• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes

I think these secret codes are kinda cool as far as Yankee humor goes. I'm no christian in the traditional sense, but if I was on the front sniping or whatever, I'd love having one of these sights just for laughs.
 
I think this thread should be moved to the basement do Jerry can get smacked around for a little while.
 
apdst said:
The swim barrier on the Bradley that was supposed to make it amphibious. See the soldiers riding in top the hull? yeah, they're up there because the vehicle was liable to sink. Also, the main gun couldn't be fired with the swim barrier erected. It was basically a joke.
Click to expand...
You would have thought they would have learned their lesson with the M4-DD.
 
apdst said:
It doesn't and I never said it did.

My point, again, is that if Trijicon loses the contract and it's re-awarded to another maker, it's possible that the second contractor could turn out a substandard unit, causing out soldiers to lose their edge on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

no need to award the contract to another vendor/manufacturer

but a huge need to assess liquidated damages for the ones already supplied
 
justabubba said:
no need to award the contract to another vendor/manufacturer

but a huge need to assess liquidated damages for the ones already supplied
Click to expand...

I just ain't seein' the need for that.
 
apdst said:
I just ain't seein' the need for that.
Click to expand...

it's federal procurement 101
when the contractor supplies something that is defective, as is the case with the scopes bearing religious inscriptions that may be harmful to the buyer, then that contractor is subject to liquidated damages to cover the costs the military will bear to remove/conceal the inscriptions. which inscriptions could be found deleterious to those IDF and afghani and iraqi soldiers who may object to having to use a weapon with such religious symbolism attached. which inscriptions could prove detrimental to the military by serving as a propaganda mechanism to be used against us by our enemy. in this case "confirmation" that what they have been spreading, that the USA is engaged ina religious war against islam, is provable by those inscriptions on the armaments
 
justabubba said:
it's federal procurement 101
when the contractor supplies something that is defective, as is the case with the scopes bearing religious inscriptions that may be harmful to the buyer, then that contractor is subject to liquidated damages to cover the costs the military will bear to remove/conceal the inscriptions. which inscriptions could be found deleterious to those IDF and afghani and iraqi soldiers who may object to having to use a weapon with such religious symbolism attached. which inscriptions could prove detrimental to the military by serving as a propaganda mechanism to be used against us by our enemy. in this case "confirmation" that what they have been spreading, that the USA is engaged ina religious war against islam, is provable by those inscriptions on the armaments
Click to expand...

That doesn't make the scopes defective.

I'm sorry, but I'm finding it hard to wrap my mind around the idea that something is really wrong here.

Just tell them to stop doing it and let's move on. There are definitely bigger fish to fry.
 
apdst said:
That doesn't make the scopes defective.

I'm sorry, but I'm finding it hard to wrap my mind around the idea that something is really wrong here.
Click to expand...

the military did not order the scopes with religious inscriptions
the military does not want scopes with religious inscriptions
therefore, the contractor will now be responsible for the costs required to eliminate the religious inscriptions
 
justabubba said:
it's federal procurement 101
when the contractor supplies something that is defective, as is the case with the scopes bearing religious inscriptions that may be harmful to the buyer, then that contractor is subject to liquidated damages to cover the costs the military will bear to remove/conceal the inscriptions. which inscriptions could be found deleterious to those IDF and afghani and iraqi soldiers who may object to having to use a weapon with such religious symbolism attached. which inscriptions could prove detrimental to the military by serving as a propaganda mechanism to be used against us by our enemy. in this case "confirmation" that what they have been spreading, that the USA is engaged ina religious war against islam, is provable by those inscriptions on the armaments
Click to expand...

It has no bearing on it's effectiveness in the field.....FAIL!...;)
When on the business end of a rifle, one generally does not look at the inscription on the gun sight.....
One cannot see the inscription while using the gun sight either.....;)
 
justabubba said:
the military did not order the scopes with religious inscriptions
the military does not want scopes with religious inscriptions
therefore, the contractor will now be responsible for the costs required to eliminate the religious inscriptions
Click to expand...

The scopes were produced with religious inscriptions.

What happens when the scopes are damaged and rendered unreliable during the process to remove the numbers? Who pays for that?

These are serial numbers, too, BTW. Can you imagine the confusion that changing all of them will cause and how much it will end up costing...all over nothing?
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
the military did not order the scopes with religious inscriptions
the military does not want scopes with religious inscriptions
therefore, the contractor will now be responsible for the costs required to eliminate the religious inscriptions
Click to expand...

The military accepted shipment & they have proved effective in the field, therefore they are not defective.....;)
How someone 'feels' about them is irrelevant as long as they perform the task they are designed for......;)
The Sherriff Joe/pink underwear rule applies here.....:rofl :rofl :rofl
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I think you are grossly over-estimating the cost of adding a couple of numbers and letters to a serial number. If these codes weren't there, they would probably be replaced by normal serial numbers.
Click to expand...

Are these being used in the same way as serial numbers or are they random? I really do not know. If they are just being used to put a bible verse on their I'm totally against the expendeture. If thay are some kind of tracking system I'm fine with it.

Let's say it costs .05 cents per stamp that there is 40 k per 80 unit.
 
Partisan said:
It has no bearing on it's effectiveness in the field.....FAIL!...;)
Click to expand...
read the Federal Acquisition Regulations. the contractor does not get to modify the specifications of the products it makes without the buyer's expressed agreement
doesn't matter that this does not affect the usefulness of the scope
if they signed the contract requiring them to furnish scopes made of pot metal and instead - at their own cost - upgraded to gold alloy without the buyer's approval, the contractor would still be subject to liquidated damages
When on the business end of a rifle, one generally does not look at the inscription on the gun sight.....
Click to expand...
which begs the point, then why was it added ...
it was not specified
it was added unilaterally by the stupid contractor
that stupidity will cost it dearly

One cannot see the inscription while using the gun sight either.....;)
Click to expand...
but that does not mean the inscription is not there, and available to be used against us in a propaganda war by our enemy as well as to potentially trouble soldiers who would object to having to use something which is now a religious artifact, by virtue of the unneeded, unspecified Biblical inscription
 
winston53660 said:
Are these being used in the same way as serial numbers or are they random? I really do not know. If they are just being used to put a bible verse on their I'm totally against the expendeture. If thay are some kind of tracking system I'm fine with it.

Let's say it costs .05 cents per stamp that there is 40 k per 80 unit.
Click to expand...

That's the part that no one really knows and why I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that this is just a coincidental set of serial numbers.
 
So, we're supposed to force I don't know how many soldiers to remove, from their rifles, a fully functional, high-quality optic sighting device, because of a TINY (minescule!) inscription that references a chapter/verse of scripture... and force them to wait and make do with iron sights while new sights are made/obtained... oh yeah that sounds like a very rational reaction that will go over well with the soldiers that are in harm's way. :doh
 
justabubba said:
read the Federal Acquisition Regulations. the contractor does not get to modify the specifications of the products it makes without the buyer's expressed agreement
doesn't matter that this does not affect the usefulness of the scope
if they signed the contract requiring them to furnish scopes made of pot metal and instead - at their own cost - upgraded to gold alloy without the buyer's approval, the contractor would still be subject to liquidated damages

which begs the point, then why was it added ...
it was not specified
it was added unilaterally by the stupid contractor
that stupidity will cost it dearly


but that does not mean the inscription is not there, and available to be used against us in a propaganda war by our enemy as well as to potentially trouble soldiers who would object to having to use something which is now a religious artifact, by virtue of the unneeded, unspecified Biblical inscription
Click to expand...

If it does not affect the performance, it cannot be labeled a 'modification'....;)
 
Goshin said:
So, we're supposed to force I don't know how many soldiers to remove, from their rifles, a fully functional, high-quality optic sighting device, because of a TINY (minescule!) inscription that references a chapter/verse of scripture... and force them to wait and make do with iron sights while new sights are made/obtained... oh yeah that sounds like a very rational reaction that will go over well with the soldiers that are in harm's way. :doh
Click to expand...

Makes alotta sense, don't it?...:rofl
 
Civilians can still put whatever they want on their rifles, though, right? Good....


5987.jpg
 
Partisan said:
The military accepted shipment & they have proved effective in the field, therefore they are not defective.....;)
Click to expand...
a latent defect ... something found after initial acceptance, which is later found to be defective, makes the contractor suceptible to liquidated damages to cure the defect
How someone 'feels' about them is irrelevant as long as they perform the task they are designed for......;)
Click to expand...
if the enemy is able to use the weapon in the propaganda war against us, to show that their presentation that we are fighting a religious crusade against islam, then it definately matters what someone feels about them
if the allied islamic and IDF forces find the weapon unacceptable because it bears a Christian legend, then that they feel that way adversely affects the utility of the weapon
The Sherriff Joe/pink underwear rule applies here.....:rofl :rofl :rofl
Click to expand...
and if the sheriff had purchased those pink jumpsuits and the contractor unilaterally added a legend on them stating 'joe is a schmuck', then the contractor would be subject to liquidated damages. this assumes the goods would have been purchased with federal monies and thus the contract made subject to the FAR
 
Partisan said:
If it does not affect the performance, it cannot be labeled a 'modification'....;)
Click to expand...

it would be found to have been built out of spec and unacceptable
 
justabubba said:
it would be found to have been built out of spec and unacceptable
Click to expand...

DoD inspectors signed for the scopes, as is. It belongs to the DoD, now. In the Army, once you sign for something, it's your's; along with the good, the bad, the ugly, the broke and whatever components are missing.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Partisan
The military accepted shipment & they have proved effective in the field, therefore they are not defective.....
a latent defect ... something found after initial acceptance, which is later found to be defective, makes the contractor suceptible to liquidated damages to cure the defect
Click to expand...
It does not affect it's performance, therefore it can not be called defective....;)
Quote:
How someone 'feels' about them is irrelevant as long as they perform the task they are designed for......

if the enemy is able to use the weapon in the propaganda war against us, to show that their presentation that we are fighting a religious crusade against islam, then it definately matters what someone feels about them
if the allied islamic and IDF forces find the weapon unacceptable because it bears a Christian legend, then that they feel that way adversely affects the utility of the weapon
Click to expand...
Who cares what the enemy thinks?......:roll:
I'll wager they are not to keen on cruise missiles either.....:rofl
Quote:
The Sherriff Joe/pink underwear rule applies here.....

and if the sheriff had purchased those pink jumpsuits and the contractor unilaterally added a legend on them stating 'joe is a schmuck', then the contractor would be subject to liquidated damages. this assumes the goods would have been purchased with federal monies and thus the contract made subject to the FAR
Click to expand...
__________________
I'd have to say Joe would reject them at delivery, unless they said, Jose is a schmuck"......:rofl
 
apdst said:
The scopes were produced with religious inscriptions.

What happens when the scopes are damaged and rendered unreliable during the process to remove the numbers? Who pays for that?
Click to expand...
the contractor

These are serial numbers, too, BTW. Can you imagine the confusion that changing all of them will cause and how much it will end up costing...all over nothing?
Click to expand...
i agree it is stupid. something unnecessary and not requested was added unilaterally by the contractor. now the contractor has to pony up to make it good. to compound the stupidity, the contractor has already admitted that these are Bible verses. otherwise, they could insist that it was intentionally added nomenclature so that batches could be identified separately ... and possibly gotten away without liquidated damages ... by presenting that the writing was not affixed as a religious reference but that the labeling was necessary in the fabrication and identification of the product for quality control purposes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom