Pentagon Burns Soldiers' Bibles? - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 71 (permalink) Old 05-24-2009, 05:20 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2009
Vehicle: 96 E-320, 91 190E, various and sundry Euro and American vehicles
Location: N/W Chicago in the cornfields
Posts: 12,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
I did overview the special order.
So I get and agree with the prosletysing clause. It does set a bad precedence for military persons to do that in a foreign land.
What I don't agree with is that there was a necessity to destroy the books. Unless I am missing something, the order doesn't call for the destruction of personal property, regardless of intent. If you want to charge the military member for a disciplinary thing, fine, but the property destruction is a separate issue.

Aardvark
aardvark is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 71 (permalink) Old 05-24-2009, 05:38 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvark View Post
I did overview the special order.
So I get and agree with the prosletysing clause. It does set a bad precedence for military persons to do that in a foreign land.
What I don't agree with is that there was a necessity to destroy the books. Unless I am missing something, the order doesn't call for the destruction of personal property, regardless of intent. If you want to charge the military member for a disciplinary thing, fine, but the property destruction is a separate issue.

Aardvark
Personal property? Were those Bibles intended to teach our soldiers Urdu?
Please give your spin
DP is offline  
post #23 of 71 (permalink) Old 05-24-2009, 06:01 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvark View Post
If you want to charge the military member for a disciplinary thing, fine, but the property destruction is a separate issue.

Aardvark
The thread title is very misleading. The URDU language bibles were not personal property, they were sent from a church here in the states for the specific purpose of evangelizing/proselytizing. They were confiscated as contraband, both from GO-1 and Afghan law. In a country like Afghanistan or Iraq, they would be considered political propaganda and nothing else.

At one point in the not too far past our "friends" would have, if they caught the soldiers evangelizing with those in their possession, had every right under their law to kill them. It would have been against International Law but as we know, not everyone believes that has merit.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #24 of 71 (permalink) Old 05-24-2009, 06:03 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2009
Vehicle: 96 E-320, 91 190E, various and sundry Euro and American vehicles
Location: N/W Chicago in the cornfields
Posts: 12,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Regardless of intent, they were someones personal property.
The intent or actual prosteletysing is under the order as being incorrect and disciplinary action can be taken , but the property cannot, unless given or used in the process.
If I as a military person, left one on a chair and left, I am not breaking the order. If I use it to witness and try and convert someone, I am.
Regardless, the bibles are not mentioned as something that could not be given away, thus it was wrong to destroy them. PLUS, they are someones personal property.

As I said earlier I do agree the intent of the order makes sense, but they carried it too far. Meaning both the military action and the offender..
There is a time and a place, as the Spirit leads.

Aardvark
aardvark is offline  
post #25 of 71 (permalink) Old 05-24-2009, 06:10 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2009
Vehicle: 96 E-320, 91 190E, various and sundry Euro and American vehicles
Location: N/W Chicago in the cornfields
Posts: 12,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
McBear
I agree with you for the most part. The order probably needs to be more specific, or maybe there is another order that we are not privy to. As the order stands, it is vague.
Troop safety is of course priority, but the rules need spelled out better for those troops.

Regardless of who's property it is, it is private property. No one claims it, it gets destroyed.

Aardvark
aardvark is offline  
post #26 of 71 (permalink) Old 05-24-2009, 06:13 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvark View Post
Regardless of intent, they were someones personal property.
The intent or actual prosteletysing is under the order as being incorrect and disciplinary action can be taken , but the property cannot, unless given or used in the process.
If I as a military person, left one on a chair and left, I am not breaking the order. If I use it to witness and try and convert someone, I am.
Regardless, the bibles are not mentioned as something that could not be given away, thus it was wrong to destroy them. PLUS, they are someones personal property.

As I said earlier I do agree the intent of the order makes sense, but they carried it too far. Meaning both the military action and the offender..
There is a time and a place, as the Spirit leads.

Aardvark
Given away! Is that a new form of Crusade?
In addition, do you think we should maybe send missionaries to Afghanistan?
DP is offline  
post #27 of 71 (permalink) Old 05-24-2009, 06:19 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvark View Post
Regardless of intent, they were someones personal property.


Aardvark
I don't think you understand. They were sent to Afghanistan for ONE PURPOSE. Once confiscated, they were the personal property of the Department of Defense. Since they were not suppose to be in that country, out of respect for their religious beliefs, they were destroyed.

Simply solution...follow the rules and quit playing games trying to circumvent them. Those rules are intended to insure safety of everyone. If locals think there are folks evangelizing, some imam will go off and people will die...on both sides.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #28 of 71 (permalink) Old 05-24-2009, 06:26 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2009
Vehicle: 96 E-320, 91 190E, various and sundry Euro and American vehicles
Location: N/W Chicago in the cornfields
Posts: 12,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
I understand and agree.
If indeed it was not personal property.
Also agree it was bad judgment, and better left to missionaries or other sorts.

Military folk are there on the behalf of their government, not their God.
I say that with a bent for the evangelical front, but know what is prudent.
I think you know my evangelical bent, and on that we differ. In this we really don't,
cepting a separation for personal property, if applicable.

Aadrvark
aardvark is offline  
post #29 of 71 (permalink) Old 05-24-2009, 06:32 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
I don't think you understand. They were sent to Afghanistan for ONE PURPOSE. Once confiscated, they were the personal property of the Department of Defense. Since they were not suppose to be in that country, out of respect for their religious beliefs, they were destroyed.

Simply solution...follow the rules and quit playing games trying to circumvent them. Those rules are intended to insure safety of everyone. If locals think there are folks evangelizing, some imam will go off and people will die...on both sides.
Do you think "out of respect for their religious beliefs" is the motive? That means we have instituted such a "respect" as policy, I don't think so!
I think it's more about backlash from the Muslim World to send a message that we are not there or as matter of fact in Iraq as messengers and tools of our churches. I don't think there is much respect from our side for the Muslims, this forum's posts prove it at a micro scale and our disdain for them throughout the ages is clearly documented on a macro scale. Hell, the spin on this thread alone tells you a lot... A lost opportunity!
Our biggest fear is that countries like Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States turning their backs on us if we indeed let such practices go unchecked. It ain't about sensitivity for the locals, that I can assure you.
This is exactly what Al Qaeda wants as an outcome. If we lose the Saudis, we basically lost this whole adventure. That's where the game is played, not in Kandahar.
DP is offline  
post #30 of 71 (permalink) Old 05-24-2009, 06:33 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvark View Post
I understand and agree.
If indeed it was not personal property.
Also agree it was bad judgment, and better left to missionaries or other sorts.

Military folk are there on the behalf of their government, not their God.
I say that with a bent for the evangelical front, but know what is prudent.
I think you know my evangelical bent, and on that we differ. In this we really don't,
cepting a separation for personal property, if applicable.

Aadrvark
I respect that response! Thank you for not pursuing the spin
DP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Serious Burns deathrattle Off-Topic 11 01-25-2007 12:44 PM
    Pentagon firstmb Off-Topic 2 01-22-2006 01:26 PM
    Wolfgang...or Pentagon... roadsession W163 M-Class 3 01-14-2006 06:06 AM
    Pentagon, you have a PM... MHPHOCKEY W203 C-Class 0 10-31-2005 06:38 PM
    Help send Bibles to N.O. tcp_ML500 Off-Topic 4 09-13-2005 02:20 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome