US crusader sent home for handing out money

[BeBMan]

Is there still this rule that a thread starter can get his own threadi closed by the mods?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I suppose that's why Jews were only too happy to remain in Soviet Russia.

Your ignorance never ceases to entertain...

[Ben Kenobi]

Ooohh, a BAM! Care to provide any evidence of said Massacres?

Or perhaps when you speak of Byzantium, you speak of the conquest of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade?

No, I'm talking about in the 6th century. Surely someone who has extensive historical knowledge would have an inkling of the period I am referring to.

1. This was what was done in Medieval times
2. At least Muslims gave Christians and Jews the option.

Oh sure. Cough up the money or get beheaded! Some choice.

Christians many times didn't. Perhaps this is why the flourishing Jewish community in Spain ended with the defeat of the Moors and conquest by Christians.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that Islam was tolerant of religions either. They were only too happy to enslave others throughout their history.

Here is a link to a great article in the NY Times magazine on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/m...+Feldman&st=nyt

Oh, right.

Does the article mention that anyone who converts from islam is considered an apostate and can be killed?

I don't see that anywhere. Why is that gepap?

[BeBMan]

I applaud you for threadjacking this into some boring christianity vs. islam ****.

[Spec]

Is it just me or was Ben much smarter say 4-5 years ago?

What happenned to you Ben? Did you swallow some drano or some shlt like that left side effects some time ago?



Spec.

[Tuberski]

Kool-Aid.

ACK!

[Elok]

It WAS grape Kool-Aid. Then it got transubstantiated.

[SpencerH]

\
Article 134—General article

(2) Disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces (clause 1).


(a) To the prejudice of good order and discipline. “To the prejudice of good order and discipline” refers only to acts directly prejudicial to good order and discipline and not to acts which are preju dicial only in a remote or indirect sense. Almost any irregular or improper act on the part of a member of the military service could be regarded as prejudicial in some indirect or remote sense; however, this article does not include these distant effects. It is confined to cases in which the prejudice is reasonably direct and palpable. An act in violation of a local civil law or of a foreign law may be punished if it constitutes a disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. However, see R.C.M. 203concerning subject-matter jurisdiction.

(3) Conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (clause 2). “Discredit” means to injure the reputation of. This clause of Article 134 makes punishable conduct which has a tendency to bring the service into disrepute or which tends to lower it in public esteem. Acts in violation of a local civil law or a foreign law may be punished if they are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. However, see R.C.M. 203 concerning subject-matter jurisdiction.

My bold

Sorry, I think my interpretation stands. This conduct could easily be charged under article 134 (just as it could be under the same grounds in QR&O's - which is my source of my military legal "knowledge").

[Patroklos]

Spencer,

Article 134 is pretty much tacked on to every offense you could possible have made when going to mast, wheter that be stealing toilet paper or committing rape.

It is for all intent and purposes meaningless. This is made clear if you listen to a commanders rational for sentancing.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Doesn't apply here.

Bull****. There have been Chaplains who got drummed out for trying to impose his religion on other. I knew a buddy on the Anzio and the Chaplain was in the process of being drummed out(for telling a sailors parents that their catholic son was in hell now but there was still a chance for them). It got expedited once he decided to protest in uniform.

He is not imposing anything, nore is that action and "helping mutually exclusive.

Really? He's handing out these coins at gunpoint and the perception won't be "he's trying for force this on us?"

The only thing wrong here is that he was doing it on government time. And that isn't even wrong if there was not a specific order against it.

It is wrong because it creates a perception of government support for a specific religion. It's doubly wrong because all servicemen are told not to pull this kind of stuff before they go to Iraq.

The order is in fact illegal if someone were tried to apply it to say, a Marine talking to an Iraqi soldier about religion off duty.

Nope, sure wouldn't. Just like they can get you for taking part in protests off duty.

He disobeyed an order and shoud rightly be punished for it, which I would imagine in this case will amount to a reduction in rank and docking of a few months pay, one of the two probably being suspended in lieu of good behavior for a couple months.

You have a misunderstanding of how the UCMJ is applied. This will be handed with NJP, which is not criminal in the slightest despite what the name of the UCMJ implies.

He actively took an action that undermines the occupation and increases the danger his buddies are in. His ass should get a Big Chicken Dinner.

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC he is being punished................ by being sent home............................ if you call that punishment.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
IIRC he is being punished................ by being sent home............................ if you call that punishment.

Hopefully, he gets a BCD too, so he can't even get a job at McDonalds.

[Elok]

You seem to want us to ask, so we will: what's a Big Chicken Dinner, and why is it called that?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, and the purpose of having American troops there is to establish a civil society, correct?

Incorrect (gee, what a surprise). The purpose of having troops there is to reduce the violence to the point where teh Iraqis can establish a civil society. The assessment is that Christian prosteltyzing does not exactly speed that process along.

True, but if we are the ones who are enforcing the rules, shouldn't that include religious freedoms?

No (gee, what a surprise). Since we're the ones enforcing the rules, the rules should include the provisions required to successfully complete the mission. "No prosteltyzing" is one such rule, and it should be vigorously enforced.

How so? I think it's very important and so do many Iraqis that there would be religious freedoms in Iraq, for Christians and other religious minorities.

Actually, I doubt most Iraqis give a rat's ass about religious freedom, and would far prefer the establishment of their own sect as the state religion. I suspect that whatever society emerges from this fiasco will be, or will become before the end of my lifetime, an Islamic theocracy.

But leaving that aside, I very much doubt that any Iraqis value religious freedom above quelling the sectarian violence. That's the mission, and that's what this dunderhead was screwing up.

I already said 4 or 5 times here in the thread, that I agreed he should be reprimanded and that he violated the military code. What more would you want me to say?

You're arguing that he should be punished for violating the regulations, but that the regulation itself was wrong. So you are essentially arguing that you know better than the US military command on the ground what should be done there. Since you have no first-hand knowledge of the situation in Iraq, nor any military experience (indeed, iirc, I don't think you've ever served you country in any way), I find this assertion specious at best.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Elok
It WAS grape Kool-Aid. Then it got transubstantiated.

I've already addressed this. Move along please.