Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

BlackGriffen · Oct 17, 2003, 04:49 PM

What intellegence?

BG

eklipse · Oct 17, 2003, 04:54 PM

Now there's an oxymoron for you.....

Mister Elf · Oct 17, 2003, 04:57 PM

hey now...I admit our intel has screwed up before, but in general it's pretty good...

Uday's Carcass · Oct 17, 2003, 07:49 PM

pretty dumb comments. Just remember that he doesn't speak for the US government or its military.

icruise · Oct 17, 2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
pretty dumb comments. Just remember that he doesn't speak for the US government or its military.

He doesn't represent the entire military or government, true, but when a General in the army is spouting these things, you sort of have to wonder, don't you?

macvillage.net · Oct 17, 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
pretty dumb comments. Just remember that he doesn't speak for the US government or its military.

Perhaps not "officially"... but he is being backed by Rumsfield, and has always been wearing a uniform during these speaches. Which in most societies (including the US until yesterday), means it's official.

IMHO the big grief is he's attempting to make statements on behalf of the US government. By bring his job, and his uniform into it.

He isn't representing (he's actually contradicting bush's words).

But he wears a uniform of the US Military, and repeatedly mentions that he's in the military.

He's frauding the people, and undermining the psychological and political aspect of the WOT.

It's terrorism against our own troops.

Last thing we need is foreign media broadcasting tapes this guy had made of himself. Bush saying "it's not a war on Isalm, it's a war on terror".. and this guy saying it's a religious war.

It's wonderful to see this guy in uniform creating propeganda to be used against his own men.

Not very good.

My question would be why Bush is so silent on this, and not doing any damage control. Keeping this isolated as "one fools opinions" and trying to keep this separate from government operations wouldn't be a bad idea.... at least for our troops sake.

Lerkfish · Oct 17, 2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
pretty dumb comments. Just remember that he doesn't speak for the US government or its military.

anytime a general is in uniform making a speech its implied he's speaking officially.
If he didn't want to imply that, he needed to make that very clear he wasn't being a spokesman (which he might have, I didn't hear the speech) or better yet not wear the uniform when making those statements.

eklipse · Oct 18, 2003, 07:30 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3202690.stm

A leading US general has apologised for appearing to cast the war on terrorism as a spiritual battle between Christianity and Satan.

Evangelical Christian Lieutenant-General William G Boykin said in a statement that he never meant to offend Muslims.

"I am not anti-Islam or any other religion... I support the free exercise of all religions," he said.

Referring to a Muslim fighter in Somalia, General Boykin had said: "My God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

In his statement, he said his comment had been misinterpreted.

"My comments to Osman Otto in Mogadishu were not referencing his worship of Allah but his worship of money and power; idolatry," he said.

"He was a corrupt man, not a follower of Islam."

lil'babykitten · Oct 18, 2003, 07:57 AM

Was the misspelling of 'intelligence' intentional?

Sherwin · Oct 18, 2003, 08:16 AM

Actually... Isn't he correct?

At least one side of the conflict appears to think it's a holy war. If one side thinks it's a holy war, then surely it is one? Or is it only a holy war when both sides agree what it's about?

macvillage.net · Oct 18, 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Actually... Isn't he correct?

At least one side of the conflict appears to think it's a holy war. If one side thinks it's a holy war, then surely it is one? Or is it only a holy war when both sides agree what it's about?

He cast it as if WE are enguaging in a holy war.

The whole point Bush has been stressing is that this is *NOT* a holy war. We don't care what religion you are. COMIT TERROR... and WE WILL INVADE YOU.

That's the bottom line.

He was infering (in uniform) that we were invading on religious grounds.

mydog8mymac · Oct 18, 2003, 03:26 PM

It seems we're going to great lengths to piss everybody off.

macvillage.net · Oct 19, 2003, 01:38 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gious_views_15

Rice says war is not on Islam

But this troubles me a bit:

But Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) twice avoided a question about whether Bush will condemn statements by Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.

"The president has been absolutely clear that this is not a war of religions," Rice told ABC's "This Week."

Why would the president fail to condemn a statement, which conflicts his own, made by someone under his command, in uniform... which creates propaganda to be used against our nation?

It's against his intrests (makes him sound like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth), it's against US interests.

What's the hold up? Nobody seems to be asking for resignation. Just formal condemnation. Our president backing the war on *terror*.

Bush is the head. It means more from him than anyone to outright put an end to this BS. Keep the war on terror... as the war on terror.

Why give the enemy the advantage?

Lerkfish · Oct 19, 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gious_views_15

Rice says war is not on Islam

But this troubles me a bit:

Why would the president fail to condemn a statement, which conflicts his own, made by someone under his command, in uniform... which creates propaganda to be used against our nation?

It's against his intrests (makes him sound like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth), it's against US interests.

What's the hold up? Nobody seems to be asking for resignation. Just formal condemnation. Our president backing the war on *terror*.

Bush is the head. It means more from him than anyone to outright put an end to this BS. Keep the war on terror... as the war on terror.

Why give the enemy the advantage?

unknown. Its conceivable, however, that there are things the Commander in Chief might not get away with saying, but private believes and what an underling might get away with saying because he IS an underling.

In other words, this fellow could be voicing the same attitude that Bush cannot because of political repercussions, but Bush wants the message of that attitude to be out there, anyways, so he doesn't personally condemn the mouthpiece.

..or not. However, the lack of a condemnation seems a bit strange.

BlackGriffen · Oct 19, 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Was the misspelling of 'intelligence' intentional?

Sadly, no. I was very tired, rather peeved, and in a hurry to get this posted. It looked Ok at the time.

BG

lil'babykitten · Oct 19, 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Sadly, no. I was very tired, rather peeved, and in a hurry to get this posted. It looked Ok at the time.

BG