General Casts War in Religious Terms

[IJ Reilly]

General Casts War in Religious Terms
The top soldier assigned to track down Bin Laden and Hussein is an evangelical Christian who speaks publicly of 'the army of God.'

By Richard T. Cooper, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has assigned the task of tracking down and eliminating Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other high-profile targets to an Army general who sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan.

Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, is a much-decorated and twice-wounded veteran of covert military operations. From the bloody 1993 clash with Muslim warlords in Somalia chronicled in "Black Hawk Down" and the hunt for Colombian drug czar Pablo Escobar to the ill-fated attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980, Boykin was in the thick of things.

Yet the former commander and 13-year veteran of the Army's top-secret Delta Force is also an outspoken evangelical Christian who appeared in dress uniform and polished jump boots before a religious group in Oregon in June to declare that 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."

Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, 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."

"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this," Boykin said last year.

On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."

Boykin's penchant for casting the war on terrorism in religious terms appears to be at odds with Bush and an administration that have labored to insist that the war on terrorism is not a religious conflict.

Although the Army has seldom if ever taken official action against officers for outspoken expressions of religious opinion, outside experts see remarks such as Boykin's as sending exactly the wrong message to the Arab and Islamic world.

[...]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-general16oct16000427,1,4015017.story

[zimv20]

omfg

i can totally see why a muslim would see the US' actions as an attack on islam.

[Desertrat]

This guy may be a good field commander, but that's about his Peter Principle limit...Deliver us from zealots of whatever sort!

Now, Bush has repeatedly said all this isn't a religious war, at least not on our part. This dude has run his mouth before on this issue. I wonder if the person responsible for appointing him is a political enemy of Bush? Who wants to embarrass him? Trouble is, he's embarrassed the whole bloomin' U.S.!

Mumble, mumble, mumble...

:(, 'Rat

[zimv20]

rumsfeld jumped to his defense today: link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/16/rumsfeld.boykin.ap/index.html)

[IJ Reilly]

Who is Jerry Boykin? He is Army Lt. General William G. "Jerry" Boykin. The day before Boykin appeared at the pulpit in Oregon, the Pentagon announced that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had nominated the general for a third star and named him to a new position as deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-arkin16oct16,1,6820671.story

It's worth reading this op-ed piece, also from today's Times. It's a bit bizarre to hear Rumsfeld claim the need for the "context" of Boykin's remarks. I mean, what kind of context would make these comments appropriate?

[mactastic]

Of course I KNOW my god is the one true God, and yours is a worthless pile of dung, and an idol to boot. My God can kick your God's ass. There's no way your God could possibly be the right one, so I win by default. Not because I have a superior military to back me up, I could have half a squad of nitwits with water pistols and I would still triumph over your stupid piddly God. Serves you right that you lost. Silly tools of Satan.

Glad to see we are clearly in the right here. God Bless America.

[Pinto]

OMG It's the Crusades all over again.

No wonder the Muslim world is worried.

If God gave America the Atomic Bomb,

Why did he give the Satan worshipers all the oil?

It's that kind of religious zealotry that gave the world Osama.

I wonder who has killed more people in the name of God.

[IJ Reilly]

I've said it before, but it fits again here: Most of the world's problems can be traced directly to people who are too certain about what they believe.

[Desertrat]

IJ, that's why I commonly use words like "generally" and "some" and other modifiers to indicate reservations in my opinions. And a lot of "IMO", 'cause opinions can be based on erroneous info...

:), 'Rat

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by zimv20
omfg

i can totally see why a muslim would see the US' actions as an attack on islam.

And after Sept 11, I can totally see why a Christian in this country could see the Islamic Radicals actions as an attack on Christianity.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
And after Sept 11, I can totally see why a Christian in this country could see the Islamic Radicals actions as an attack on Christianity.

Because capitalism and military defense are Christian tenets? :confused:

They attacked the WTC and the Pentagon, not churches.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
And after Sept 11, I can totally see why a Christian in this country could see the Islamic Radicals actions as an attack on Christianity.

i can totally see how an american wouldn't mind attacking any arab country.

i can see both sides, but i agree w/ neither. sloppy targeting on both sides.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
And after Sept 11, I can totally see why a Christian in this country could see the Islamic Radicals actions as an attack on Christianity.

It's already been pointed out why this is a warped viewpoint, so I can only add that attitudes like this are a definition of the problem, and by no means the solution.

In fact, this particular statement is quite insulting to all non-Christian Americans, and is particularly offensive to the memories of all the non-Christians who died in the 9-11 attacks.

[mactastic]

Yeah, I gotta say, I felt attacked that day. Saying this was an attack on Christianity leaves out a whole lot of Americans.

[IJ Reilly]

Unfortunately, to a whole lot of American Christians, non-believers just don't count for very much. That's an important fact to keep tucked into the backs of our brains, for whenever church-state separation issues come up for debate.

[pdham]

I hate these arguements, and as many of you may already know from our abortion discussion I am what most people would call a "Jesus Freak." Christ backed violence is what these people are preaching, and I honestly can't think about a more hipocritical thing. This is not a religious war (another absured term in my opinion) and I am fairly certain it would not be applauded by the God thats name is often put in front of it. I also believe that God doesnt feel that an American life that was lost on 9/11 is worth more then an Iraqi or Afghan. When will someone step up to break the circle of violence.

[JackStorm]

This guy is a perfect exemple of a religious extremist. And the comments he made are extremly disturbing. A man in his possition should not say things like this in public (even if it's to a small group of people) And as a soldier (an officer non the less) he has a certain degree of reponsiblity for what he says and does. Specialy concidering the religous tension in the area.

Ok, sure, if these are his personal beliefs, fine, he has the right to belive what he wants. But there comes a time when one should refraim from speaking them, as doing so might endanger others.

Now, I know some people (the ones who try to defend his actions) want to make this out to be a "freedom of speech" issue. But this is one of those moments when one should refraim from expressing ones personal views as he did.

P.S: I had to add that last part due to the fact that I got into a longwinded debate with someone on another forum when he tried to turn this into "just" a "freedom of speech" issue. When quite clearly there are ALOT of other issues and factors involed.

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by pdham
I hate these arguements, and as many of you may already know from our abortion discussion I am what most people would call a "Jesus Freak." Christ backed violence is what these people are preaching, and I honestly can't think about a more hipocritical thing. This is not a religious war (another absured term in my opinion) and I am fairly certain it would not be applauded by the God thats name is often put in front of it. I also believe that God doesnt feel that an American life that was lost on 9/11 is worth more then an Iraqi or Afghan. When will someone step up to break the circle of violence.

True, people really must stop using gods name to justify their wars and killing. And even though I myself don't belive in god. I find these kinds of actions to be insulting to people who truly fallow whatever religion they belive in and/or preach. Killing in the name of god, for whatever reason, is a pathetic and hipocritical excuse. As most (if not all, though I can't say for sure since I haven't studied them all) religions state that killing is wrong.

[Frohickey]

Its kinda ironic that radical Islamists, who profess to hate Israel and Jews, are trying to gain nuclear weapons, which, you could argue were invented by Jews. :o

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by pdham
I hate these arguements, and as many of you may already know from our abortion discussion I am what most people would call a "Jesus Freak."

As well you might, but I wonder if I'd be telling you something you don't know by saying that these views are quite prevalent. What's more, they are rarely repudiated by other Christians.

[Backtothemac]

I am sorry, you are right. Radical Islam loves Jews, Shammans, Budists, Athiests, etc.

It was an attack against everyone that isn't in their radical islamic sec. I would personally love to fight in the war on terror. Not against Islam, but against the radicals. Nothing we ever do will change the way they feel about us.

I have family that Islamic, I have dated someone that Islamic. They are a very peaceful people. There are parts of the religion that are interpreted to be violent, just like Christianity, but zealots, and religious fanatics are the problem in all religions.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Because capitalism and military defense are Christian tenets? :confused:

They attacked the WTC and the Pentagon, not churches. 1) look at max weber's (a rather famous historian) look at the link between puritan (one kind of christian) values and the development of capitalism.

2. i think bttm was talking more about the religiosity of the people than the target's they picked. these guys have a much bigger issue with christians and jews than with atheists and others with whom they have less.... negative experience, if you will, historically.

[mactastic]

Ah so al Qaeda was getting back at the Puritans! Now I get it. About time someone gave those guys what-for.:D

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ah so al Qaeda was getting back at the Puritans! Now I get it. About time someone gave those guys what-for.:D 's why i came back to the political forums... :D

[mactastic]

Originally posted by shadowfax
's why i came back to the political forums... :D

Why thank you... I was hoping I wasn't just amusing myself with that one.:)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by shadowfax
2. i think bttm was talking more about the religiosity of the people than the target's they picked. these guys have a much bigger issue with christians and jews than with atheists and others with whom they have less.... negative experience, if you will, historically.

Not so. They have "issues" with Western culture, period. The choice of targets was not arbitrary. I think you will find that fanatics respect other fanatics. Even when they have no common cause, they will express admiration for their total commitment to their views. What they are not inclined to respect are people who are not similarly devoted to a singular cause. You can hear throughout the rhetoric of Islamic fanatics a hatred of the west because of the secularism of our culture.

Another reason why this general is so scary is that his understanding of what motivates these terrorists is about is 180 degrees backwards.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Not so. They have "issues" with Western culture, period. The choice of targets was not arbitrary. I think you will find that fanatics respect other fanatics. Even when they have no common cause, they will express admiration for their total commitment to their views. What they are not inclined to respect are people who are not similarly devoted to a singular cause. You can hear throughout the rhetoric of Islamic fanatics a hatred of the west because of the secularism of our culture.

Another reason why this general is so scary is that his understanding of what motivates these terrorists is about is 180 degrees backwards. i don't think you could be more wrong in your views of fanatics, especially religious and political ones. i've never seen an extreme fire-and-brimstone christian express respect for muslim extremists. on the contrary, they roundly condemn them.

but for a more concrete, provable example, see Fascism v. Soviet Communism. they were functionally almost the same, but they hated each other with passion that defies words.

another case-in-point: this general is an extremist, and he clearly has no respect for the islamic extremists. i don't think his view of them is 180 degrees backwards. sure, his views are skewed, but saying that he has their motivation turned backwards is just pointless rhetoric. christianity is at the very least a part of their beef with america. i would agree that most of it is that they are pissed off that we can't stay out of their business, but still.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Nothing we ever do will change the way they feel about us.

How about we leave them alone for a decade without some sort of exploitation, invasion or interference? I mean, we've tried everything except leaving them alone.

There are parts of the religion that are interpreted to be violent, just like Christianity, but zealots, and religious fanatics are the problem in all religions.

Like Bush.

[IJ Reilly]

Christianity is no way, shape or form the Islamic fundamentalists beef with the United States, and I defy you find an example of them saying it is. What you will find if you look are expressions of loathing for the secular western culture, which they see as infecting Islamic culture. This is why they strive to set up virtually medieval Islamic states, such as in Afghanistan -- to isolate themselves from westerners, not from Christians. Further, I have heard Islamic radicals say that they'd have more respect for the United States if it were more theocratic.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Its kinda ironic that radical Islamists, who profess to hate Israel and Jews, are trying to gain nuclear weapons, which, you could argue were invented by Jews. :o

.......and Adam Smith and Karl Marx were both atheists, but our current economic structure is a blend of their two philosophies. And I sincerely hope when you're referring to radical Muslims you aren't referring to Huessein. I think it's been pretty well established that he was one of them few leaders in the world NOT seeking nuclear capability.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
.......and Adam Smith and Karl Marx were both atheists, but our current economic structure is a blend of their two philosophies. And I sincerely hope when you're referring to radical Muslims you aren't referring to Huessein. I think it's been pretty well established that he was one of them few leaders in the world NOT seeking nuclear capability.

Jury is still out on whether Hussein has nuclear weapons. What is known is that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program prior to and maybe after the first Gulf War. That much has been corroborated by UN weapons inspectors and Iraqi nuclear scientist defectors. He also had chemical weapons.

I think the way its gonna go, is that Kim Jong Il and North Korea will get their plutonium separation process finetuned, and we will see a North Korea nuclear test. After that, they will be selling them to the highest bidder, shipping them off via ships, and smuggled into the United States via Canada or Mexico. God (Extradimensional being with omnipotent powers) help us. (Wait, how can someone be omnipotent in this dimension if they live in another?) :D

[Pinto]

If they wanted to attack Christianity wouldn't they be bombing the Vatican?

The US was and is attacked because it is an aggressive country that is trying to control the middle east for its own gains.

[Frohickey]

More like they do not like the fact that the United States is allied with Israel. The Arabs really do not like the fact that Israel is there. Not to mention the fact that they have fought against Israel since 1948, 3 times, I believe, and they have always lost, all 3 times.

Plus, Osama didn't like the fact that the Saudis invited the United States into Saudi Arabia after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Nevermind that Saddam lobbed more SCUD missiles at Saudi Arabia than it lobbed at Israel.

Personally, I think that we ought to be not helping the Israel with foreign aid, no foreign aid at all. If foreign countries want help, they can sell some of their land, like Russia sold us Alaska and the French, the Louisianna purchase.

Besides, if we don't help Israel, and the Arabs go on a full-all out attack against Israel, how long do you think before the Jews will be able to go ice skating on Syrian glass? :p

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Besides, if we don't help Israel, and the Arabs go on a full-all out attack against Israel, how long do you think before the Jews will be able to go ice skating on Syrian glass? :p

Probably about 250,000 years.:(

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by mactastic
Probably about 250,000 years.:(

Nah, most of the nastiest stuff is only dangerous for about 50-1000 years. The other isotopes are so short-lived (but really bad) or so stable (but long-lived) that they won't be much to worry about.

Now to sharpen my CCMs...