"If a Christian government has no hope of defending against attack, it should surrender, knowing that Christianity will survive. 11.Deut 20:1-5 declares that a small army with God on its side can beat a large well-armed one.
Am I the only one that sees a contradiction here?
We'll see if others see a contradiction. I do not. The first verse refers is about declaring war and the second about defensive war. You should not do either lightly. The last verse is a caution against pessimism. For instance, quite often a defensive war is winnable even though the defender has less resources.
The Taliban gained power through victory in a civil war. This is the same way that the current federal system in the United States was established.
Civil wars rarely are successful without the help of outside foreign powers. We had the French and the Taliban had us.
God determines the appointed times of the nations and the timing of their rule. Does this mean the Taliibabies had the same backing from God as the USA?
I am not that much of a fatalist to believe that length of rule is predetermined.
Okay, Atheist appeaser, justify these inconsistencies. And also stop beating around the bush, and state uncategorically that we should do absolutely nothing to retaliate for the attacks perpetrated against us, and simply hope the terrorists will stop trying to kill as many Christians and Jews as they possibly can.
Its the state's job to punish criminal acts. That is not license to kill the innocent. The events of 911 should be considered criminal acts and, if there are others involved in the attacks that were not killed, the state should prosecute them. If these people are not residing in the United States, then we should issue letters of marque and reprisal against them.
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Anyone that would risk there life, to get Osama and his army of protectors, for reward only, will also abandon his mission if offered more money by the object of his search. (Osama is a very wealthy man)
You really think private citizens going out to seek and destroy, or plunder, Afghani ships, properties, and other holding, but not necessarily the doers of the deeds themselves, is a just way of settling the score, not to mention the fact that most of the perpetrators of the original attack would be left to continue the terrorist attacks that started the whole thing to begin with? Also, wouldn't that just make them see the killing of civilians as an even more justifiable means of attacking their enemy?