PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Rifle Scopes with extra Bible


True_Avery
01-20-2010, 03:01 AM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/01/pentagon-bible-verse-gunsights-dont-violate-rules/1
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/us_trijicon_rifle_scopes_in_iraq_and_afghanistan_f .php?ref=mp

So, how do the religious members of the forum feel about verses from their Bible being placed onto military gun scopes in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Its good to know the Bible is being delivered to people via armor piercing round.

(This can be moved to Kavars if any mod wants. Just wanted to post this)

Totenkopf
01-20-2010, 03:30 AM
God works in mysterious ways. :xp: Wonder if they're using this one, given the islamists obsession w/beheadings..... matthew xxvi. 52 (AV) All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword;

Q
01-20-2010, 03:44 AM
I take note of why the verses are on the scopes in the first place. Trijicon has been doing it for 20 years, long before they started selling anything to the military.

But, yeah, since they're being sold to a federal organization, the inscriptions really shouldn't be on the scopes.

Darth InSidious
01-20-2010, 04:04 AM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/01/pentagon-bible-verse-gunsights-dont-violate-rules/1
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/us_trijicon_rifle_scopes_in_iraq_and_afghanistan_f .php?ref=mp

So, how do the religious members of the forum feel about verses from their Bible being placed onto military gun scopes in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Its good to know the Bible is being delivered to people via armor piercing round.

(This can be moved to Kavars if any mod wants. Just wanted to post this)

Oh, why don't you stop preteding this is anything but an evil atheist communist clique forum, Avery! :mad:

Because the whole notion is bollocks, of course.

More seriously, I feel somewhat amused. Putting a reference to "the light of life" on a gun-scope is possibly one of the most brilliantly inappropriate decisions you could make. I suppose "I am the bread of life" would have been more inappropriate.

I don't see much point in getting upset about it from a religious angle, though it is diplomatically disastrous.

Sabretooth
01-20-2010, 04:07 AM
Wonder if they include "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword."

jonathan7
01-20-2010, 05:13 AM
God works in mysterious ways. :xp: Wonder if they're using this one, given the islamists obsession w/beheadings..... matthew xxvi. 52 (AV) All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword;

Wonder if they include "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword."

One has to question the intelligence of anyone that would put this on a weapon they used to kill people.

I take note of why the verses are on the scopes in the first place. Trijicon has been doing it for 20 years, long before they started selling anything to the military.

Any idea why?

But, yeah, since they're being sold to a federal organization, the inscriptions really shouldn't be on the scopes.

Agreed, especially when they seem to be ignoring the general teaching of, they guy they say they follow. I was under the impression Jesus said "love your enemies", but maybe I'm mistaken.

More seriously, I feel somewhat amused. Putting a reference to "the light of life" on a gun-scope is possibly one of the most brilliantly inappropriate decisions you could make. I suppose "I am the bread of life" would have been more inappropriate.

Agreed

I don't see much point in getting upset about it from a religious angle, though it is diplomatically disastrous.

Doesn't help fight claims from the Radical Islamists that this is another Crusade either.

jrrtoken
01-20-2010, 06:31 AM
America: bringing life, liberty, and the pursuit of the Lord Jesus to all. :nvr4get:

Drunkside
01-20-2010, 08:12 AM
Rofllolomglul etc. Im seriously amused by this, but then again, its nothing new. Cristianity has been spread using similar means for centuries. I hope the muslims do something similar :xp: And buddhists. Oh wait, they are not trying to convert other people. Well anyway :p

Totenkopf
01-20-2010, 09:29 AM
One has to question the intelligence of anyone that would put this on a weapon they used to kill people.


I'd say more likely question their motives or sensitivity. Still, I tend to agree w/DI and Q that it's not particularly appropriate and bad PR to boot. Still, funny in a perverse kind of way.....

JediAthos
01-20-2010, 09:36 AM
As had already been said this is something that the manufacturer of the scopes had been doing for years and something they admit to readily. So, it has little to do with the soldiers themselves, or the Army.

It has more to do with the Pentagon and whomever awarded the company the contract. If you feel it is inappropriate that's where the questions should be directed. There is a fair amount of disclosure that happens when the government awards a contract to a company and I would guess that if the government was happy with the product at the time the contract was awarded they didn't really care about the inscriptions.

I wouldn't expect anything to change unless the usual suspects who overreact about everything raise a significant amount of rabble to put pressure on the government who then will likely do nothing more than ask the company to refrain from putting the inscriptions on products bound for U.S. military use.

I personally don't think it's a big deal, if the government feels the company puts out a quality product and the Army is happy with the way the product works then so be it.

Jae Onasi
01-20-2010, 10:42 AM
As far as I know, it's not a violation of any US laws to put the inscription on the scopes. I'm kind of torn on this. If the verse reminds soldiers of faith to keep God in mind, I get that. At the same time, the irony of a Bible verse on an item used to kill is not lost on me.

mimartin
01-20-2010, 11:13 AM
This would be funny if not for the lives involved, both Iraqi and Allies. We are occupying a Muslim country and someone somewhere thought it was a good idea to supply our troops with equipment with Bible verses. Brilliant! Put another star on that man’s shoulder.

Just hope the reports of the Military issuing this equipment to Iraqi Military are incorrect.

jonathan7
01-20-2010, 11:19 AM
I personally don't think it's a big deal, if the government feels the company puts out a quality product and the Army is happy with the way the product works then so be it.

No offence, but it's this attitude that gets the US in trouble abroad, it doesn't matter at home it does matter ALOT in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Crusades were not a good think, people were massacred; yet Bush conjured up images of the Crusades, and Bin Laden et al, tell Muslims that this is another Crusade against Islam. Things like this don't dispel the notion that this is a religious war (which it's not), and that is why this is a big, massive and stupid move.

Pavlos
01-20-2010, 11:23 AM
More seriously, I feel somewhat amused. Putting a reference to "the light of life" on a gun-scope is possibly one of the most brilliantly inappropriate decisions you could make. I suppose "I am the bread of life" would have been more inappropriate.
"Thou shalt not kill", whilst lacking in artistry, would have been more brutal in its irony.

moda
01-20-2010, 11:26 AM
what ever happened to the american attitude of telling people who bitch about them to stick up their rectal orifice. the imprinting of religious or political messages on weaponry or munitions has been a tradition for hundreds of years, any sensible war historian can tell you that.
it usually was confined to the artillery corps though, i mean who doesn't remember the film of the royal artillery troops lying around the the half man size artillery shell with "to willie with love" written on it.

an american example would be the bombs use on the doolittle raid of Tokyo, they all had obscene or racist remarks written on them by the pilots and crew who flew the planes which dropped them.
it is an aspect of war, a way to give another stab at your enemy, dont let them ruin an aspect of military custom any further. dont let the political correctness mob take away any more of the individuality and character than it already has

mimartin
01-20-2010, 11:28 AM
You think they could fit all of Ezekiel 25:17 on a scope?

Are we there as conquers or occupiers? I think that would make a difference in if we are telling people to stick in their ears, or not.

jonathan7
01-20-2010, 11:41 AM
<snipped for brevity>

Sighs, right fine, don't listen to the guy who's lived in a Muslim country, I'm not PC police, but I am telling you that while it may have been fine in passed wars does not mean it's a good idea in this one. This is a walking PR disaster which strolls right into the hands of the Terrorist propaganda machine.

moda
01-20-2010, 12:17 PM
all i am saying is this is a part of war, it might be bad PR, but it is still a part of war. I am i will admit a historian, and because of this i am also more orientated in history, in which PR was a non-issue at most points. however, as i understand it, you are shooting, you are killing, why the hell would you worry about PR, surely the other two facts would mean it almost impossible for you to have good PR.

War is a means by which God (or the Gods) shall determine the rightful victor. That is the earliest conception of war, a massive trial by ordeal. you cannot and should not worry about how it is conceived by those whom you are at war with. it defeats the purpose, for you are engaged in a contest which judges the individual strength of you and your enemy, if you try to make yourself look desirable to your enemy, you will undermine your own values for which you are fighting.

Sighs, right fine, don't listen to the guy who's lived in a Muslim country, I'm not PC police, but I am telling you that while it may have been fine in passed wars does not mean it's a good idea in this one. This is a walking PR disaster which strolls right into the hands of the Terrorist propaganda machine.

but could they not also manipulate it to appear as if you lack conviction, if you are so willing to change your custom and conduct to appear to be PR friendly, they can easily use your willingness to bend, as a rallying call to show just how little you actually believe in this war. would it not then be better to be seen as inflexible, than to be seen as weak. you wouldnt want to make the same mistake that Johnson made in vietnam would you.

jonathan7
01-20-2010, 12:32 PM
all i am saying is this is a part of war, it might be bad PR, but it is still a part of war. I am i will admit a historian, and because of this i am also more orientated in history, in which PR was a non-issue at most points. however, as i understand it, you are shooting, you are killing, why the hell would you worry about PR, surely the other two facts would mean it almost impossible for you to have good PR.

Last time I checked this was apparently a war to liberate, and you weren't the US wasn't an empire. I had heard you wanted to win hearts and minds, please correct me, if I was under the wrong impression.

War is a means by which God (or the Gods) shall determine the rightful victor. That is the earliest conception of war, a massive trial by ordeal. you cannot and should not worry about how it is conceived by those whom you are at war with. it defeats the purpose, for you are engaged in a contest which judges the individual strength of you and your enemy, if you try to make yourself look desirable to your enemy, you will undermine your own values for which you are fighting.

Seeing as your a historian you fancy giving me a source on that? Perhaps I'm being extremely naive here, but going back to pre-historic times, I'm pretty sure war would of broken out because one set of people had something (most likely land) that the others wanted. So they would try and take it. I don't really see how God figures into the above dispute.

but could they not also manipulate it to appear as if you lack conviction,

How does putting Bible verses on your weapon have anything to do with "conviction"? Furthermore, there would be no downside to not printing the verses on the weapons. Printing the verses only has a downside, I don't see any upside to it.

if you are so willing to change your custom and conduct to appear to be PR friendly, they can easily use your willingness to bend, as a rallying call to show just how little you actually believe in this war.

YOUR IN THEIR LAND. You should bend to the other culture, this isn't on US soil, if your wanting to win hearts and minds then doing this, isn't a good idea.

would it not then be better to be seen as inflexible, than to be seen as weak.

How is inflexibility a strength? Nor would you be seen as weak for removing something the Taliban et al can use as proof to coerce other people into becoming terrorists. They can say, "look the Christians are invading, this is a religious war, they carry Bible verses on their weapons; fight them".

you wouldnt want to make the same mistake that Johnson made in vietnam would you.

Your the one making Vietnam happen all over again with the above thinking, if you want to win hearts and minds, you want to take religion out of this, and say that this isn't a war of religion. The Taliban et al, all want to make Muslims think this is a religious war, which last time I checked at least, it is not.

mimartin
01-20-2010, 12:42 PM
Inflexibility is a weakness. Those that cannot adapt to changes are doomed to extinction.

Astor
01-20-2010, 12:46 PM
I don't necessarily have a problem with them putting these inscriptions on the scopes for the US Army. When they're selling to international customers, however (the MoD just bought 480 of them for the new Sharpshooter rifles), they should be removed.

Although, even in the US Army there are soldiers who aren't Christian, so I wonder how they feel about it.

moda
01-20-2010, 01:12 PM
j7 i was using an old political definition of trial by ordeal, which essentially is a trial by ordeal is when a dispute is decided by a contest of strength, and the favour of god. paraphrased from an english law maker whose name escapes me at the moment.
it is developed from a medieval concept which involved the honourable duel, to be a final recourse in a dispute by which the final decision was left up to god

the idea behind the statement is that the chaotic factor in a trial by ordeal is the will of the god, or gods to whom that culture gives worship, in a case between two warring cultures their dispute is then decided by either the will of their gods, or by the conquest of one cultures god over another. that is paraphrased from Nietzsche in his work as a philologist.

you talk about winning the hearts and minds and that is something which i will admit i have little to no knowledge of, except to say it a is baseless stupidity on the parts of those who decided it, and if that is the underlying goal then i will have to admit you to be right.

but if the underlying goal was to introduce democracy, remove dictators and tyrannical governments then it is not an issue. winning the hearts and minds to me sounds like a political rhetoric to make things sound better.

the mistake johnson made in vietnam was expecting the enemy to think like they did. he pulled the punches and fought what was essentially a half war. you cannot be victorious in war when you are removing your own cultural influences so as to make an impartial war, such a thing is indeed impossible.

J7 you say this is not a war of religion, but in here you make the mistake of the politicians, war is a cultural struggle, the differences of the cultures and peoples involved are always going to be the primary focus of the war, if the religion is different, then religion will be a focus of the war, it is unavoidable. if they are nations of the same religion, then it will be others differences which will act as a focal point.

inflexibility as a strength only happens when you are facing an enemy who is insidious, they will take your attempts to compromise, and show mercy and bend it, use it to their advantage. for example in vietnam, the american pilots were not allowed to attack surface to air missile batteries unless that missile battery was operation, in other words shooting at them. this is where being inflexible works to your advantage, if you take the iron arm approach your enemy has less which they can instinctively use against you. they will of course have a propaganda vehicle of your intolerance but that is unavoidable, if you have invaded you can always be portrayed as being the one who is evil.

JediAthos
01-20-2010, 01:55 PM
No offence, but it's this attitude that gets the US in trouble abroad, it doesn't matter at home it does matter ALOT in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Crusades were not a good think, people were massacred; yet Bush conjured up images of the Crusades, and Bin Laden et al, tell Muslims that this is another Crusade against Islam. Things like this don't dispel the notion that this is a religious war (which it's not), and that is why this is a big, massive and stupid move.

In all honesty if it weren't for whomever reported the story no one would have a clue, but that I think is another issue.

At any rate I understand your point J7 while at the same time I'm not sure what difference it will make. The people who are angry at the US presence will still be angry and will continue to fight in the name of their twisted version of Islam which they are already doing anyway, and they will do so even if the company stops printing the inscriptions on the scopes just as they would if the inscriptions were never there.

So, really in the big picture it doesn't change much imo. Could it change the thoughts of a few people...yes it could, but will it change the thoughts enough to make any difference in the current state of affairs..I can't say for sure but I don't think so.

jonathan7
01-20-2010, 01:55 PM
j7 i was using an old political definition of trial by ordeal, which essentially is a trial by ordeal is when a dispute is decided by a contest of strength, and the favour of god. paraphrased from an english law maker whose name escapes me at the moment.
it is developed from a medieval concept which involved the honourable duel, to be a final recourse in a dispute by which the final decision was left up to god

So basically you concede then that trial by ideal is a relatively new definition that is now defunct, because I'm pretty sure the British Empire onwards, has never agreed with trial by ordeal and as such is now defunct, so I'm confused as to what possible relation it has to this thread. Unless you are going to claim, that the Napoleonic, First and Second World wars were all "trial by ordeal"?

the idea behind the statement is that the chaotic factor in a trial by ordeal is the will of the god, or gods to whom that culture gives worship, in a case between two warring cultures their dispute is then decided by either the will of their gods, or by the conquest of one cultures god over another. that is paraphrased from Nietzsche in his work as a philologist.

Your grossly misread "Beyond Good and Evil" if you think Nietzsche thought anything was decided by the God(s).

you talk about winning the hearts and minds and that is something which i will admit i have little to no knowledge of, except to say it a is baseless stupidity on the parts of those who decided it, and if that is the underlying goal then i will have to admit you to be right.

It's not at all stupid, when you are a military force, with small numbers, you need the support of the local population. If the aim of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was to stop terrorism, then above anything else making people not want to suicide bomb us, is a battle of "hearts and minds". Failure to gain support of the local population in Afghanistan will just lead to a similar defeat to Vietnam, and Afghanistan has previous history of defeating technologically and militarily superior Super Powers in the form of the Soviet Union and the British Empire. As a historian, surely your recognize you need to learn from history? Well if you want Afghanistan to be a success you will need to win the support of the people.

However, I think Iraq was all about oil, but the above is what the leader of the "free" world at the time said. However unless you gain the support of the local populace democracy and anything else you are trying to do will fail. As such given that religion is such an important thing in those area's of the world, it would be wise not to play into the Taliban et al's hands. Otherwise you WILL have another Vietnam on your hands.

but if the underlying goal was to introduce democracy, remove dictators and tyrannical governments then it is not an issue. winning the hearts and minds to me sounds like a political rhetoric to make things sound better.

I fail to see what any of the above has to do with Bible verses on weapons, I also fail how to see how being needlessly antagonistic in a manner which is going to provoke a bad reaction which could get troops killed is a sensible move.

the mistake johnson made in vietnam was expecting the enemy to think like they did.

moda, I've lived in a Muslim country, I dare say I know how "they" think a lot better than you do. It is because of that that I'm telling you, having Bible verses printed on weapons is a bad idea. Your the one who is assuming the enemy thinks like you; I understand how they think, I've had conversations with Islamic Fundamentalists.


he pulled the punches and fought what was essentially a half war. you cannot be victorious in war when you are removing your own cultural influences so as to make an impartial war, such a thing is indeed impossible.

You what? Again what has this to do with the topic at hand? Having Bible verses printed on weapons is a needless provocation which plays into the hands of the Terrorist recruitment drive, I fail to see how that has anything to do with "Cultural Influences", especially since last time I checked the Cultural influence of Jesus was meant to be love and peace; or maybe I missed a trick?

J7 you say this is not a war of religion

If this is a war of religion, then the war in Afghanistan will fail simple as. If it is Christianity vs Islam, then all of Afghanistan will take up arms against the Allied troops there. Furtermore, this is a "War on Terrorism" most Muslims are not terrorists, however most Muslims also hold no love for the west. Ever wondered why that is? If your aware of that fact?

but in here you make the mistake of the politicians, war is a cultural struggle, the differences of the cultures and peoples involved are always going to be the primary focus of the war, if the religion is different, then religion will be a focus of the war, it is unavoidable. if they are nations of the same religion, then it will be others differences which will act as a focal point.

Last time I checked, the average allied troop doesn't really have too much in the way of religious belief, generally most of the West is secular now by most definitions. While America is a religious country, I would say the main judicial branches, especially now are not religious.

inflexibility as a strength only happens when you are facing an enemy who is insidious, they will take your attempts to compromise, and show mercy and bend it, use it to their advantage.

Indeed from the very book you miss-represented my favourite philosopher, you should have recalled this;

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

(Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter IV: Apophthegms and Interludes, Walter Kaufmann translation)

Last time I checked some of the things the West represented were Human Rights, Liberal Deomcracy, Freedom of Speech etc. What you are talking about is acting as barbaristically; which is actually allowing the terrorists to win as we become more like them and give up the ideals we are apparently fighting for.

for example in vietnam, the american pilots were not allowed to attack surface to air missile batteries unless that missile battery was operation, in other words shooting at them.

And that has what to do with Bible verses being on weapons?

this is where being inflexible works to your advantage

Simple law of nature, failure to adapt means death, I don't know why your obsessed on trying to break the rules of nature. Especially when as a historian you should be aware culture is constantly changing in any respect.

if you take the iron arm approach your enemy has less which they can instinctively use against you.

You seem to be talking about ruling with an Iron fist, what are we fighting these terrorists over again? As currently you seem to be acting just like them, please correct me if I have misunderstood.

they will of course have a propaganda vehicle of your intolerance but that is unavoidable

I fail to see where your tolerance of Islam has been in this thread, if you were being tolerant of Muslims, why are you so eager for Bible verses to be on weapons?

if you have invaded you can always be portrayed as being the one who is evil.

So why not do yourself a favoure, and take away one means of you being portrayed as the bad guy?

moda
01-20-2010, 02:12 PM
I was not quoting beyond good and evil. i was referring more to implications which become visible across multiple works of his, an idea of conflict of cultures, with gods being the most visible of this conflict because of their nature.
Besides in beyond good and evil does he not refer to the jewish abuse of their god, and the transformation of their god into an imperialistic justification.

and yes i remember that famous quote of nietzsche, but it was merely an aphorism without much support or indication of context.
But did not Nietzsche also advocate strength, and unflinching intent, do it as you will because you will, not because someone else wills it. did he not also celebrate the great men in history who would stand unflinching and willing to commit acts of the greatest barbarity.

and i am not all that eager for bible verses on weapons, i just dont see what is so bad about it.

trial by ordeal is a dead concept in most legal bases i will concede,
But i would claim the Napoleonic first and second world wars as a trial by ordeal. Especially the first world war .

the first world war was a clashing of the old and new styles of european culture, germany representing the future, england and france the old way of life. the first world war in my honest opinion became a clash between the old way of life and the new way of life. a clash between what was and what was to be.

mimartin
01-20-2010, 02:36 PM
If you want to discuss philosophy take it to the appropriate thread. Otherwise if you want to continue in this thread get back on topic.


BTW I have "vengeance is mine" carved into my keyboard.

moda
01-20-2010, 02:49 PM
Sorry.

one thing i do not understand though, is why this simple thing is such an issue to those of the opinion that it is a politically incorrect thing. why does it matter. is this not a war that is being waged.

or is it a continued military engagement.

If the conflict in the middle east is not a proper war, then J7 i must concede you are right.
however if the engagments in afghanistan and iraq are proper wars, then i will argue that the imprinted of bible passages on weapons of war, which ultimately reflect the convictions and beliefs of one of the nations involved in this war are not wrong in any way shape or form, and the criticizing such things is ultimately more harmful overall than any damage such things would cause on their own

mimartin
01-20-2010, 03:02 PM
It is a fairly big deal to me because even if it only inspires 1 person to take up arms against American, Allied troops or against the civilian population then becomes not just a oversight, but a tragic stupid mistake. One that was preventable had someone in charge actually considered the implications before hand. We should be doing everything possible to protect soldiers fighting for our countries, not helping make them targets. Just shows how well planned this entire stupidity was from the very beginning. Can’t get our soldiers proper body armor or armor for their vehicles, but they have scopes with Bible verses.

moda
01-20-2010, 03:18 PM
but on the same token, wasting all this energy arguing about it, it is a pointles semantic, it is a custom of the company who makes the material, i can see the argument if it was put there by request, but this is a trait and practice of the company who makes the equipment.
i also cannot see how something this minor can cause someone to seriously take up arms.
if something so small can inspire someone to take up arms it is likely that they would've done it anyway for some other reason. If they are so close to the edge, they will fall over eventually, it doesnt matter what is the trigger, all that matters is that it is dealt with as it happens.

if we start looking at from the whatifs we will become paralyzed with indecision, it is in the face of that that i support inflexibility, one must know when to bend, and when to stand firm, bend and never stand and your foe conquers because you will become like them in an effort to adapt, stand resilient and your foe may just adapt to be like you. its a careful balance but it must be done. Adapting for the sake of adapting can be far more detrimental than not adapting at all.

mimartin
01-20-2010, 03:27 PM
Still stupid we bought this for our military fighting in the Middle East. Why not cut out the middle man and just paint bull eyes on their uniforms?

http://www.vpcam.com/members/1402226/uploaded/60266.jpg



Are you suggesting we ignore stupidity? Wouldnt just allow them to continue to make stupid mistakes that get people killed?

moda
01-20-2010, 04:34 PM
but i dont see how this will get people killed, oh and for the record i am not american, i am australian, so this really doesnt entirely reflect on me, i just dont see what the big issue with it all is

jonathan7
01-20-2010, 04:49 PM
but i dont see how this will get people killed, oh and for the record i am not american, i am australian, so this really doesnt entirely reflect on me, i just dont see what the big issue with it all is

Right, you said this to me earlier;

the mistake johnson made in vietnam was expecting the enemy to think like they did.

But the only person in this thread not getting into either the mindset of the enemy or understanding the cultural aspects of Islam within Afghanistan is you.

I really don't see what's hard to understand about the fact Muslims think the Crusades are bad, and the Taliban et al are saying this is another Crusade and Christians are occupying your land. Having Bible verses on bullets does not distil the notion that it is a Christian occupying force; which acts as a recruitment tool for the terrorists. Given its such a small thing, and it could save lives I fail to see why some are so desperate to hanging onto it. I'm telling you that having Bible verses on bullets will cause anger in the Muslim world; the success of failure of the mission in Afghanistan hangs on the ability of the forces their to understand the people. Having Bible verses on bullets, is a massive provocation, and will allow the terrorists to say the Christian invaders are here in a war against Islam. Which I'm sure that this will have seen some people join the Taliban. People in Afghanistan are very religious; I have good friends who worked there under the Taliban pre the invasion, do not underestimate the religious zealous of the people there.

Regardless I'm done with this thread.

Totenkopf
01-20-2010, 06:19 PM
I'd say that given the somewhat provisional manner in which our forces are being engaged in all this (ie not a global fight to the finish like WW2 in many ways), perhaps it's unwise to put that stuff on the scopes for troops in the field, regardless of how long the company has been doing it. While I don't personally care how they (the islamists radicals) feel about it, there is still the possibility that such a seemingly insignificant detail could cause feathers to be ruffled with the other locals, making our mission there unnecessarily complicated.

"Thou shalt not kill", whilst lacking in artistry, would have been more brutal in its irony.

Quite so.

Ping
01-20-2010, 09:33 PM
I think this is just going to incite more terrorists. Besides, the U.S. is now acting like Christianity is the official religion of the country, which it is not, and judging by what's on the scopes, the nation also seems to assume that everyone in the military is Christian, which is false. Yet another reason why I've pretty much lost faith in the Christian religion.

Tommycat
01-20-2010, 10:17 PM
"Thou shalt not kill", whilst lacking in artistry, would have been more brutal in its irony.

I'd seriously question the accuracy of a scope with that on it...

To the thread: Not the brightest move. But also an innocent mistake. The company has been doing this for far longer than it has been a supplier for the US Military. It seems more like an oversight. I'm sure future purchases will be without the quote.

Jae Onasi
01-21-2010, 12:02 AM
No offence, but it's this attitude that gets the US in trouble abroad, it doesn't matter at home it does matter ALOT in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Crusades were not a good think, people were massacred; yet Bush conjured up images of the Crusades, and Bin Laden et al, tell Muslims that this is another Crusade against Islam. Things like this don't dispel the notion that this is a religious war (which it's not), and that is why this is a big, massive and stupid move.
Would we Americans/UN troops/whoever else is there care if Iraqi scopes had 'Allahu ackbar' inscribed on them? No. I don't give a flying hoo-hah about the scope or inscription, I care about whether the bullet that just got fired out of that gun is going to hit me or not. I suspect if some of these scopes end up in enemy hands, they're not going to get tossed aside because they have a Christian verse on it.

moda
01-21-2010, 02:38 AM
the only danger is thinking you understand the enemy. when the enemy has such a violently different mental prerogative you cannot understand them. you also cannot afford to believe they will play by your rules. in such a case all you can really do is use pure and overwhelming military force. Isnt the Islamic faith intrinsically pacifistic in nature, or so they keep claiming, if they are so willing to claim something which is minor, and has been the case for 20 years, as religious provocation, well that surely would imply they themselves are simply intolerant and militaristic in nature.

mur'phon
01-21-2010, 05:22 AM
Originally Posted by Jae
Would we Americans/UN troops/whoever else is there care if Iraqi scopes had 'Allahu ackbar' inscribed on them? No. I don't give a flying hoo-hah about the scope or inscription, I care about whether the bullet that just got fired out of that gun is going to hit me or not.

And so would I, unfourtantely this isn't about wether we would care or not had the situation been reversed. I find shaking hands to be a meaningless gesture, I still do it to make avoid uneccesary problems.

I suspect if some of these scopes end up in enemy hands, they're not going to get tossed aside because they have a Christian verse on it.

Of course, they might file the inscription away, but even if they don't, it will be weapons taken from the crusading enemy. Unlike US troops, no Afghani would believe you if you claimed that taliban fighters are christians because they use weapons with christian verses.


Originally Posted by Moda
the only danger is thinking you understand the enemy. when the enemy has such a violently different mental prerogative you cannot understand them.

While I wouldn't claim to "understand" "them" in the sence that I can be certain how a group of diverse individuals will react, I can understand enough to make an educated guess. Since just about every action we make is based on us making predictions for what will happen, I don't see how chosing to keep/remove bible verses from scopes are any different.

you also cannot afford to believe they will play by your rules.

And what rules would they be in this instance?

in such a case all you can really do is use pure and overwhelming military force.

In Afghanistan this aproach has been tried twice allready, I fail to see how this time it would be any different.

Isnt the Islamic faith intrinsically pacifistic in nature, or so they keep claiming, if they are so willing to claim something which is minor, and has been the case for 20 years, as religious provocation, well that surely would imply they themselves are simply intolerant and militaristic in nature.

Who are those "they" you refer to?

mimartin
01-21-2010, 08:38 AM
Would we Americans/UN troops/whoever else is there care if Iraqi scopes had 'Allahu ackbar' inscribed on them?I would say for the most part the answer would be NO.

I also don't see most of us getting upset over a political cartoon or a book that is critical of our beliefs. However, I do remember something about Muslims calling for the death of the artist/author that published material critical of their beliefs. I dont believe we should suppress our culture/beliefs to attempt to appraise another culture, but when we are foreigners on their soil, we should do everything possible to keep from making them more upset at the so-called invaders.

Personally, I would not buy a scope with Bible verses on it I find the practice sacrilegious. That does not mean I would judge anyone that had the scope as being sacrilegious. Im not responsible for their actions to make that judgment.

Astor
01-21-2010, 04:22 PM
But when you hijack 4 of our planes and use them to kill thousands of people, I do care...

Patriotic jingoism FTW!

what ever the troops want on the scope of their rifles is their business... as long as they are hitting the enemy centermass thats all that matters to me.. Huuuaaahh!!

It's not the troops putting those inscriptions on the scopes. And while I respect the company's right to religious expression, I just think they should perhaps understand that some of their customers might not want a quote from the Bible on their scope.

moda
01-21-2010, 04:40 PM
have the troops complained though.... worrying about the enemy is weakness. if the troops complain, then thats a different story.

Astor
01-21-2010, 04:52 PM
have the troops complained though....

According to the BBC's article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8468981.stm) on this, the MRFF has recieved several e-mails from American Muslim soldiers who raised concerns about the inscriptions.


Anyways, it seems that Trijicon have agreed to remove the quotes from scopes destined for military use.

Story. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/jesus-rifles/story?id=9618791)

Earlier today, Gen. David Petraeus, who commands CentCom, which oversees U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, told a D.C. thinktank that the company's practice was "disturbing …and a serious concern for me" and field commanders. He said there had been considerable discussions within the Department of Defense about how to deal with Trijicon's practice.

"Trijicon has proudly served the U.S. military for more than two decades, and our decision to offer to voluntarily remove these references is both prudent and appropriate," said Stephen Bindon, Trijicon president and CEO in a statement. "We want to thank the Department of Defense for the opportunity to work with them and will move as quickly as possible to provide the modification kits for deployment overseas."

The Trijicon statement said that the company would: "Remove the inscription reference on all U.S. military products that are in the company's factory that have already been produced, but have yet to be shipped" and "Provide 100 modification kits to forces in the field to remove the reference on the already forward deployed optical sights."

mimartin
01-21-2010, 05:41 PM
worrying about the enemy is weakness. Educated Opinion or Fact? I would like to see the statistics or the source on this claim if you are claiming to be presenting facts.

Also are you saying all Muslims are the enemy? That is what you seem to be saying.

Totenkopf
01-21-2010, 07:51 PM
No, it seems to me that he's saying the Muslim's we're fighting are the enemy (the radicals), while the others appear to be fence-sitting irrelevancies. Still, at least the company is agreeing to remove the verse issue from the scopes. An apparent oversight corrected. In a way you are both correct. The opinions of the radicals are immaterial, however we can't say that all muslims are islamists, hence the verses become an issue.

mimartin
01-21-2010, 08:01 PM
No, we are not both right, while I agree that I really don't care what the enemy thinks, all Muslims are not our enemy. It is pretty clear that is what moda is implying. So both opinions are mutually exclusive and we cannot be both right.

The attitude that we don’t care what other cultures think about our action on their own land is the reason why we have the enemies we do today.

Totenkopf
01-21-2010, 08:11 PM
No, he was saying we shouldn't care what the enemy thinks (in this case the radicals)b/c we end up looking weak in their eye for our (over)sensitivities, but I agree with you that he doesn't give much shrift to the rest of the muslim population that either isn't islamist or fellow travelling noncombatants(not the same as calling ALL of them enemies). Hence why I also agree that the practice was shortsighted in terms of our missions over there.

Tobias Reiper
01-21-2010, 08:35 PM
What ever happened to
'Thou shall not kill'?

Totenkopf
01-21-2010, 09:12 PM
It probably got discarded by humanity......much like "thou shalt not commit adultery" and "thou shalt not steal".

Darth Avlectus
01-21-2010, 09:45 PM
I really don't know what to make of it. Maybe if marylin manson had a concert down there we'd all just get along?

...Anyone who disagrees with me can get fluffed up like a turkey! http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/150343/smiley_smug.gif

TKA-001
01-22-2010, 02:43 PM
I don't see the point of putting any words on the scope of a rifle, much less words that don't assist with the use of the weapon (like the label on a safety switch or something).

what ever the troops want on the scope of their rifles is their business... as long as they are hitting the enemy centermass thats all that matters to me.. Huuuaaahh!!
**** center mass, shoot 'em in the face.

Jae Onasi
01-22-2010, 04:04 PM
I'm missing the point on why this is such a humongous issue. I think it's just way overblown because we're terrified of ticking anyone off. First, Iraqis speak Arabic, which doesn't even use the same alphabet. How many Iraqi soldiers read English? They're far more likely to pick up Turkish or Farsi as a second language if they pick up one at all. I doubt the average Iraqi soldier would even be able to read the inscription in the first place, much less understand the reference. Third, whether they're shooting at us for religious reasons, or they believe we're there to steal their oil or they hate capitalism or Americans, it doesn't matter. They're at war with us and are going to shoot at us anyway. While I'm all for cultural sensitivity, I really could care less what my enemy thinks, unless it involves distracting him in some way from taking me out before I take him out.
Finally, if he's close enough that he can actually read the inscription on my scope, the concern over whether or not he now considers this a holy war would be the least of my problems.

jrrtoken
01-22-2010, 04:19 PM
I think it's a more of the threat of prolonged terrorism due to the perceived opposition to Islam than anything else. Jihadists will use it as nothing less than a propaganda tool to recruit others, which will only be used against the West. While it's not detrimental to the most apologetic of Islamic extremists, it will only help convince wary mainstreamers to promote the former group's cause.

Jae Onasi
01-22-2010, 07:57 PM
I think it's a more of the threat of prolonged terrorism due to the perceived opposition to Islam than anything else. Jihadists will use it as nothing less than a propaganda tool to recruit others, which will only be used against the West. While it's not detrimental to the most apologetic of Islamic extremists, it will only help convince wary mainstreamers to promote the former group's cause.
OK, an inscription in a language people can't even read to a reference in a holy book they've never read is going to become a propaganda tool. Sure.

Jihadist imam: "Behold! The Great Satanists have put inscriptions to their cursed Bible on their scopes! We must kill them! Join the fight for Allah!"

Reasonable Iraqi: "So, a verse of some book I can't even read, don't care to read, and will never read is on a rifle scope, and you want me to kill for that. Sure thing, right after I, uh, go wash my hair. For the next thousand years."

This makes about as much sense as American fundamentalists wanting to kill Iraqis because the Iraqis have 'Allah' done in henna on their arms. It's also insulting the intelligence and appropriate judgment of reasonable Iraqis.

Totenkopf
01-22-2010, 08:19 PM
But, Jae, you assume it's reasonable Iraqis that will fall for such a ploy. Most of the jihadis, whether educated or not, are extremists. "Reasonable" people are much less likely to fall for such a ploy and usually have other motives for fighting.

Ping
01-22-2010, 08:34 PM
I am sure there are sensible people who won't mind it. I just loathe the fact that the U.S. treats Christianity as its official and only religion. IIRC, the Constitution prevents an official religion. It is also not the "right" religion. All religions are just looking at the portrait from another angle.

Tommycat
01-22-2010, 08:37 PM
I'm with Jae. This isn't a big deal. Those who would use this as propaganda would find any excuse to use anything as propaganda. If we're so worried about how they will perceive us, we need to have the religious preference taken off our dog tags as well. Already troops are told to remove things such as crosses. I understand that a Christian quote could be construed as a religious effort in a war. But to the extremists, it already IS a religious war. They won't care about the words on a scope nearly as much as some make it out to be.

Besides, so long as American troops are in the "Holy Land" it will always be a religious war to the extremists.

And does anyone know exactly what the inscription is? The exact inscription? Its not as if the actual John 3:16 verse is on there. The inscriptions are rather vague unless you know what you are looking at.
The first is:
2COR4:6
and the second is:
JN8:12

They don't have the whole verse written out(not that you could have the whole thing written out). But to those that know the first is second Corinthians 4:6 and the second is John 8:12
See for yourself how the verses are packaged.
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/01/20/alg_rifle_bible_verse.jpg

vanir
01-22-2010, 08:51 PM
This was on the news last night. The ADF uses American scopes on our Steyrs and the concern was brought up that they had biblical inscriptions on them. Parliament reviewed this and considered withdrawing them from service for another manufacturer, then requested the manufacturer to remove the inscriptions which was agreed. Some Parliamentary official made a public statement that the ADF does not represent any other agenda besides Australian national interests despite how such things may infer otherwise, hence the request to the manufacturer. He wished to reassure Australians that our defence forces are not running around in Timor and the Middle East declaring biblical scripture at the point of a gun.

I agree with Jonathon-7 on this issue.

the first world war was a clashing of the old and new styles of european culture, germany representing the future, england and france the old way of life. the first world war in my honest opinion became a clash between the old way of life and the new way of life. a clash between what was and what was to be.
Most people confuse the respective themes of WW1 and 2, what's described here is more representative of WW2. Comparatively England and France were just as progressive in WW1 as anyone else, and the Kaiser's interests were joining in on the European Imperialist rape of African resources whilst Russia, Austria-Hungary and Turkey all wanted to dominate the Balkans. The environment of WW1 was formed during the Boer War and with Kaiser Wilhelm and Hindenburg's "gunboat policy" in northern Africa (they wanted part of the French and British colonies handed over).
WW1 was all about Imperialism and upcoming Imperialists, there was nothing new about it. Krupp had been selling mass produced armaments indescriminantly for decades previously, by the 1890's the face of warfare had really changed irrevocably so there wasn't even anything new about that, just that in media terms WW1 was in everybody's face. But it wasn't any different to the Crimean war and some clashes in Africa between 1890-1915 were basically identical to the Somme, without the witnesses.
In about 1916 the tank and front line warplane were basically invented (as opposed to armoured cars and spotter craft), which made a distinct visual impression during WW1 of sudden and extreme technological development, but it was really after the war that the impact and implications of such developments were mooted.

Politically the beginning of WW2 were much more about the themes mentioned, one of Hitler's major campaigns was to promote the Nazi Party as "the blend of the old (traditional monarchists) with the new (ideological warriors)." In Imperialist terms the USSR and Nazi Germany at their cores were very progressive, but also of course extremely abusive.
During the thirties Nazi Germany was sold by media to the international community as technologically progressive, which was probably facilitated by the reputation of Krupp Werks which armed most of the militaries of WW1, by creating what was in fact a fiction about Nazi military power during the mid-30's the public support in France and Britain could be gained to continue military spending which especially following the Depression had become a major issue.
During WW2 the UK was forced to relinquish its colonies abroad, their populations such as Indian Regulars demanded independence as a reward for British military service during WW2. Similarly the War in the Pacific forced the UK and USA to relinquish their colonies to their indigenous populations, because the Japanese first argued they were "liberating them from industrialists" and the Allies had to finally offer independence when taking them back again, or else it would look like the Japanese weren't lying.
In the places like Indonesia and Vietnam/Burma however the locals had to fight wars of independence anyway, one of which continued into the American war in Vietnam because they needed communists to help them kick out the French and yanks don't like commies.
So it was really WW2 that was the clash between the old and the new...but that war has never really ended.

thegame197676
01-22-2010, 09:04 PM
I don't see the point of putting any words on the scope of a rifle, much less words that don't assist with the use of the weapon (like the label on a safety switch or something).


**** center mass, shoot 'em in the face.

No you shoot the enemy centermass because the 5.56 round our soilders use in the M4 rifle is designed to ricochet through the chest and abdomen of the target.. thus increasing the effectiveness of said shot and allowing the soldier a much bigger target for a kill shot.

Tommycat
01-22-2010, 09:16 PM
No you shoot the enemy centermass because the 5.56 round our soilders use in the M4 rifle is designed to ricochet through the chest and abdomen of the target.. thus increasing the effectiveness of said shot and allowing the soldier a much bigger target for a kill shot.

Not to mention Centermass is the part that moves the least. A head shot is more likely to result in a miss than a kill shot. And I'd rather get a hit than a miss any day. Not to mention, even if it somehow passes through clean, a sucking chest wound takes two people off the battlefield. The injured and the one attending to his wound.

mimartin
01-22-2010, 09:35 PM
It isn't like they have Al Jazeera or worship services to tell them what is written on the scopes.

jrrtoken
01-22-2010, 09:49 PM
OK, an inscription in a language people can't even read to a reference in a holy book they've never read is going to become a propaganda tool. Sure.Yes. The Satanic Verses was a novel that few in the West had even heard about, let alone isolated near-poverty Muslims... yet, every Iranian citizen became acquainted, familiarized, and furious with it overnight, all because the Ayatollah told them so. The first day, no one in the pan-Islamic world had heard of Salman Rushdie, and now, he's everyone's arch-nemesis. It's quite the cakewalk for any poverty-level, mainstream Iranian to go from blissfully ignorant to well-versed, radical idealist, all because of one person told them so. I'm sure that's not just confined to any nation, religion, or creed, too.This makes about as much sense as American fundamentalists wanting to kill Iraqis because the Iraqis have 'Allah' done in henna on their arms. It's also insulting the intelligence and appropriate judgment of reasonable Iraqis.Any troubled youth can turn from complacent and reserved to violently radical by the influence of any role model(s)... that's how society gets a good deal of the gang activity, tyrants, and mass-murderers from. The poverty-stricken aren't the only ones; the violent can also originate from the intellectual middle and upper-class citizens; John Walker Lindh, for example. Ultimately, it depends upon the personality and current state of the individual, and the appropriate corrupter, in order to breed hatred such as this.

Tommycat
01-22-2010, 10:09 PM
It isn't like they have Al Jazeera or worship services to tell them what is written on the scopes.

Take a look at the "Bible Verse" on that scope I posted. The inscription could easily be confused with a part/tracking/serial number. It's not even listed as "John 8:12" It could just as easily have been 2 June 8:12AM

mimartin
01-22-2010, 10:25 PM
Take a look at the "Bible Verse" on that scope I posted. The inscription could easily be confused with a part/tracking/serial number. It's not even listed as "John 8:12" It could just as easily have been 2 June 8:12AM

Your right, they would never be able to figure that out (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/01/201012110471912336.html). ;)

Totenkopf
01-22-2010, 11:28 PM
Take a look at the "Bible Verse" on that scope I posted. The inscription could easily be confused with a part/tracking/serial number. It's not even listed as "John 8:12" It could just as easily have been 2 June 8:12AM

Unfortunately, b/c we're fighting this like a Vietnam style "hearts and minds" style conflict, it is a molehill that is being blown up into a mountain. While most jihadis wouldn't have the inkling to even look at it unbidden, they will be bidden by their masters to take it into consideration. C'est la guerre.

Tommycat
01-22-2010, 11:37 PM
Your right, they would never be able to figure that out (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/01/201012110471912336.html). ;)

Before or after OUR news reported on it. Considdering how they JUST found out after our news agencies broke the story, AFTER the company has already agreed to remove the verses for the military version. How long would it have been if the owners had just said, "It's just a coincidence."

But you're right, AlJazeera will give them all the hate material they need. Not like they need any more. They have plenty. Even if they couldn't use the scope verses, they could find some oddball other reason to fuel more hate on the US.

mimartin
01-22-2010, 11:51 PM
Move the goal post? The point isn't when or how they found out, the point is that they found out. It was a oversight nothing more, but it was a oversight that was highly preventable had the people in charge just used a little common sense.

Edit: Article JediAthos writes about below: Petraeus calls gunscope inscriptions "disturbing" from Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100122/ts_nm/us_usa_security_gunscopes)

United States Central Command (http://www.centcom.mil/en/press-releases/centcom-statement-on-rifle-scopes.html)

JediAthos
01-23-2010, 12:01 AM
There was an article on Yahoo! earlier today in which General Petraeus said that he was "disturbed" by the verses on the scopes. Some of the things he said were some of the same concerns voiced here. I'd quote them but I can't find the article again and don't really have time to search :) The same article also stated that any future items provided to the U.S. military will not have any such inscription on them. The company is also going to provide modification kits so that the inscriptions can be removed from products already in service.

I would imagine that this will resolve the issue and it will quickly fade into the black hole of news stories when the wonderful "journalists" find something else to talk about.

Tommycat
01-23-2010, 12:41 AM
Move the goal post? The point isn't when or how they found out, the point is that they found out. It was a oversight nothing more, but it was a oversight that was highly preventable had the people in charge just used a little common sense.

Edit: Article JediAthos writes about below: Petraeus calls gunscope inscriptions "disturbing" from Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100122/ts_nm/us_usa_security_gunscopes)

United States Central Command (http://www.centcom.mil/en/press-releases/centcom-statement-on-rifle-scopes.html)

There was no goal post I was aware of. Did I not mention earlier that those who would call this a religious war would do so anyway. AlJazeera has been doing so without the bible verses. They've been making it out to be America's War on Islam since the start.

A little common sense? I pointed out how obscure the references were. Can you honestly tell me that you would have automatically assumed that 32JN8:12 was talking about John 8:12? It's actually a portion of the part number. Which actually makes sense of the whole light quote... In fact you kinda gotta hand it to them for using a creative part numbering system where the part number actually tells you what it is if you know the specific passage.

2COR4:6 Night Scope
JN8:12 Advanced Combat Optics

Totenkopf
01-23-2010, 02:00 AM
Frankly, though, someone could have made the whole story up (not unheard of in US media....some fiction has even won pulitzers for big named outfits) and the islamists would still have latched onto it and used it even if it had later been reported as false b/c you wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a "good story/spin". It's a footnote, b/c it's been corrected, but it ultimately is much ado about nothing and its impact on the "jihadi recruiting effort" is questionable speculation at best (much like Gitmo....unless you really believe that it took the pampering of jihadists in a US military prison to radicalize "stable youths" in the first place). One wonders what the next islamist molehill is that will be blown into a full scale mountain.

Drunkside
01-23-2010, 06:59 AM
But, Jae, you assume it's reasonable Iraqis that will fall for such a ploy. Most of the jihadis, whether educated or not, are extremists. "Reasonable" people are much less likely to fall for such a ploy and usually have other motives for fighting.

Exactly... Hmm what would those reasons be? Oh yeah, people invaded their homeland! If americans (or russians, or the chinese, or even freaking swedish) attacked my homeland, id kill as much of them as i can. Without any thought given to possible religious differences. I think the average iraqi soldier is just defending his home from a foreign force.

mimartin
01-23-2010, 08:33 AM
I think the average iraqi soldier is just defending his home from a foreign force.Huh? The average Iraqi soldier is being trained by American and British toops. I thought we were training them to help defend their country from insurgents. I did not know we were training them to kill our on forces. :rolleyes:

Totenkopf
01-23-2010, 08:36 AM
I wonder if he didn't mean Afghani, but then we're training their army/police as well. :giveup:

Tommycat
01-23-2010, 08:23 PM
Drunkside appears to have just arrived here from the past. A couple of years ago when the American forces were actually fighting Iraqi military. He appears to be unaware that the persons actually taking up arms against our troops are insurgents. A majority of whom are from countries other than Iraq.

Q
01-24-2010, 08:11 AM
I take note of why the verses are on the scopes in the first place. Trijicon has been doing it for 20 years, long before they started selling anything to the military.
Any idea why?
It's in the article:
The scripture references were begun more than 20 years ago by Trijicon's founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who died in a 2003 plane crash in Alabama.

Liverandbacon
03-10-2010, 09:25 PM
Sorry for the mini-necro, but I just wanted to point something out that hadn't been noted yet. A friend of mine who is currently in the army (and has been long before GWOT), pointed this out:

"This isn’t news…. They’ve been on there since as far back as I can remember. I had a TA-01 NSN years ago that had a verse on it… and the reflexes had them. So it wasn’t like this was inspired by Sep 11th to get back at Muslims or anything whacky like that. I think many people are overlooking the fact that all of the bible verses have to do with "light"... self illuminated optics and all that. I think it has more to do with that than proselytizing."

I pretty much agree with him. The company's founder wanted to put some clever references to light in his optics, easter eggs if you will. Being a devout christian, when he thought of light, and easily referenced pages/phrases, he thought of the bible.

Also, the current sales aren't "contracts" per se as most are sold and bought under COTS (commercial off the shelf) sales so there was no contract vehicle that they developed the product to sell to. In other words, they're the same exact models being sold to the civvy market, and changing the model names would have been very strange. Also, the optics work well, and honestly that's all that matters in the field.