Posted on 11/23/2001 4:03:53 AM PST by Ada Coddington
Where's the evidence to support that contention?
Can you not be a better terror to evil doers if you fight them rather than designated whipping boys? I don't see any middle class Saudis and Egyptians shaking in their boots.
In order to disagree that wholeheartedly, you will have to believe that we had no plans to replace the Taliban prior to 911.
Perhaps so but irrelevant. The people of Afghanistan will be no better off under the Northern Alliance who while just as nice as the Taliban, also deal in opium.
I realize that the above word is bandied about quite a bit on FR, but I assure you they have earned this description.
Calling someone a Nazi is admitting defeat in an argument :-). They are a nasty piece of work but not unique.
It is a government that marches in, subjugates the people of the land, then believes it can launch attacks with impunity against whomever they feel like........all the while putting up feeble protestations as to how our campaign is terrorizing the very people they have tortured beyond belief.
The question is whether the Taliban had any pre-knowledge or involvement in 911 which would justify our attack on them. I have seen no evidence that this is so.
Scripture doesn't say much on waging war, so the author was using standard Christian theory about what constitutes a just war.
A weapon by definition is both offensive and defensive. If I bomb a military target I consider it a defensive weapon. There is no way for the author to define an offensive weapon that is unbiblical.
14.Military alliances are common in the modern world. However these are forbidden over and over again in the Bible. A Christian nation has a covenant with God. It cannot be totally committed to God, and place its faith in another nation for defence (Is 31:1-3). Therefore, defence alliances are not an option for a Christian nation.
Silly. God made man an interactive creature in which he wanted man to work together to acheive good. This applies to nations working together. The scripture sited talks about being reliant upon another nation without seeking God's help. God used Rahab to help defeat Jerhico.
13.This prohibition makes nuclear war unacceptable. Nuclear weapons would harm the land and non-combatants.
Again silly. Can you imagine what this world would be like if during the middle of the cold war the US adopted that policy. God gave us minds so that we could make logical decisions. If our intentions were to destroy another nation to take over it's resources than that use of Nuclear weapons would be wrong. The weapons themselves are not evil but any evil intent for their use. Romans 14:14
15.God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule. (Acts 17:26). No nation has the authority to invade another nation to change its government (even if it is evil).
Dumb. At the end of WWII were we suppose to just let the Nazi's keep on ruling after we destroyed their army. When Israel destroyed another nation it would set up it's new government. As Christians we believe that individuals are created in the image of God and thus we must try and protect individuals of all nations. The particular form of government is less important than that the government ensure the protection of the individuals.
However, the nation of Afghanistan did not attack the United States. The Taliban did not attack the United States. Afghanistan may be harbouring the criminals who organised the attack, but that is not a justification for war.
Ignorant. Omar is the leader of the Taliban and is tied at the hip with Bin Laden thus the leader of the nation is also the leader of the terrorists.
As I said, the author is trying to fit the Bible into the libertarian philosophy of world relations. I'm libertarian when it comes to US domestic policy. The libertarian foriegn policy is simply ignorant.
Silly. God made man an interactive creature in which he wanted man to work together to acheive good. This applies to nations working together. The scripture sited talks about being reliant upon another nation without seeking God's help. God used Rahab to help defeat Jerhico
Rahab wasn't another nation--she was a lady of easy virtue who hid spies. OTOH scripture does tell us that Israel was destroyed for playing the prostitute with Egypt.
Ignorant. Omar is the leader of the Taliban and is tied at the hip with Bin Laden thus the leader of the nation is also the leader of the terrorists.
I have seen no evidence linking bin Laden or anyone from Afghanistan with the 911 attacks and thus cannot conclude that the mullah Omar was complicit.
As I said, the author is trying to fit the Bible into the libertarian philosophy of world relations. I'm libertarian when it comes to US domestic policy. The libertarian foriegn policy is simply ignorant.
Libertarian philosophy meshes easily with scripture. Libertarian foreign policy revolves around us minding our own business, which at least on the surface appears to be sensible.
I know when to admit defeat, but it won't be here, Ada.
James 2:25- And in the same manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
You're parsing scripture just as the author did. Don't limit what God uses for his own ends. If he wants nations to ally themselves they will then ally themselves. God used Rahab, a foriegn harlot, for his purposes.
I have seen no evidence linking bin Laden or anyone from Afghanistan with the 911 attacks and thus cannot conclude that the mullah Omar was complicit.
And if you saw the evidence would that change your mind?
Libertarian philosophy meshes easily with scripture. Libertarian foreign policy revolves around us minding our own business, which at least on the surface appears to be sensible.
The Bible clearly delineates between actions between individuals ( The area in which I agree with libertarian principles )and the role of government in upholding justice. Because God is a just God he requires governments to uphold justice. The actions of 911 require that justice be upheld.
No, it's more like, you can be whatever you want to be, as long as you think like "US." :)
'Tis what friends are for: to correct their friends' flaws. :) Fregards.
Ping
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.