disputes with fighting, between individuals, factions, and whole tribal groups. On that occasion, I referred to another type of Chimpanzee, one that is even more closely related to us than Goodall's Chimps-the Benobo Chimpanzee.

The Benobo is notable for the fact that their method for conflict resolution is to have sex. So it would seem to me that the 'violent human race living amongst the violent animals' excuse for not curtailing needless misery falls somewhat flat. It is too easy to point at the animal kingdom and say, 'Well, THEY do it, so why can't I?'. Animals though we may be, we are the greatest force for change on the surface of the planet, in the history of the planet. Is it honestly too much for us, as sentient beings, to admit that killing each other is just wrong? Are we so utterly incapable of marshalling those supposed 'impulses' you allude to? Of course not. Were we not, we'd never have come as far as we have. We wouldn't be having this pleasant exchange of ideas right now. We'd be the 'bloodthirsty neanderthals' mentioned in previous posts.

You asked if I were a vegetarian. No, I'm not. How do I reconcile that? Simply. It was dead when I found it. Let's not forget that our ancestors were omnivores. They took what they could get. So do I. But I didn't kill it. Somebody else did. I once brought home a head of organic lettuce, and was horrified to get it out of its' wrapper, only to find the entire plant, root systems and all, intact and alive and ready to be chopped into a salad. My inclination was to plant it. Is it too convenient a dodge to say, 'it was dead when I found it?' Most likely, but it's what I've got to work with.

you then fired off a triple threat- what are my feelings on:

a) euthenasia- to wish to end one's life is saddening, but certain circumstances can so degrade one's quality of life that the option for euthenasia can be compelling, however disturbing it may be for those not directly involved. Where does violence enter into this?

b) abortion- I have yet to be persuaded that a fetus is a human being. But more to the point, it's not my place as a man to interfere with a woman's right to choose, whatever my personal feelings may be. Period. again, where does violence fit into this? Abortion is an elective (and sometimes emergency) procedure.

c) suicide- Ah, violence. Lethal violence. But commited upon oneself. Tough call. I'll go on about the Asimov bit in the next paragraph, but on the surface, doesn't suicide seem to bear out the Salvor Hardin quote?

d) the death penalty- Well, this one's a no-brainer. It's murder. State-sanctioned perhaps, but undeniably murder.

And now, on to poor, dear old Isaac, who I've been quoting for years, now. I take flack from some quarters for quoting writers of fiction. Well, I won't apologize. That's what I prefer to read. If I manage to extract a single good idea from a book, what does it matter who wrote it, or where you'd find it in a library?

Isaac was a very talented man, but no, he wasn't a Messiah. I made no claim that he was. But he did write that statement, and I have lived my life, happily, and free from harm, due in no small part to bearing it in mind whenever possible. You say that I could derive from his writing that 'life is conflict', and yes, I'll give you that one, up to a point. I mean, really- dr. asimov wrote more than 500 books in the course of his lifetime, I'm sure that you could find just about anything in his work.

You say that I could also have learned that "people always have to 'fight for what is right'". Okay, in the context of Foundation, this doesn't work for me. Seldon didn't fight, instead he 'chose' exile. Hardin most emphatically DIDN'T fight, either the Anacreonians, or the Encyclopedists- his was a 'bloodless coup'. Devers fought, but "The Dead Hand" was a war story, after all. Are you sure you're not mixing up Asimov with Heinlein? You did say that you'd read the book 'as a youth', after all...

At any rate, you went on to say that I could have learned that "we are all brothers, 'underneath the skin'". Well, you're right, I didn't learn that from Asimov. I learned it on my own. I believe I covered this ground in my exchange with Blackwolf. I would have thought that the concepts of brotherhood and fellowship were apparent in my previous posts.Are you faulting me for not deriving this from Isaac's writing?

I'm left with the impression that you're labouring under the assumption that I have, in some strange way, come to the conclusion that Foundation, or Asimov, at least, is some sort of mystic wellspring of pseudo-religious new age thought. Well, I haven't. I was raised to seek truth, wherever my searching took me. And in Foundation, I found a small, mostly overlooked little bit of truth. So I didn't find it in the Bible, or the Qu'Ran, or the Torah. I didn't find it on a Himilayan mountaintop, or at the bottom of a bottle of Whiskey. I found it in the pages of a dog-eared paperback. Is it any the less valid for where I found it?

I'd be keen for you to construct a model for me wherein the use of violence is 'competent and right, but also ethical and moral.' I say keen because I'm confident that it can't be done, though should you choose to, I'd think it only fair to do so in a separate thread, as we have gone pretty damn well off-topic throughout all of this.

My apologies to the original poster, as well as those coming across this now-mangled thread.

I'm not a Christian. I'm not even remotely religious. But I've been thinking about this lately.

I'm concerned that General Boykin and his Catholic ilk raise an important question: exactly who are we fighting? A small minority of fundamentalists? A well organised cadre of madmen? Or as, Boykin believes, are we fighting an entire religion? How attractive is fundamentalism to Muslim's, but more importantly, younger impressionable Muslims? I've been thinking about it since I was watching interviews with Muslim militants on the news. Some of them said that 9/11 happened not because that America is a superpower, or rich, or politically arrogant, but that because America is a largely Christian nation. For many of these youngsters, they believe that someday, islam will become the only religion on Earth. These idiots actually see it as a war between religions. And these weren't people living in mud huts somewhere in Palestine, these were middle-class muslims in England. And if people living in a rich democracy can be influenced by fundamentalism, it's clear that the terrorists are extremely good at influencing people and getting loyalty.

So for it's worryingly easy to see how Boykin might see this struggle as a modern-day crusade. They see all these muslims joining up with the terrorists and they see people from America and England openly supporting terrorism, and amidst all the violence and hate and desperation to protect their nation, they find something to hate. Something to blame. They blame Islam. That's what people like Boykin saw when those planes crashed into the twin towers. Muslim heathens fighting for satan. And with people like Bush in charge, and soldiers constantly encouraged to worship more often, who's going to tell him any different? WHO'S GOING TO TELL HIM ANY DIFFERENT? George Bush Jnr., the born-again Christian? Does anyone really expect him to tell his General's that it ISN'T a war against the heathens? After naming the Axis of evil and pointing out who in the world were heathens and who were good?

Sure, Boykin will get a slap on the wrist. But that could be about it. Bush takes his religion seriously. He trusts people like Boykin because he's a strong christian. I think we should all be worried that this is going to turn into some kind of holy war. All Bush has to do is claim that we're serving the will of God by fighting these terrorists. And what then? The Inquisition in Palestein? Occupation of Jerusalem? We're running out of reasons as to why we're right and they're wrong. The 'heathen card' might just be played.

Now what does mocking my point of view have to do with this thread or politics in general? If you are going to post something then make it worth reading not just this stupid "u sux0rz lololololololollolo!1!!1!11!1" This is why 15 year old should not be allowed to discuss politics because all's they do is flame other people's points of view. If you are not going to present a valid point of view and just mock what other people think then get lost you little punk.

I won't get into this discussion, but I have noticed something. Why do people who are generaly older (and think they are more mature) always think that the young people must be dumber? And if some probably younger guy posts a post they don't like, they ALWAYS use the "uh, don't say u sux l0l0l0l1111!1!", even though the post was far from it, what's up with that, it's just retarded?

:headbang:

He should be removed from his position and replaced with someone who is not an idiot.
word

He should be removed from his position and replaced with someone who is not an idiot.

word

How about someone who's not a religious fundamentalist? Do we have that option?