US general calls Islam as Satan
Srinivas
General Says War on Terrorism Is Targeting Satan
Defense Secretary Donald H . Rumsfeld and the chairman of the military
Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly defended a new deputy undersecretary of
defense for intelligence with a reported penchant for publicly casting
the war on terrorism in religious terms.
Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, whose promotion and appointment was
confirmed by the Senate in June, has said publicly that he sees the
war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan,
the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.
Appearing in dress uniform before a religious group in Oregon in June,
Boykin said Islamic extremists hate the United States "because we're a
Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are
Judeo-Christians. ... And the enemy is a guy named Satan."
In its report, the Times said Boykin was not available for comment and
did not respond to written questions the newspaper submitted to him
Wednesday. Audio and video tapes of Boykin's public appearances before
religious groups over the past two years were obtained exclusively by
the NBC television channel, which reported on them Wednesday night.
Discussing a U.S. Army battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia in
1993, Boykin told one audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I
knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."
Anthony
"Srinivas" <jamin...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:2ec9e9b4.03102...@posting.google.com...
>
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/7F355AD547A8358E42256DC2003
Such people are the true enemies of the United States, and they should not
be allowed to hold any position of power. They are nothing more than a
disgrace to this culture, in my opinion.
Anthony
Devon Hill
"Anthony" <dasher...@REMOVEhotmail.comREMOVE> wrote in message
news:URflb.1940$5M.4...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
Are you generally this ignorant and stupid Tony?
Thanks
Devon
>
> Anthony
>
>
Anthony
"Devon Hill" <dsb...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7Mmlb.143557$pl3.7945@pd7tw3no...
Given that you are prone to name-calling and immature insults such as have
been demonstrated above, it is quite ironic that you would call me
"ignorant" and "stupid" (indeed, since these are synonyms and their usage
together is redundant) for merely stating the obvious: that one religious
fanatic in any position of military power is both dangerous, and harmful to
the public perception of any war waged by such individuals, including the
international view of the matter.
It seems to me that when we have the administration trying to convince us
all that it is not a "war against Islam," although it is indeed a war for
strategic positions in the Gulf States and a war of misinformation. it is
not helpful to have a lunatic ranting about how they are fighting "Satan"
and their God is greater than another individual's God. Thus, my opinion
stands if this report is accurate.
Anthony
>
> Thanks
>
> Devon
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
>
>
The Department of Defense
"Anthony" <dasher...@REMOVEhotmail.comREMOVE> wrote in message
Thanks
The Department of Defense
Anonymous
"The Department of Defense" <the...@ss.mil> wrote in message
news:Ykolb.65432$832....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Anthony
"Anonymous" <qw...@asdf.com> wrote in message
news:kyplb.160969$bo1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> A bit more intelligent and sensible than what you are
It is a sad fact of life that quite a few make decisions and create opinions
based on nothing more than personal conviction and bias toward a given
issue. Therefore, we have such arguments as you can see previously, those
concerned with mere childish remarks that even one of the most deviant
intelligence could conceive.
Don't worry about such individuals, though. They will never argue
intelligently because they are not able to do so, and must rely upon such
inferior methods. This subject, however, is exceedingly obvious to anyone
who takes the time to read the post, so no counter-argument is necessary.
:-)
Anthony
Count 1
Anthony <dasher...@REMOVEhotmail.comREMOVE> wrote in message
LOL!
Here is you argument:
"Such people are the true enemies of the United States, and they should not
be allowed to hold any position of power. They are nothing more than a
disgrace to this culture, in my opinion"
To which I 'counter':
The notion of a general of the US working to protect her citizens is a more
realistic ('true') enemy than people who have openly declared war and acted
on those intentions in the form of terrorist strikes is clearly ludicrous.
Take away the religious convictions of both Boykin and OBL and it becomes
quite clear who the real enemies of the US are. If you are suggesting
Boykin not e hold a position of power because of his religious convictions
then you are engaging in religious based discrimination. While you can
citicize his opinions regarding idols and muslims, and certainly his choices
of delivery, those criticisms don't amount to the lofty goals of being a
disgrace to your culture.
They are, in fact, a testimony to the strength of your culture. Here we
have a man openly expressing his ideas, thoughts, and beliefs with no fear
of persecution from the government. And that is a beautiful thing.
The Department of Defense
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bn67g3$soi7v$1...@ID-130993.news.uni-berlin.de...
:::::: sniffles::::::: where is the kleenex...
Count 1
Good god man! Get a hold of yourself! Don't you know there's a war on??
;-)
Anthony
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bn67g3$soi7v$1...@ID-130993.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
That is true. Such people as those who know nothing about Islam and its
tenents, but think it necessary to condemn it and place their own opinions
above it, are a disgrace to this culture, a culture which is built upon
religious and ethnic plurality, as well as the desire to learn and absorb
information. People in power who don't have the understanding to separate
politics and religion, war and ideology, should not be allowed to hold their
position. Anyone ignorant enough to claim that "my god is greater than your
god," when they are supposed to believe in only one God to begin with, is
pathetic. Also, anyone who thinks that their religion is above all others
because it is best for them, assumes the role of God in that they believe
that they are infallable and all-knowing. The United States, especially in
this time of war, should not allow individuals with this method of thinking
to have any position of power, since it only hurts their interests and
reaffirms the outlandish statements of many Middle-Eastern tyrants.
>
> To which I 'counter':
> The notion of a general of the US working to protect her citizens is a
more
> realistic ('true') enemy than people who have openly declared war and
acted
> on those intentions in the form of terrorist strikes is clearly ludicrous.
You have misinterpreted my statement. The United States has credibility
only so long as the attacks against it are seen as unjustified, and that
this war isn't a result of the Bush administration's bigotry and ideology;
that is, a war against Islam. This general's statements only serves to
delegitimize the American cause, stereotype Americans in the eyes of the
world, and to destroy the credibility of the US-led war which is already
seen as a failure and nothing more than acts of terrorism to many. A man in
this position of power that is against the values for which America stands
is truly an enemy of this culture.
Americans can overcome external attacks, but when these types of individuals
are found in the government ranks, then it is much more difficult to
overcome. Religious fanatics and bigots are against the central values of
America, and thus they should have no position of leadership.
> Take away the religious convictions of both Boykin and OBL and it becomes
> quite clear who the real enemies of the US are. If you are suggesting
> Boykin not e hold a position of power because of his religious convictions
> then you are engaging in religious based discrimination.
No, to demand Boykin's removal because of his fanatical beliefs is to remove
religious discrimination, in that anyone who views all other religions to be
inferior and to view oneself as being righteous while all others are "evil,"
will be more likely to commit atrocities and are more pugnacious than one
who is unbiased in the matter. There is a separation of Church and State.
Thus, there should be a separation of military and state, as well, since
this is the merging of two of the most dangerous elements one can find. I
certainly wouldn't want Jerry Falwell to obtain a large cache of weapons and
an army. *LOL*
At any rate, I am not suggesting his removal because of his religious
convictions, but because he is going against the President's statements of
the matter and is spreading much misinformation to the detriment of the
interests of the US.
>While you can
> citicize his opinions regarding idols and muslims, and certainly his
choices
> of delivery, those criticisms don't amount to the lofty goals of being a
> disgrace to your culture.
No, I disagree. The American culture I know is one of tolerance and
understanding, not idiotic judgmentalism and intolerance. First, he is
insulting the American intelligence is that he thinks we don't know better
than to believe Muslims are idolaters, when he is most likely much closer to
an idolater, given that most Christians have idols of crosses and Jesus, as
well as other saints and apostles at times; second, he is making us look
like idiots to the rest of the world in that he can't see past his own
personal convictions in order to do his job impartially; third, we have no
basis to condemn and attack Bin Laden for declaring a religious war, when
people like Boykin agrees with him in that he too makes this a war of
ideology, and thus undermines the President's efforts to state the contrary.
He is a disgrace to my culture, this I can say with certainty. Anyone else
who desires to claim him for their own is free to do so, but I will have no
part in it.
>
> They are, in fact, a testimony to the strength of your culture. Here we
> have a man openly expressing his ideas, thoughts, and beliefs with no fear
> of persecution from the government. And that is a beautiful thing.
About as beautiful as finding a neo-Nazi or a KKK member working in a high
position for the government. I don't care what his beliefs are, but I do
care when he tries to apply his beliefs to millions of others who don't
believe them, and tries to declare a holy war in America's name.
Anthony
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mike Craney
"Anthony" <dasher...@REMOVEhotmail.comREMOVE> wrote in message
>
> That is true. Such people as those who know nothing about Islam and its
> tenents, but think it necessary to condemn it and place their own opinions
> above it, are a disgrace to this culture, a culture which is built upon
> religious and ethnic plurality, as well as the desire to learn and absorb
> information.
There are a lot of people who know a LOT about Islam who don't have a high
level of disagreement with the general. You're assuming that the cause of
attitudes such as these are ignorance and personal religious belief. Not so.
> People in power who don't have the understanding to separate
> politics and religion, war and ideology, should not be allowed to hold
their
> position.
Wrong. Freedom of expression, speech, and all that.
> Anyone ignorant enough to claim that "my god is greater than your
> god," when they are supposed to believe in only one God to begin with, is
> pathetic.
Such people hold the opinion that the god of Islam is not the god of
JudeoChrisianity. Different fellow altogether.
> Also, anyone who thinks that their religion is above all others
> because it is best for them, assumes the role of God in that they believe
> that they are infallable and all-knowing.
Now there, you have something. You're describing arrogance, which is not a
godly characteristic in either tradition.
> The United States, especially in
> this time of war, should not allow individuals with this method of
thinking
> to have any position of power, since it only hurts their interests and
> reaffirms the outlandish statements of many Middle-Eastern tyrants.
Again, freedom of expression.
Mike
Anthony
"Mike Craney" <mcrane...@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yJElb.1558$9d2....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Anthony" <dasher...@REMOVEhotmail.comREMOVE> wrote in message
> news:26Dlb.1967$5M.4...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> >
>
> > That is true. Such people as those who know nothing about Islam and its
> > tenents, but think it necessary to condemn it and place their own
opinions
> > above it, are a disgrace to this culture, a culture which is built upon
> > religious and ethnic plurality, as well as the desire to learn and
absorb
> > information.
>
> There are a lot of people who know a LOT about Islam who don't have a high
> level of disagreement with the general. You're assuming that the cause of
> attitudes such as these are ignorance and personal religious belief. Not
so.
I can also make the claim that there are those who know a lot about Islam
who do have a high level of disagreement with the general. The cause of
these attitudes is generally one's personal experience, one's level of
understanding regarding Islam and its doctrines, and the knowledge of the
many political individuals within Islam that are widely-known because of
their extremism. In short, one's view of this matter is most likely
dictated by the media and geography of the individual in question. I've
seen a wide-array of Islamic belief, stemming from the highly-political, to
the highly a-political, none of which one can say is dominant. It is true
that the cause of these attitudes many times is due to their ignorance and
personal religious belief, yet not all of the time. However, anyone who
would say that Islam is Satanic, that they are fighting "Satan" when they
fight against warlords and foreign dictators, and that their god is greater
than other peoples' gods, is certainly thinking from their own religious
belief and, in my opinion, manifest ignorance.
>
>
> > People in power who don't have the understanding to separate
> > politics and religion, war and ideology, should not be allowed to hold
> their
> > position.
>
> Wrong. Freedom of expression, speech, and all that.
It is not wrong. There is freedom of speech and expression, but when these
freedoms are undermining the goal of this administration, something must be
done. For example, I may say it is my right in regards to freedom of speech
and expression to post the recipes for various bombs and other destructive
devices, and to instruct others to bomb their local schools. However, I
would still be in serious trouble for doing so, because it endangers other
people as a consequence. In the same manner, this general's outlook is
endangering both the American troops, since many more are now viewing this
as a religious war and seeing America as their enemy whereas they may not
have previously, and the US credibility in the world where it matters most,
namely those nations who believe that the United States is trying to force
their own culture and beliefs upon other nations by undermining their
religious values.
Hopefully, no one will disagree with the statement that any general who is
delusional and viewing matters of war from inner-convictions, as opposed to
unbiased facts, must either be corrected or replaced with a more suitable,
competent individual.
>
> > Anyone ignorant enough to claim that "my god is greater than your
> > god," when they are supposed to believe in only one God to begin with,
is
> > pathetic.
>
> Such people hold the opinion that the god of Islam is not the god of
> JudeoChrisianity. Different fellow altogether.
And they are incorrect in doing so, because within Islam, it is maintained
and taught that Allah (in Arabic, Al-Lah, The God) is the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, and there is no evidence to the contrary, given that this
same God is the one who gave the Torah to Moses and the Gospel to Jesus, as
stated within the Qur'an. One could argue with much greater success that
the God of Judaism is not the God of Christianity, because Christians have
adopted the worship of Jesus as a god, and have also gotten rid of the
central tenents of Judaism, such as the strict sense of monotheism and the
belief in the God whose name is YHVH (Yod Heh Vav Heh, the Tetragrammaton),
who is not a man, nor the son of man, while Jesus is a man who referred to
himself as the son of man. At any rate, only the most uneducated individual
could regard Islam's conception of God to be idolatry, since Muslims are
much more strict in the prohibitions of imagery and anthropomorphism than
Christianity. Especially since Christianity is based around the worship of
a man (Jesus) as God, which is the definition of idolatry in this sense.
>
> > Also, anyone who thinks that their religion is above all others
> > because it is best for them, assumes the role of God in that they
believe
> > that they are infallable and all-knowing.
>
> Now there, you have something. You're describing arrogance, which is not a
> godly characteristic in either tradition.
Yes, I agree. It is the utmost arrogance for an individual to assume that
one religion is best for all others, just because it is perceived to be the
best for himself. It is also a logical fallacy, in this regard, which makes
one question the other beliefs and decisions held by such an individual.
>
> > The United States, especially in
> > this time of war, should not allow individuals with this method of
> thinking
> > to have any position of power, since it only hurts their interests and
> > reaffirms the outlandish statements of many Middle-Eastern tyrants.
>
> Again, freedom of expression.
Again, the Bush administration has not seen anything wrong with taking away
our civil liberties and freedoms, namely of expression, privacy, and so on,
for the sake of their national security. Why should a general, who is more
of a threat than any civilian in this regard, since he has more power and
more influence, be allowed to carry on in the manner of Bin Laden, declaring
holy wars and egotistically condemning those beliefs of which he has no
knowledge?
Anthony
>
> Mike
>
>
Devon Hill
this stupid and ignorant?? Or was this a particular dumb day
for you???
Thanks
From a laughing Darul Harbian
"Anthony" <dasher...@REMOVEhotmail.comREMOVE> wrote in message
news:26Dlb.1967$5M.4...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
Dan
The Muslim woman's in veil focus is her home, the "nest" where her
children are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot
that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training
her children,providing refuge and support to her husband.
In contrast, the bikinied Western Christians/Jew sluts practically
naked in front of millions, she belongs to herself. In
practice,paradoxically,she is public property. She belongs to no one
and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is
auctioning herself all of the time.In western Christian/Jew sluts culture,
the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal
Anthony
> Tony.........you didn't answer my question......are you generally
> this stupid and ignorant?? Or was this a particular dumb day
> for you???
You're right, I didn't answer your question because there is nothing of
meaning to answer, and you yourself are hypocritical for asking this
particular question. All we have to do is read through your posts,
primarily this one, to see that this situation is like the pot calling the
kettle black.
I generally don't provide answers to mere idiocy, so perhaps it would be
advantageous for you to ask something of substance and value, as opposed to
throwing the mere insults that you are so inclined to do. If you are able,
that is, and many of us doubt you are.
Anthony
The Department of Defense
"Anthony" <dasher...@REMOVEhotmail.comREMOVE> wrote in message
>
> "Devon Hill" <dsb...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:2KHlb.150807$9l5.50278@pd7tw2no...
> > Tony.........you didn't answer my question......are you generally
> > this stupid and ignorant?? Or was this a particular dumb day
> > for you???
>
> You're right, I didn't answer your question because there is nothing of
> meaning to answer, and you yourself are hypocritical for asking this
> particular question. All we have to do is read through your posts,
> primarily this one, to see that this situation is like the pot calling the
> kettle black.
>
> I generally don't provide answers to mere idiocy, so perhaps it would be
> advantageous for you to ask something of substance and value, as opposed
to
> throwing the mere insults that you are so inclined to do. If you are
able,
> that is, and many of us doubt you are.
>
> Anthony
Tony
You are still being ignorant? This is just hillarious....
Thanks
DoD....
Proud Midwesterner...... Proud Guardian of ARI....
Roy Boyden
"Anthony" <dasher...@REMOVEhotmail.comREMOVE> wrote in message
> Given that you are prone to name-calling and immature insults such as have
> been demonstrated above, it is quite ironic that you would call me
> "ignorant" and "stupid" (indeed, since these are synonyms and their usage
> together is redundant)
Ignorant:1 a : destitute of knowledge or education
b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or
intelligence
Stupid:1 a : slow of mind
b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an
nintelligent or careless manner
c : lacking intelligence or reason
Your choice.
Cheers
Roy