I wonder what is written on these bombs?

Perhaps something like these. . .

"Hi There!" is always good.

Damm right.

Define 'they'.

I think we were talking about a group of people who may or may not be offended by markings on a scope. We are worried about offending a group of people we are already looking at through these scopes though, so... who gives a damn.

To make my position perfectly clear: I don't care about the markings. While I am a Christian I think stuff like that is just hokey. I don't own the company though, so that is their choice. What I do care about is the sad little people running around crying, "aaaagggghhh, we might have offended someone!".

I agree with, the "sad little people" of the PC brigade, are not my concern, but if Petraeus and McCrystal feel it gives the enemy a propaganda advantage, then it must be rectified. It's our absolute obligation to support our field commanders in any, and every, way possible.

If our generals want it off then the company has to choose between their verses and their contracts. Seems pretty easy to me. I do support the generals on this but I wonder if they'd have become involved if it weren't for the PC brigade in the first place.

If it weren't for the PC brigade, it probably wouldn't have become an propaganda opportunity for the baddies. But that's a moot point now.

Unfortunately thats correct, xob.

Most importantly, will it hit what I want when I put the crosshairs on it. I doubt most of them care. I suspect that the majority of those who care are not from the country of distribution. They are just happy to have something other than iron sights on the back of an AKS.

I think it was all the muslim people who are NOT terrorists that they are worried about offending and or turning into terrorists because of these microscopic writing on a piece of ancillary equipment.

That makes sense. I can just hear Abdul now, "Mohammed, they have verses on some of their scopes! I will quit being an accountant today and blow myself up in protest!"

Straw-carrying camels originated in the Middle East.

audible laugh. thanks HM.

fixed that for ya.

This ran on NPR's All Things Considered and I think it is good food for thought on this topic. Take a moment and read what an ex-marine who served in Iraq has to say.

Hold The Hallelujah: The Perils Of Rifles And Religion
by Benjamin Busch

Benjamin Busch was an infantry officer in the United States Marine Corps. His memoir, 'Bearing Arms', recently appeared in 'Harper's' and his photographs from Iraq have been featured in 'Five Points', and 'War, Literature, & the Arts'. His newest essay, 'Growth Rings', is in the current issue of the 'Michigan Quarterly Review'. He lives in Michigan with his wife and their two daughters.

As a Marine invading Iraq in 2003, I thought we actively separated church and state from our motives.

I know that Scripture embedded in the obscure numbers on rifle scopes may seem like a small detail, and that manufacturer Trijicon likely intended no particular malice by placing biblical references on its equipment. Like, 2COR4:6 represents 2 Corinthians 4:6, "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." There seems to have been neither marketing nor secrecy associated with the presence of these inscriptions.

But these are not innocent times, and the codes are still messages printed and sent out. These notes have now been read and exposed, and we have the baggage of explaining ourselves to people convinced that many of our actions are motivated by religion instead of self-defense, justice or altruism.

As a Marine, I aimed at Iraq through rifle scopes, my vision amplified. When viewing other cultures, even enemies, I think we should be wary of seeing them through a lens marked by religion.

The United States is fighting Islamic extremists. But we are not Christian extremists. When I returned for my second tour in 2005, we were in the embattled city of Ramadi, and we fought jihadists, tribal factions and criminals alongside almost entirely Muslim Iraqi soldiers. It was impossible to segregate the ambitions of singular religions then.

Although the rifle equipment was stamped as a private act by a private company, it was sold to governments, and therefore unavoidably and knowingly coupled with politics. Biblical quotes were thoughtfully chosen — thoughtful enough not to be allowed as innocent of larger context.

By branding weapons with Christian messages, there is a deep and ugly blending of religion, politics and bloodshed, and it has unwittingly painted our government and military with the embarrassing language of "crusade."

America is largely composed of people who consider themselves Christian, separated by various interpretations of the same book. But I did not go onward as a Christian soldier. I went forth as an American, a Marine. I was sent by my country to fight a threat, and thereafter with the best intentions of democracy, not theocracy.

Our efforts in the Middle East were complicated enough, and small symbols are examined carefully by our opponents. Based on my understanding of the teachings of Christ, he would be very disappointed to see his Gospel assigned to war of any kind in the first place.

I leave you with a verse that has not been stamped on our weapons: "But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you" — Matthew 5:44.

Good post Chris.

Very well put.

That was compelling.

This eloquently states the issue at hand.

Agreed.

He recognized that perceptions are not always an issue of PC but rather understanding how words and actions may be interpreted by others.

I'm relatively sure we all realize that.

I must have been confused by the most recent references to the PC Brigade.

The question was never whether something could be interpreted in a way other than it was intended.

wow

Politicaly Correct, is not about politics, it's about not saying/doing anything, that anyone, anywhere, might perceive as offensive. Even if it's the truth.

Politically Correct may mean that now; but it started out referring to the attempt not to offend particular groups of people with language that had become loaded. So, it became politically incorrect to talk about 'the little woman' or 'the fairer sex' and became equally politically incorrect to talk about 'darkies' or 'our dusky cousins'.

I am often bemused by how much effort people put into arguing their right to offend. and equally bemused by the level of venom aimed at those who would choose to temper language in an effort not to cause undue offence.

There seems far more venom directed at the 'PC brigade' than at the people who are causing offence by using outdated and offensive language to describe groups of people. Likewise there is far more venom in here for those who would seek not to offend moslems generally through clumsy inclusion of bible verses on gun sights, than there is for a company who was clumsy enough to include those verses in the first place.

Anybody who is offended, or claims an awareness of the potential for offence gets lumped in to a big group and discounted instantly. More disturbingly, given the context of this discussion, is that any moslem who might be offended by this is assumed to be 'the enemy' ... any moslem in Afghanistan should apparently be more concerned by why they are being sighted with this equipment than what is written on it...in other words, all Afghan Moslems are the enemy.

Political Correctness never lacked the Thought Police* features even from its inception. It has grown into a tyranny of non-think. It must be overthrown.


*Blatant 1984 reference.

Why is that necessary? If you don't know who wants to cut your head off, DanaC, I'd say you're missing a fundamental right there. And you can imagine why they'd want to cut your personal head off, can't you?

And you know they wouldn't be right or righteous, yet would be by some jerkass philosophy entirely Politically Correct.

Not their right to offend, not at all. Its their right to not have so much of what is said or done be misconstrued or misinterpreted as an offense when it was not intended as such. The issue, I think, for some is that we have become overly concerned about unintentionally offending anyone, that we almost can't say anything to anyone. It really is getting ridiculous.
Anybody who is offended, or claims an awareness of the potential for offence gets lumped in to a big group and discounted instantly.
Not true. Not even close.
Let me play Devil's advocate here - just for the topic of discussion. (I'm afraid already this is gonna go really badly)

1) Does the company not have the right to express their religion in a very VERY unobtrusive way? These markings were on their scopes long before any of this started. The situation has changed since then. Apparently the need to change as well. If so,

I and many many others are offended by those people who wish to cover their entire faces as if they were about to commit a crime. I find it politically incorrect for them to wear this type of extremely concealing clothing especially in these troubling and difficult times.

Bemused, befuddled and bewildered beyond belief.

You are exaggerating Classicman. The "PC is taking over our language" bandwagon is easy to get on but its not reality.

Obviously this is generalized, but really see two types of political correctness. One tries to eliminate things that attacks entire groups of people and the other tries to eliminate things that do not attack entire groups of people. Examples of the first are racist, sexist, and homophobic words or something like putting a confederate flag outside an African American cultural center. Examples of the second are words such as black (not an insulting word to vast majority) or actions such as Christmas lights or putting up the confederate flag in a "state's pride" manner.

Personally, I believe the first type is legitimate political correctness and the second is not legitimate and used by insecure overly offended people who are looking for attention (there is an obvious gray area but I am ignoring that for this). And fuck those people. Unless you speak publically or that insecure person holds some power over you, you are usually fine.

I guess they realize it, but they don't care. That doesn't help.

Hey there spexxie - you really think the post of mine you quoted is the same as the others?

So speaketh the urbane one; handily leaping into the conceptual trap to which I was referring in the first place.

My point, UG, is that people have raised the potential issue of 'moslems' being given the wrong impression about the nature of this war: to whit, that it is a Christian 'crusade' against Islam. Other people have responded by suggesting that those who might take offence (i.e. moslems) are the enemy and should be more concerned with why they are being sighted in the gun sights in the first place; or, as you so neatly suggest, are the ones who might be wanting to cut my head off. Thereby confirming that, as far as you are concerned, any moslem is apparently slotted into the category of enemy in this conflict.

I don't really think any of the people who've raised objections to the bible verses were doing so because they think it might offend a Taleban or AQ fighter. The problem is that it might offend, or more importantly exacerbate perceptions of the war as a Christian crusade amongst other moslems - y'know...the ones we aren't fighting. Maybe even the ones who are our allies; our comrades; and the people we are hoping to 'liberate'.

I gotcha. I understand this. Again how far do we go? When they feel that celebrating Christmas is offensive or going to church or or or whatever. How far do we go so that we don't UNINTENTIONALLY offend someone.

Oh and are they doing the same for us? Not trying to start a a tit for tat here. Just asking.

Also, You didn't respond to the scenario I presented you. :(

Sorry m'dear: I need to think about that post before I respond :P

As to the offence at celebrating Christmas etc: there are a few cases where that is genuine, but more often than not it is invented by bored journalists and racist dickheads.

Case in point: I get told at least 3 or 4 times every year that 'we can't even put Christmas decorations up in Bradford city centre anymore because it might offend the moslems/pakis'. This story has been doing the rounds for at least 5 years and is complete bulllshit. I've had people trot it out to me when I've been doorknocking/canvassing; I've seen it trotted out in readers' letters to local newspapers 9and equally ludicrous equivalents in national newspapers).

I know for a fact, because I shop in Bradford every fucking Christmas, that there are Christmas decorations there every year. Not just 'holiday' decorations; but proper, Christmas decorations, up to and including a fuck off big manger scene in front of the city hall and christmas trees in the main square and all the smaller centres.

I hear the same thing said of Halifax centre again, it's bollocks) and Leeds 9again bollocks).

The fact that it is patently untrue has unfortunately not stopped it becoming perceived wisdom. It is more or less accepted by a large sector of the population (according to various surveys conducted by the Searchlight organisation) that these stories are true.

Similarly: a huge furore erupted in the press (local and national) about councils not allowing St George flags to be hung in their town halls on St George's day 'for fear of offending moslem/pakis'. It is possible an isolated number of councils did make that rather silly decision. But, it is trotted out regardless of the truth. I have had people tell me that our council won;t allow St george flags to be hung on St George's day. Again, i know this is false. I work in the town hall: there was a bloody great big St George flag hung on the wall of the great hall. The same accusation was made of police for stopping people having st george flags on their cars. People were up in arms because it was 'so as not to offend moslems/pakis'. In actual fact it was a road safety issue, because there had been a number of incidents on motorways, where the little plastic flags on the back of the car had broken off and flown back into the window of the car behind.

As a local politician I find myself being told this stuff again and again. The percentage of these stories that have any basis in truth is miniscule. The weight of them all taken together serves to create a general sense of 'PC gone mad' and 'native English people as second class citizens in their own land'.

There are, from time to time, occasions where an attempt not to create offence goes awry. Someone makes a bad call. But, there are also occasions when someone's lack of sensitivity to a potential for offence also goes awry and someone likewise makes a bad call. These days, people are less likely to be offended by examnples of institutional and overt racism; because the social changes that we refer to as 'PC' have changed the landscape.

The world is not perfect. But, truly, I'd rather someone end up accidentally getting in hot water now and again because someone hasbeen over zealous ion their attempts to avoid offence, than we return to a time when deeply offensive and bigotted language and policy was the norm in public service and the workplace.

The liberal media won't let me say grace at my dinner table, in my own house!!!1

They stopped me saying The Lord's Prayer before bed!

See! See! There's proof! The Moslems/Pakis are ruining everything... on two continents. Well a continent and a piddly island. :right:

Hey! that piddly island was once Great ya know!

Amen.
Based on the replies, I believe we need to entertain the idea that for a group of war supporters this is, by nature, a Crusade.

Here's a clip from Charlie Brooker's Newswipe. It's a series that analyses news production and patterns of news coverage. It's a bit of a side step, but I think relevant to this discussion. It's a ten minute clip, the most relevant section starts a couple of minutes in, but worth watching the whole thing for clarity. The contribution from the Canadian journalist on the way 'narratives' form in the media is particularly intteresting in the context of our current 'crusade'. Another relevant section is about 9 minutes in: showing how footage of Yemen (in the wake of the recent bomb attempt) relies on videos uploaded by Al Q. and therefore offers an entirely skewed view of the country as being made up of jihadists.

And then they became politically correct, and look what happened. Heart breaking to see such great people reduced to being.... frenchly. :haha:

Frenchly? Who, dear? Us dear? No Dear! How Dare you? How very dare you!

You actually believe this is a "crusade"? That is a definition place on the WOT by those who oppose it and it's methods. It is a fantasy.

No, I don't believe it is a crusade. I believe it is viewed as such by some. If I actually believed it was a crusade I wouldn't have used quote marks :P

I'm sorry, I was just reading about the Brit's wine industry. :o

Your use of the word implies that you support that notion.

I'd bet many more do than will admit it. At least schadenfreude that the terrorist enemy is muslim.

Nope. But I think some of the people prosecuting the war (particularly during the l;ast administration) and indeed some of the people who support it have veered dangerously close to that. A llot of rhetoric about 'clash of civilizations' tends to support that hypothesis; as does the amount of people who currently seem to equate 'moslem' with 'terrorist' and 'Islam' with 'terrorism'.

personally I have a more prosaic view. I think it was fuck all to do with Christianity and fuck all to do with terrorism either. Given that Iraq and saddam had no connection to 9/11; I think 'we' went into there for entirely selfish reasons, more to do with gain and politics than anything else.

Keep in mind that it was a solid way to get support from large parts of the country. I don't think that our past few administrations would do anything close to a "crusade" but it would be an easier way to justify and gain support for war.

Can't agree or disagree entirely.


Agreed.

What were those reasons as you understand them?

Actually it is a term not used to justify the wars in any manner at all. It is a term used to vilify those who conducted it. Period.

I didn't mean the word crusade in my post, my bad. I meant the language and rhetoric used that made people think the administration were going for a crusade. That was used to gain support for the war.

I think there were a number of reasons, some of which were shared by America and Britain; others of which were distinct to each.

1. A controlling stake in an area important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.

2. A statement: for America I think that statement was aimed at enemies real and imagined, current and future to the effect that: if you come at us we will tear you limb from limb. Also that here is a superpower at the height of its strength; a way of counterbalancing the apparent rise of other superpowers (such as China).For Britain, I think the statement was more to do with showing we could still be a powerful nation, if only by association, and that we could still 'punch above our weight'.

3. Wars, at their start, as long as they are fought elsewhere and can be justified, however rudimentary and fragile the logic of that justification, are popular. America had suffered a dagger blow to its confidence and this was a way of a. recovering that confidence and b. winning the approval of large swathes of the population by being seen to respond harshly to its attacker: the fact that Iraq wasn't actually involved was conveniently omitted from that public dialogue at the start. Afghanistan was a more logical and justifiable target; but historically unlikely to yield quick victories. Wars are only popular if they yield such quick victories. Iraq had the potential for a fast and 'successful' campaign; with a 'villain' to overthrow and a chance for the population to feel good about what had been done. This reason was shared by the British. Both Blair and Bush had a resurgence of popularity during the early (and 'successful' ) stages of that invasion. Over here we call it 'the Falklands Factor'.

4. There are profits to be made through war; most particularly during the aftermath. Several major companies/corporations with strong links to the Bush administration have made, for want of a better word, a killing out of that conflict. Britain did not want to be left out of that and argued strongly to be a part of the rebuilding process; therefore this, i think, was a reason we shared.

I will agree with number 3.

I think your other three points are bogus and what people want to believe, it borders on conspiracy theory.

Numbers 1, 2 and 4 are common themes in conflicts going back many years. They are rarely the primary reason, which is why I listed them as a number of reasons.

Anyone who thinks we went into Iraq to get their oil or prop up the defense industry is a conspiracy theorist.

I didn't say 'get their oil'. I said gain a controlling stake in an area of the world that is important both geopolitically and in terms of natural resources.

'Get their oil' is somewhat simplistic.