• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

30A Skunkape

Skunky
Jan 18, 2006
10,279
2,320
54
Backatown Seagrove
Because we live in America with a free press that doesn't allow mistakes to be swept under the rug. When a Christian crazed company produces a product for our military with references to bible verses cast into them we let the world know it doesn't reflect the viewpoint of the American people and we take corrective action. It would be a far worse scenario if one these sights fell into the hands of the enemy and they used it for their propaganda claiming it was proof America was engaging in a crusade. We would all be outraged watching our military trying to convince the world it was just a mistake and not a cover-up.

I understand that some have an ACLUish instinct to shine light on anything and everything while letting the chips fall as they may.

My opinion is that this sort of expose is self serving on the USA Today's part (or whoever ran with the original story). The bottom line is that it does nothing but give hate fodder to desperate brains that can be swayed to inflict harm on our troops. Period. Oh sure, now we know that there is a tiny etching of a biblical verse on some gun components (I would have mistaken them for serial numbers or some such had I had one in my possession). But at what cost? The etching will cease and kits are being made available to eliminate those that are in circulation...but the public relations cost of this sort of "we're American and have a free press and have a right to know" report is tremendous. Had the proper parties been notified prior to the story being run, most likely the same corrective outcome would have been realized.

I might point out that I am not alone in my line of thinking. I seem to remember outrage on the part of a few "we need to see it all no matter what" types when Obama's White House nixed the release of prisoner photos that no doubt would have damaged our efforts and further endangered our countrymen trying to stabilize a part of the world that for better or worse we find ourselves in. As the President put it, "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them would be to further inflame anti-American opinion, and to put our troops in greater danger." It seems to me that running the story on the weapons is analogously harmful, pointless and short sighted. The whole photo story is here: Obama reverses course on alleged prison abuse photos - CNN.com

By the way, the idea that one of these guns might fall into enemy hands enabling them to crack 'the code' and use it for propaganda purposes is a stretch. It assumes that an enemy that favors guerrilla tactics will capture one of the guns, that he who seized the weapon can read English and then recognize a cryptic reference to a bible passage. To make my point, I invite you to, without the benefit of google or other resources available to the average wilderness dwelling Islamic radical combatant, translate this common Arabic phrase: صباح الخير:wave:
 

poppy

Banned
Sep 10, 2008
2,854
928
Miramar Beach
I understand that some have an ACLUish instinct to shine light on anything and everything while letting the chips fall as they may.

My opinion is that this sort of expose is self serving on the USA Today's part (or whoever ran with the original story). The bottom line is that it does nothing but give hate fodder to desperate brains that can be swayed to inflict harm on our troops. Period. Oh sure, now we know that there is a tiny etching of a biblical verse on some gun components (I would have mistaken them for serial numbers or some such had I had one in my possession). But at what cost? The etching will cease and kits are being made available to eliminate those that are in circulation...but the public relations cost of this sort of "we're American and have a free press and have a right to know" report is tremendous. Had the proper parties been notified prior to the story being run, most likely the same corrective outcome would have been realized.

I might point out that I am not alone in my line of thinking. I seem to remember outrage on the part of a few "we need to see it all no matter what" types when Obama's White House nixed the release of prisoner photos that no doubt would have damaged our efforts and further endangered our countrymen trying to stabilize a part of the world that for better or worse we find ourselves in. As the President put it, "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them would be to further inflame anti-American opinion, and to put our troops in greater danger." It seems to me that running the story on the weapons is analogously harmful, pointless and short sighted. The whole photo story is here: Obama reverses course on alleged prison abuse photos - CNN.com

By the way, the idea that one of these guns might fall into enemy hands enabling them to crack 'the code' and use it for propaganda purposes is a stretch. It assumes that an enemy that favors guerrilla tactics will capture one of the guns, that he who seized the weapon can read English and then recognize a cryptic reference to a bible passage. To make my point, I invite you to, without the benefit of google or other resources available to the average wilderness dwelling Islamic radical combatant, translate this common Arabic phrase: صباح الخير:wave:

I agree we don't need to see it all and the photos are a good example. Our government admitted they existed, they were horrific, and it was not conduct condoned by our leadership. We let the world know it was not standard operating procedure for our military and those responsible were to be held accountable. No need to further inflame the anti-American opinion.

You may be right about the enemy not being able to read english but don't you think the military plays out all the "what ifs"? Maybe they decided it would be prudent to ackowledge the sights exist and did not approve of them and were taking action rather than trying to deal with a PR nightmare in the future.

I cannot translate the Arabic because I'm a wilderness dwelling American.
 

Alicia Leonard

SoWal Insider
I understand that some have an ACLUish instinct to shine light on anything and everything while letting the chips fall as they may.

My opinion is that this sort of expose is self serving on the USA Today's part (or whoever ran with the original story). The bottom line is that it does nothing but give hate fodder to desperate brains that can be swayed to inflict harm on our troops. Period. Oh sure, now we know that there is a tiny etching of a biblical verse on some gun components (I would have mistaken them for serial numbers or some such had I had one in my possession). But at what cost? The etching will cease and kits are being made available to eliminate those that are in circulation...but the public relations cost of this sort of "we're American and have a free press and have a right to know" report is tremendous. Had the proper parties been notified prior to the story being run, most likely the same corrective outcome would have been realized.

I might point out that I am not alone in my line of thinking. I seem to remember outrage on the part of a few "we need to see it all no matter what" types when Obama's White House nixed the release of prisoner photos that no doubt would have damaged our efforts and further endangered our countrymen trying to stabilize a part of the world that for better or worse we find ourselves in. As the President put it, "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them would be to further inflame anti-American opinion, and to put our troops in greater danger." It seems to me that running the story on the weapons is analogously harmful, pointless and short sighted. The whole photo story is here: Obama reverses course on alleged prison abuse photos - CNN.com

By the way, the idea that one of these guns might fall into enemy hands enabling them to crack 'the code' and use it for propaganda purposes is a stretch. It assumes that an enemy that favors guerrilla tactics will capture one of the guns, that he who seized the weapon can read English and then recognize a cryptic reference to a bible passage. To make my point, I invite you to, without the benefit of google or other resources available to the average wilderness dwelling Islamic radical combatant, translate this common Arabic phrase: صباح الخير:wave:

When it comes to national security, I agree that I wish the national press could display some prudence in reporting, but that is a slippery slope and how and who judges what is withheld?

I disagree though with the idea that they are at fault (ABC)
It wasn't the manufacture, who was aware of what they were printing on weapons and WHO they were selling them to, it wasn't the government for purchasing tons of these devices and not having a rider in their contract about religious messaging on federally purchased items, but the news for actually doing their job:dunno:

All of the reports I have read from ABC on this issue, including the first were very balanced pieces(imho) and good reporting. I just don't agree with killing the messenger.

Soldiers have the ability to have many religious items (of their choosing) on their person. I totally agree with that and have religious jewelry that has been to many places in that area, even if I haven't.

My understanding is some soldiers complained and that's how(as most often it happens) the story broke.

If the gov knew about it, they should have given the soldiers a choice when they were issued and phase down the production.

I also have to wonder why this verse? I think the manufacture is most whack here. And, I totally believe that he has the right to put whatever he wants on his product, but my Ezekiel bread and Dr. Bonners soap are happy, healthy products. If you are gonna put verse on a killing scope, go for hardcore, like Judges 15:15-16.
 

30A Skunkape

Skunky
Jan 18, 2006
10,279
2,320
54
Backatown Seagrove
When it comes to national security, I agree that I wish the national press could display some prudence in reporting, but that is a slippery slope and how and who judges what is withheld?

I disagree though with the idea that they are at fault (ABC)
It wasn't the manufacture, who was aware of what they were printing on weapons and WHO they were selling them to, it wasn't the government for purchasing tons of these devices and not having a rider in their contract about religious messaging on federally purchased items, but the news for actually doing their job:dunno:

All of the reports I have read from ABC on this issue, including the first were very balanced pieces(imho) and good reporting. I just don't agree with killing the messenger.

Soldiers have the ability to have many religious items (of their choosing) on their person. I totally agree with that and have religious jewelry that has been to many places in that area, even if I haven't.

My understanding is some soldiers complained and that's how(as most often it happens) the story broke.

If the gov knew about it, they should have given the soldiers a choice when they were issued and phase down the production.

I also have to wonder why this verse? I think the manufacture is most whack here. And, I totally believe that he has the right to put whatever he wants on his product, but my Ezekiel bread and Dr. Bonners soap are happy, healthy products. If you are gonna put verse on a killing scope, go for hardcore, like Judges 15:15-16.

A-you bring an interesting perspective to this discussion given your profession. I guess this case brings up the topic of journalism ethics.

I don't think there is much debate about the inappropriate placement of biblical reference on weapon components purchased by the military. As I understand it, the soldiers concerned about this were concerned regarding the ramifications of 'complaining', thus someone in 'the media' was contacted. We all know the power of the pen can be mighty, and I have to wonder if there was any attempt to go straight to Petreus (who grants interviews liberally) and let him know about the situation off the record instead of releasing the story for international consumption. While I am unaware of specific precedent, I have got to believe that there have been such episodes in the past.

Listening to reports on our military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq it is clear that significant effort is placed on cultural sensitivity training and fighting radical Islamic propaganda regarding Western anti-Islamic intent. That is why I find it so troubling that (apparently) no effort was made by the media to rectify the matter quietly instead of broadcasting the story. Given our apparent strategy in allaying fears of Western anti-Islamic intent, running with this story almost seems analogous to broadcasting troop numbers, movements, etc to an enemy state in a more traditional war.
 

Teresa

SoWal Guide
Staff member
Nov 15, 2004
30,686
9,476
South Walton, FL
sowal.com
When it comes to national security, I agree that I wish the national press could display some prudence in reporting, but that is a slippery slope and how and who judges what is withheld?

I disagree though with the idea that they are at fault (ABC)
It wasn't the manufacture, who was aware of what they were printing on weapons and WHO they were selling them to, it wasn't the government for purchasing tons of these devices and not having a rider in their contract about religious messaging on federally purchased items, but the news for actually doing their job:dunno:

All of the reports I have read from ABC on this issue, including the first were very balanced pieces(imho) and good reporting. I just don't agree with killing the messenger.

Soldiers have the ability to have many religious items (of their choosing) on their person. I totally agree with that and have religious jewelry that has been to many places in that area, even if I haven't.

My understanding is some soldiers complained and that's how(as most often it happens) the story broke.

If the gov knew about it, they should have given the soldiers a choice when they were issued and phase down the production.

I also have to wonder why this verse? I think the manufacture is most whack here. And, I totally believe that he has the right to put whatever he wants on his product, but my Ezekiel bread and Dr. Bonners soap are happy, healthy products. If you are gonna put verse on a killing scope, go for hardcore, like Judges 15:15-16.

aleo - as usual you bring a lot of good sense and good balance to the discussion. thanks.

I think its a good thing it came out publicly and will be resolved for good. I don't think it needed to be blown into this huge horrific thing - unless there is some holy crap cover up. and I doubt it. but you never know.
 
Last edited:

John R

needs to get out more
Dec 31, 2005
6,778
824
Conflictinator
I wonder if any of the soldiers have refused to use the sight. Can they go down the street and buy another one of the same caliber? If it was a tool I used to keep me alive in battle, and it was the best product available, I'd probably not care what was inscribed on it. WSWJU - what sight would Jesus use?

Should US currency not be allowed to be spent by active duty military since In God We Trust?
 

Beauty hunter

Beach Fanatic
May 3, 2009
1,206
158
I wonder if any of the soldiers have refused to use the sight. Can they go down the street and buy another one of the same caliber? If it was a tool I used to keep me alive in battle, and it was the best product available, I'd probably not care what was inscribed on it. WSWJU - what sight would Jesus use?

Should US currency not be allowed to be spent by active duty military since In God We Trust?


Excellent logic :D
You guys never cease to amaze me. :clap:
 

LuciferSam

Banned
Apr 26, 2008
4,749
1,069
Sowal
I wonder if any of the soldiers have refused to use the sight. Can they go down the street and buy another one of the same caliber? If it was a tool I used to keep me alive in battle, and it was the best product available, I'd probably not care what was inscribed on it. WSWJU - what sight would Jesus use?

Should US currency not be allowed to be spent by active duty military since In God We Trust?

I don't think In God We Trust should be on currency either, but it's financially lucrative to tolerate it.
 

Alicia Leonard

SoWal Insider
A-you bring an interesting perspective to this discussion given your profession. I guess this case brings up the topic of journalism ethics.

I don't think there is much debate about the inappropriate placement of biblical reference on weapon components purchased by the military. As I understand it, the soldiers concerned about this were concerned regarding the ramifications of 'complaining', thus someone in 'the media' was contacted. We all know the power of the pen can be mighty, and I have to wonder if there was any attempt to go straight to Petreus (who grants interviews liberally) and let him know about the situation off the record instead of releasing the story for international consumption. While I am unaware of specific precedent, I have got to believe that there have been such episodes in the past.

Listening to reports on our military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq it is clear that significant effort is placed on cultural sensitivity training and fighting radical Islamic propaganda regarding Western anti-Islamic intent. That is why I find it so troubling that (apparently) no effort was made by the media to rectify the matter quietly instead of broadcasting the story. Given our apparent strategy in allaying fears of Western anti-Islamic intent, running with this story almost seems analogous to broadcasting troop numbers, movements, etc to an enemy state in a more traditional war.


By who? The solders who leaked it, or the rest of the military that knew about it for the last 30 years???
It is their job to rectify issues in their command, not the press. With all that sensitivity training, ya think one of them might have thought that it was a bad idea? Maybe go to the manufacture and say we need to talk about this? But no...

I had no idea that it was ABC's job to fix this issue and not report on it. :blink: ABC actually did their job and I am pretty sure that during the course of that job, they tried to contact someone high up the food chain, right before they were ready to go to press with it. I do believe that journalist have to behave ethically, but if the military really was doing everything you say as far as sensitivity training and such, this would have never gone to the press. They would have cleaned this up a long time ago. Someone was asleep at the wheel, but it wasn't ABC for once. There were not judge and jury over information, they just reported it.

***I have to add that I first saw the story on ABC and believe it may be the first mainstream news channel to put it out. But, I ran across this info about where the information came from:
"Last week, the blog Accurate Shooter reported that high-powered rifle sights provided to the U.S. military by the company Trijicon have “discreetly placed references to Bible passages.”

So, a blogger got it first. ABC news might still suck, that is undetermined. Also, I swear I have read that the man who was the contractor's father started this and his son continued the tradition after his fathers death.:dunno:
 
Last edited:
New posts


Shop SoWal Photos

Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter