Ironworks Gaming Forum - Senior U.S. general says Muslims worship 'idol'

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Senior U.S. general says Muslims worship 'idol' (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76301)

Just what we need, more extremists to fuel the flames of a holy war. I think this guy should get reassigned as a sign to American Muslims as well as Muslims around the world, that we truly are at war with criminal terrorists, not with Islam.

Article

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declined on Thursday to criticize a senior Pentagon intelligence official who has told Christian gatherings that Muslims worship an ''idol'' and not ''a real God,'' and instead praised the general's ''outstanding'' military record.

Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and war-fighting 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.

'THE ENEMY IS A GUY CALLED SATAN'
''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 reminded reporters that Bush has said ''the war on terrorism is not a war against a religion.''
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based civil rights group, called Boykin's comments ''bigoted,'' and demanded the Pentagon reassign him.
''Putting a man with such extremist views in a critical policy-making position sends entirely the wrong message to a Muslim world that is already skeptical about America's motives and intentions,'' said Nihad Awad, the group's executive director.
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.

Reassign him?

How about charging him with 'Conduct Unbecoming an Officer' and for 'bringing the service into disrepute'?

Then follow that up with a nice posting to Alaska...

[ 10-17-2003, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

That is indeed not a very smart thing to say in times like this. :rolleyes:

Sorry guys, but I have to disagree here. The officer in question is also an evangelical Christian, which means he feels a strong commitment to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians that feel this kind of commitment also feel that God comes first in their life before anything else - including job, family, etc. The comments he made were done so in church and at prayer breakfasts. That is a perfectly acceptable forum for expressing religious beliefs. If he were making these same comments in his morning prep talks to the troops, that would be different.

I also can't help but wonder how "offensive" his statements would be if he were Muslim and was being critical of the Christian God in his prayer breakfasts and church sermons. I wouldn't be surprised to see a far less vilification of his comments and a much smaller outcry for his reassignment. Instead, we would be hearing arguments that the military ought to respect his religious beliefs.

However, I do agree with Johnny that this may not be the best time for him to make these kind of comments.

[ 10-17-2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:


I also can't help but wonder how "offensive" his statements would be if he were Muslim and was being critical of the Christian God in his prayer breakfasts and church sermons. I wouldn't be surprised to see a far less vilification of his comments and a much smaller outcry for his reassignment. Instead, we would be hearing arguments that the military ought to respect his religious beliefs.

Oh, have no fear; I, at least, have ample venom in reserve for demagogues of all shapes and brands ;)

Nothing wrong with having those views or making the coments. He's just in the wrong job.

Actually, he is a RETIRED General, however is an Under Secretary in the Defense Department that happens to be overseeing these operations. In otherwords he is a civilian. My personal view is that he needs to be re-assigned to another part of the Pentagon or asked to leave so that he can go back to his speaking circuit. His creditials are impeccable though as a soldier.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
we truly are at war with criminal terrorists, not with Islam.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chewbacca:
we truly are at war with criminal terrorists, not with Islam.

And what if Islam is at war with America, American values, American attitudes, American people and American religious freedoms? What then?

By at war I mean, at odds with, and presenting a hostile and revolutionary life ideology, with implimentation through proselytisation, terrorism, the free market, politics and any other means.

What then? [/QUOTE]There is no "what then" because that is not the case, ask Muhammad Ali.

Like President Bush said: terrorists have hijacked a religion.

Certain extremist Christians are at odds with the American people, American values, American attitudes, and American religious freedom but doesn't mean they all are. Same logic applies to Islam.

Casting Muslims with a broad brush and painting Islam on the whole as at "war" with America is nothing more than a sensational generalization. There is no "what then".

Of course if extremists like this General use there power to wage holy war and demonize the "whole" of Islam for some of it's self- proclaimed "parts" then we may very well have a war with Islam. For Islam would have no choice but to defend itself from perceived "Christian agression".

[ 10-17-2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Sorry guys, but I have to disagree here. The officer in question is also an evangelical Christian, which means he feels a strong commitment to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians that feel this kind of commitment also feel that God comes first in their life before anything else - including job, family, etc. The comments he made were done so in church and at prayer breakfasts. That is a perfectly acceptable forum for expressing religious beliefs. If he were making these same comments in his morning prep talks to the troops, that would be different.

I also can't help but wonder how "offensive" his statements would be if he were Muslim and was being critical of the Christian God in his prayer breakfasts and church sermons. I wouldn't be surprised to see a far less vilification of his comments and a much smaller outcry for his reassignment. Instead, we would be hearing arguments that the military ought to respect his religious beliefs.

However, I do agree with Johnny that this may not be the best time for him to make these kind of comments.

I'll discredit extremism, whether it is Islamic or Christian.

This fellow having a prominent position in the war on Terror, the War on "hijacked Islam", sends a message to Muslims that we don't tolerate it when Extremist Muslims call for holy war, but we will overlook it when Extremist Christians do.