While I agree that in a stateside training situation, they soldiers should have been prohibited in carrying weapons into the chapel, in theater it makes no difference. As for becoming a legitimate military target under the Geneva Conventions, it's not like our enemy in Iraq would even care about LOAC. They don't abide by any of the rules of war. They repeatedly use our self-restrictions against us. Good thing they aren't winning. If we ever caught any of their leaders alive, we should hold war crimes trials. But then again, who wants to see another show of the defendants scoffing at the authority of an internationally recognized court, simply to be mocked by peaceniks as unlawful. There will be people calling for the end to death sentences, 5 star POW status, $100 meals per day, visitations, high profile lawyers working pro-bono (even though the terrorists have their own lawyers, why pay for one when we will give them plenty for free). The Geneva Conventions aren't effective if only one side actually abides by them. Weapons in the Chapel while NOT under attack shouldn't even be a front page news story.
Let's cut the BS. The problem was the picture on display for the whole world to see. It resembeled pictures posted by Muslem extreemists. Guns and religion is the Islamist creed not the Christians. There should be no problem with recruits bringing their weapons to services or even to "God's basic training." They just have to work on the image problem. Don't give the impression of Christian armed extreemists.
Originally posted by bill_kananen: Let's cut the BS. The problem was the picture on display for the whole world to see. It resembeled pictures posted by Muslem extreemists. Guns and religion is the Islamist creed not the Christians. There should be no problem with recruits bringing their weapons to services or even to "God's basic training." They just have to work on the image problem. Don't give the impression of Christian armed extreemists.
Originally posted by bill_kananen: Let's cut the BS. The problem was the picture on display for the whole world to see. It resembeled pictures posted by Muslem extreemists. Guns and religion is the Islamist creed not the Christians. There should be no problem with recruits bringing their weapons to services or even to "God's basic training." They just have to work on the image problem. Don't give the impression of Christian armed extreemists.
for the first time evah I can say i agree with you.
Might I add that this kind of crap the media focus on is why the public turns against the miliary- its not worthy of getting so worked up about. deal with it and move on.
ya bring your rifle to mass cause the scumbag f3ck enemey dont care about that- they will attack anywhere-anytime. We play by the rules and let them hide behind their religon/temples.
Originally posted by usmc_family: This whole flap has the aroma of religion and the military being deliberately mixed, to serve political purposes.
And that is IMHO not a pleasant aroma. It taints both religion *and* the military.
From the article:
quote:
"The Geneva Convention does not allow American troops to bring firearms into a chapel or hospital lest it become a target for the enemy," said Mikey Weinstein, whose Military Religious Freedom Foundation discovered the "God's Basic Training" program at Fort Jackson and incorporated it and the photos into a lawsuit the foundation has brought against the Pentagon.
Weinstein is representing a soldier claiming he was harassed for being an atheist. He is looking for evidence to bolster his clients lawsuit. I agree it does have an aroma ... but then again, many lawsuits do.
so says a quote " we have seen the ememy and it is us" has never been more true. muslim extemists dont do nearly the damage to us that we do to ourselves with our own anti-amerikanism from within.
Well I for one don't have a problem with it. These soldiers are in a war zone. They could, at least in theory, be attacked at any time. It would be alittle bit silly and dangerous for them to have to stack their weapons outside. And while I don't claim to have a "hot line" to the Almighty, I really don't think he minds.
I always find it rather annoying that over and over again people want to get in the way when it comes to the methods the Military used to enforce relistic training, Training is what we do. and Train how you fight. very important philosophy for the was we do things in the army...we carry weapons to church in a combat zone...so we should do them stateside as well.
Maybe the Pentigon changed the rules because terrorists never honored the Geneva Convention and that is why they are called terrorists instead of combatants. Being able to addapt to tactical changes insures survival. It is unfortunate that people can't have the level of peace required to visit the house of God without a weapon. Last I heard Muslims couldn't go to a their house of worship in peace because the terrorists have been know to bomb such places. I love how the terrorist talk about a love for God then set off a bomb in Gods house because the people their refuse to join the terrorists. I suspect that is why they are going to loose and are most likely having trouble finding recruits. Even a deaf and dumb person can see, God has nothing to do with terrorist ideoligy. Hang in their Iraq and to our men and wemon know that God is on your side.
Originally posted by bill_kananen: Let's cut the BS. The problem was the picture on display for the whole world to see. It resembeled pictures posted by Muslem extreemists. Guns and religion is the Islamist creed not the Christians. There should be no problem with recruits bringing their weapons to services or even to "God's basic training." They just have to work on the image problem. Don't give the impression of Christian armed extreemists.
You hit the nail right on the head. The whole issue is about image manipulation. Maybe it kinda sucks , but we have to avoid going " ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS " in the media. Geneva Convention considerations have nothing to do with it
ya bring your rifle to mass cause the scumbag f3ck enemey dont care about that- they will attack anywhere-anytime. We play by the rules and let them hide behind their religon/temples.
but we have to avoid going " ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS "
Why? Is that because it would be "politically incorrect"? Or is there some other deep, dark, diabolical reason? And yep, I've heard of the Crusades, but they were a long time ago.
While I've never been a regular church-goer, I don't ever recall taking a weapon into a chapel at Ft Bragg.
However, I recall many open-air services being administered in the field by Army Chaplains and everyone's weapon was exactly where it was supposed to be - in the soldier's possession. I'm not certain where this applies in the Geneva Conventions beyond the idea that houses of worship are not to become protected armories.
What bugs me most is the "Crusader" image...that somehow killing one's fellow man is seen as doing God's work.
What's the issue? The religious service or the rifles? While I was stationed in Koreabackin 1962-1963 with all of the crap that was going on, we carried are rifles every where. We just took out the magazine when we entered a building. I see no problem. But, I'am just an old grunt.
