Posted on 09/10/2010 9:34:15 AM PDT by mbarker12474
Beleg->Then you promise us perpetual war because what you advocate is total extermination.
Welcome to reality. We are in a religious war that will only end when the last moslem dies. Why? Because we want it that way? Of course not. But because their scriptures COMMAND it to be that way.
It will either be extermination of them or extermination of us. Islam is not compatible with any other belief system. They cannot coexist. Their scriptures do not allow it.
Now, if the plan is to defeat the rogue states
This is not a war of country against country. It is a war of culture (Western civilization as formed by Judeo-Christian thought) and islam. It doesn't matter if the islamic states wage war on us at all. In fact, none of them have. What matters is that the islamics are waging war on us.
And besides, it will not be possible to eliminate every Muslim.
How many Ra worshippers do you know? How many who are alive worship Zeus? Molech? the gods of ancient babylon? Not many are there? These cultures (religions) have been exterminated thus proving that it can be done.
Beleg: But we still don’t strike first.
John O: So you continue to advocate sacrificing innocent lives and souls to hell. Their blood is on your hands.
b->That is irresponsible. I do not suggest simply lying down and dying, which is what your post implies.
No. You are suggesting letting our countrymen lay down and die while we do nothing to save them even though we have the power to do so. We can either strike first and eliminate the problem or we can let our people die. I'd rather we defend ourselves and prevent the needless deaths
Once attacked, we respond with vigor and full intention to conquer the attacker and reduce the attacker's ability to attack again, if not convert that attacker from 14th Century Islam to 21st Century Christianity. That is always a good choice for anyone (it's just not an easy one intellectually).
Other than waiting for our people to die you are on the right track. Eliminate the moslem and you end the war. Ann Coulter had it right "Conquer their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". It's the only way to win.
Beyond that, we play God to say we are unilaterally in the right and may dispose of others as we deem fit.
If you do not believe that Christianity is right then I suggest you read your bible more often. Christians are the ONLY ones who are right. (By the grace of God)
john o->Just not biblical. Thomas Aquinas may have had some very good writings. But they are not scripture.
By this I am beginning to infer that you mean "not Old Testament" when you say "not biblical".
I know of no book in the old testament or in the new testament authored by Thomas Aquinas. Therefore his writings are not biblical. They are not scripture
If we agree that Jesus is the Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father of the same substance and fully sharing the full Godhead with the Father and the Holy Spirit, then we ought to be ready to take His word for what policy we should pursue as Christians, yes? And His prime dictum was that in the Kingdom of God which He proclaimed, the First Commandment is that we should love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind. He said the Second was like unto it: we shall love our neighbors as ourselves. I take that to mean that we begin our contact with the presumption of good intention.
What kind of love are you demonstrating to your neighbor if you have the power to prevent them from being ruthlessly murdered by satanists and you choose not to do it. "Sorry neighbor, but you'll just have to die at the hand of these anti-christians who have promised to kill or enslave us all because I refuse to get my hands dirty and keep you safe". I call that hatred of your neighbor, there is no love in it.
If your neighbor is threatened, you are to step in and defend them.
we know our neighbor because he shows us mercy.
No. We know our neighbor when WE show mercy to them. The good Samaritan was a neighbor to the mugged man because the SAMARITAN showed mercy to him. The scripture NEVER states that the mugged man was a neighbor to the Samaritan.
If we refuse to show mercy to those around us who are threatened with death and enslavement then we are refusing to be their neighbor.
When they strike, and I believe they intend to strike soon, we strike back, as hard as can be justified.
So even though you believe they are going to kill the people around us (Who we should be neighbors to) you sit on your hands and let the innocents die rather than defend them.
Liberals use our Christian principles against us all the time.
Like by saying we cannot preemptively defend ourselves. We've lost an awful lot of good people that way. A huge number just to the moslems. We put our men in harms way and say they cannot fire until fired upon. We have sentenced our fighting men to be targets rather than soldiers.
I'd say that was shaky ground to base a policy decision on if granting that firing the first shot usually makes one the culpable one.
I do not grant that firing the first shot makes one culpable. Firing the first shot in most situations makes one wise. Especially in cases of self defense such as we find ourselves in need of from the moslems.
Most of these terrorists we are fighting now were at one time "bad" moslems . Or rather, unobservant moslems. Eventually if the perversion called islam exists, something like the taliban or al quada will sprout from it. Eventually someone will read the koran and figure out what it means and the war would start all over again. The only way to prevent that is to make sure their are no more moslems and no more koran.
If they are against terrorism then why are they not fighting against islam? The more devout a moslem becomes the more of a terrorist he becomes. Even these "anti-terrorist" moslems will eventually have children who will read the koran and figure out that "Fight against the unbeliever near to you until he converts or is enslaved" (paraphrased) means exactly what it says. You cannot separate terrorism from islam because the koran COMMANDs jihad.
You are being contentious and I really can’t figure out why. I say only that I will not sanction the US making the first strike and you continually turn this into a unilateral prohibition against the US ever making any strike. That is utterly false to what I have repeatedly said. Given this tendentious attitude displayed I realize it is impossible to have any kind of discussion. You will have things your way and that will be that.
Fine. You know where I stand (or perhaps, those reading know and you refuse to acknowledge it). Your posts hurl repeated calumnies at me which I have patiently borne and have now no interest in allowing you repeat.
God be with you and may He have mercy on your souls.
Anyone could become a Muslim, and as you say, any Muslim could become a jihadi upon becoming "more devout." Can we eliminate the Koran? Impossible. This is the 21st century. It's all over the Internet, along with everything else.
This is a spiritual war, a war over souls. It is fought with spiritual weapons. Do you fast? Do you pray? Do you preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
I am not being contentious. You are just not paying attention.
I say only that I will not sanction the US making the first strike and you continually turn this into a unilateral prohibition against the US ever making any strike.
I have no idea where you got this impression. MY poinit is that if we do not make the first strike then some of our people will die needlessly when the enemy attacks. And the enemy has promised (and demonstrated) that they will attack again and again until we no longer exist.
If it helps you to look at it this way, take 9-11, or the khobar towers (Saudi Arabia), or the USS Cole incident or any one of the other 1000s or so acts of moslem terrorism as the first strike. We have been fighting them piecemeal for decades and we are losing because we will not admit that it is a war between cultures and the only possible outcome is eradication of one of us. I'd much rather it be them. We kill far fewer innocents than islam does. Your posts hurl repeated calumnies at me which I have patiently borne and have now no interest in allowing you repeat.
I have not misrepresented anything that you have said. You have said that you refuse to make the first strike even if we know that the enemy will attack us. Essentially you are saying that you will sacrifice some of our people so that we don't have to make the first move.
If that bothers you perhaps you should think through the consequences of inaction in the face of certain attack
I am not being contentious. You are just not paying attention.
I say only that I will not sanction the US making the first strike and you continually turn this into a unilateral prohibition against the US ever making any strike.
I have no idea where you got this impression. MY point is that if we do not make the first strike then some of our people will die needlessly when the enemy attacks. And the enemy has promised (and demonstrated) that they will attack again and again until we no longer exist.
If it helps you to look at it this way, take 9-11, or the khobar towers (Saudi Arabia), or the USS Cole incident or any one of the other 1000s or so acts of moslem terrorism as the first strike. We have been fighting them piecemeal for decades and we are losing because we will not admit that it is a war between cultures and the only possible outcome is eradication of one of us. I'd much rather it be them. We kill far fewer innocents than islam does. Your posts hurl repeated calumnies at me which I have patiently borne and have now no interest in allowing you repeat.
I have not misrepresented anything that you have said. You have said that you refuse to make the first strike even if we know that the enemy will attack us. Essentially you are saying that you will sacrifice some of our people so that we don't have to make the first move.
If that bothers you perhaps you should think through the consequences of inaction in the face of certain attack
I disagree. Eradication of any plague is simple, relentlessly pursue it and stop it from spreading. It will eventually die out. If we cannot totally end islam we can at least push it back into the caves and dark holes it crept out of and cut off it's head whenever it dares to peak out.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The price of freedom from islamic terrorism is the same.
This is the 21st century. It's all over the Internet, along with everything else.
There's information about Horus worship all over the internet too, But not a whole lot of Horus worshippers.
This is a spiritual war, a war over souls. It is fought with spiritual weapons. Do you fast?
Yes (but not as much as a should)
Do you pray?
Yes
Do you preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Whenever the opportunity presents itself.
But those things do not relieve us of our obligation to defend the innocents. Preaching to a man who is about to fly a jet into an office building is highly unlikely to be successful. He's already sold his soul and is deaf to anything anyone says. (Could it work? Yes. But a bullet through his brain will stop the current threat faster and preserve the lives of his intended victims so we can reach them.)
The former is a justified use of lethal force. The latter is a gratuitous threat against many hundreds of millions, most of whom are not engaged in murderous acts either as killers or as the accomplices/accessories to killers.
I got that impression because you have repeatedly said that my position is tantamount to unilateral surrender. In this last entry, you have seriously modified your position, moving more to mine, as it happens. I find no valiant death in battle to be 'needless'. There are those who volunteer to be on the front line. The front line will take the first and worst casualties. They know that and they volunteer anyway. That's what makes them valiant. Knowing that they will have to wait to be attacked and being willing to stand there and be the first target makes them heroes.
You don't like that there would have to be casualties on our side to begin with. I could wish it weren't so, but the alternative is to turn into a nation which engages in genocide. I thought we were opposed to that philosophically. I cannot see you opposing it, from what you have posted. That being so, I stand against you. I denounce any nation that would attack another, even if they threatened them. Rattling sabres is just provocation. It is not assault and certainly not battery. A Godless nation will not be able to stand being insulted and threatened. A Godly nation restrains itself from such childish reactionary behavior.
And I say all this knowing that Muslims have attacked and murdered Christians in the last few days. Sadly, those Christians were citizens of other nations, whose moral responsibility it is to punish the perpetrators. I do not think they will do so and those martyrs and confessors will have only our prayers for their valiant souls.
The case, I would hope, will be different if some American Christian is attacked or murdered. That's as far as I will go and this is the last postI will make in this fruitless exchange. If you must, you have the last word. I won't even read it.
The former is a justified use of lethal force. The latter is a gratuitous threat against many hundreds of millions, most of whom are not engaged in murderous acts either as killers or as the accomplices/accessories to killers.
Read the koran. We'll talk again when you understand what we are discussing here.
The people in the WTC did not volunteer. Yet they were on the front lines. We (the US government) could have defended them, but we did not.
You don't like that there would have to be casualties on our side to begin with. I could wish it weren't so, but the alternative is to turn into a nation which engages in genocide. I thought we were opposed to that philosophically.
I never said that. Sometimes genocide really is the only way to end a war. God used it several times in the bible to protect His people.
those martyrs and confessors will have only our prayers for their valiant souls.
They are beyond any aid we can give them. They now stand to be judged before the throne of Christ. If they were not ready (saved) then those moslems have sent them to hell. Aided by the countries that did not defend their people. This is why I am so concerned about this issue.
That's as far as I will go and this is the last postI will make in this fruitless exchange. If you must, you have the last word. I won't even read it.
OK I'll take it.
As seen by the posts on this thread, BelegStrongbow advocates standing uselessly by and allowing our people to be slain like sheep by a culture that has announced that it will do exactly that.
I can only assume that your stance is due to ignorance about the enemy and their aims. I give you the same advice I gave Mrs-Dono. Read the koran and then we'll talk again when you understand.
Muslims are instructed to judge people collectively, as members of a group. Rational people judge others individually according to their acts. I refuse to pervert my thinking in order to judge like a collctivist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.