When the last moslem dies, the war is over. Until the last moslem dies (or the last non-moslem dies) the war continues. The koran leaves us no other options. Die or be killed or enslaved. We can surrender this world to satan And sentence all the innocents in it to hell, or we can fight to win.
If we are perceived even tangentially as being morally in the wrong, we would lose no matter how many Muslim cities we flattened.
The war continues until the last moslem dies. Once the last moslem dies, there are no longer any moslems left to fight against us. They will have fulfilled the koranic command to fight until they (or we) are dead. But we still don’t strike first.
So you continue to advocate sacrificing innocent lives and souls to hell. Their blood is on your hands.
I am arguing in fact from the theory of war as enunciated by St. Thomas Aquinas with whose writings you may be familiar. It would be novel to suggest he was a satanist.
Not satanist. Just not biblical. Thomas Aquinas may have had some very good writings. But they are not scripture.
That the Founders were primarily active Christians was a great advantage in how our governing principles were set up and how the government was structured.
And these founders fought against the british, firing the first shot in the revolutionary war.
Then you promise us perpetual war because what you advocate is total extermination. Now, if the plan is to defeat the rogue states that are Muslim and which adhere to the Koranic injunction to destroy or convert, then we have an agreement: I agree that such states are a permanent threat to security, even within the Islamic world. But even there, the project of conquering every active Muslim state is a huge one. And besides, it will not be possible to eliminate every Muslim. Even the Black Plague only killed a third of humanity and that is probably the record for human death from a single cause.
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.
That is irresponsible. I do not suggest simply lying down and dying, which is what your post implies. I argue that we are not to simply launch a crusade on the premise that nits breed lice (a quote from an American general while fighting the American Indians, if memory serves). 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). Does this mean that there will be initial casualties? Probably, but that means that we all stand up and prepare, so that we do not permit the enemy another chance to attack us on the sly. Beyond that, we play God to say we are unilaterally in the right and may dispose of others as we deem fit.
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". You are free to suggest NT quotes which support your position. I'm coming up empty on that. As I have said, the closest I can find is Luke 22:35,38-39. 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.
It does not mean we hold that presumption regardless of how others treat us, because as I pointed out in my first post in this conversation, we know our neighbor because he shows us mercy. Not much mercy being handed out by Muslims, so they are forfeiting their status as neighbors we presume to be of good will. Hence, we prepare for war against them. When they strike, and I believe they intend to strike soon, we strike back, as hard as can be justified.
Of course, as I've pointed out, the USA is founded on Christian principles, it is not ruled by Christian theocrats nor governed directly by Biblical principles. If the decision is made that an enemy poses a clear and present danger and that attack is imminent, then the US is probably free to attack. The stance will not be impeccably moral but only from a Christian perspective. Liberals use our Christian principles against us all the time. I'm sure they'd be very happy to use them against the US, though it would be only marginally appropriate.
And these founders fought against the british, firing the first shot in the revolutionary war.
It is my recollection that the British landed soldiers in the colonies, established barracks in private homes, spied on the inhabitants, passed laws particularly onerous to colonials which did not apply to anyone else, forcibly contracted trade deals which intentionally impoverished colonial traders and generally looted the landscape and the populace. I am aware that colonials then began plotting and some amassed weaponry, which they tried to secrete. The British found out about this and decided to confiscate the weapons. A certain Paul Revere and his companions found out and warned the colonials, who then massed to defend the armory. The British arrived and tried the confiscation. Somebody fired on somebody at that point. Is this what you mean by the "founders...firing the first shot"? If so, it looks a lot more like my principle of playing your enemy into firing first (by breaking their own law about possession of personal firearms in order to confiscate weapons they decided were a threat to their rule). 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.