Shooting at Fort Hood.. [Archive] - ThirdDay.com Message Boards

View Full Version : Shooting at Fort Hood..

Evanescence

11-05-2009, 10:11 AM

Looks like soldiers killing soldiers...

sad....

HotWireD

11-05-2009, 02:21 PM

Must be a coincidence, this happened around the same time...

Policeman who killed British troops 'is back with Taliban'

Gunman identified as policeman called Gulbadin greeted with flowers on return to Taliban protection, sources say
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/afghanistan-gunman-uk-soldiers-taliban

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1225666/Our-boys-deaths-vain.html
Our five soldiers were resting, having taken off their body armour in an Afghan police base, when they were murdered in cold blood by one of the men they were there to train - an Afghan policeman.

There have been many tragic British deaths in that war torn country, but none more seemingly pointless than these.

\0/ Praying for the families of these British and American soldiers.

Aussie3rddayfan

11-05-2009, 07:56 PM

Looks like soldiers killing soldiers...

sad....

The news here said that the shooter was a Muslim Major who hated America. Sounds kind of peculiar. Why would you serve in a countries military if you hated their guts???

Beachcomber

11-06-2009, 12:02 AM

The news here said that the shooter was a Muslim Major who hated America. Sounds kind of peculiar. Why would you serve in a countries military if you hated their guts???

Why do we let them is the real question here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shonsu

11-06-2009, 12:27 AM

The news here said that the shooter was a Muslim Major who hated America. Sounds kind of peculiar. Why would you serve in a countries military if you hated their guts???

They're called "home grown jihadists". This guy was born here in the US but considered himself a Palestinian. He listed it as his nationality on paperwork. It is the stated goal of Muslim extremists to infiltrate the US and convert it from the inside out and this is just a sample of it.

Just in case you haven't read it yet, here's an AP article about it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fort_hood_shooting_sus pect

Jesuslove

11-06-2009, 01:47 AM

I think we all should take a moment and pray for the victim's families. What a sad thing to happen!

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 02:28 AM

The coward probably thinks he did a brave thing. That isn't war, that is murder.
I guess it makes sense though. They know that if they fight fairly they don't stand a chance.

I think all muslims should be removed from active service until the war is over, because there is no way of telling the good ones from the bad until somehting like this happens and then it's too late.

Valpo

11-06-2009, 03:32 AM

Music Dude, You have got to be kidding me. Should have all folks of German descent, or outright Germans, been barred from serving in the US Military during WWII? Again, this is NOT war on Islam as much as I think Islam is a false religion led by the Deceiver (as any and all religions are that do not point to Christ), this is war on terrorists who happen to profess Islam as their religion. I'd rather have a good Muslim on the front lines with me who would watch my back and who was a good shot then a non Muslim or a Christian who wouldn't watch my back and was a terrible shot.

Do not play into the extremists hands and make this holy war.

Valpo

11-06-2009, 03:34 AM

And yikes, I didn't see this, this is not good.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 04:04 AM

R. Smith

11-06-2009, 05:14 AM

isn't that terrible, I didn't hear the news until late last night. I was sick in bed almost all day yesterday.

Shonsu

11-06-2009, 05:35 AM

German isn't a religion or a way of thinking.

I have no problem with having a good muslim fighting beside me. But how can you know? No one thought this guy was a radical until lives were lost.

I agree, there is no way to know without checking into their backgrounds. In this guy's case, the FBI was starting to investigating him 6 months ago. He should have been pulled from service right then and there. And I think all service members with a Muslim background should be screened heavily. The problem is that the White House and Pentagon are asleep at the wheel.

Shonsu

11-06-2009, 05:38 AM

isn't that terrible, I didn't hear the news until late last night. I was sick in bed almost all day yesterday.

Hope you're feeling better!

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 06:09 AM

I agree, there is no way to know without checking into their backgrounds. In this guy's case, the FBI was starting to investigating him 6 months ago. He should have been pulled from service right then and there. And I think all service members with a Muslim background should be screened heavily. The problem is that the White House and Pentagon are asleep at the wheel.

That and the PC police won't allow any form of racial profiling or religious profiling either.

Jesuslove

11-06-2009, 06:18 AM

I think all muslims should be removed from active service until the war is over, because there is no way of telling the good ones from the bad until somehting like this happens and then it's too late.

While I agree this was a horrible thing, and Mr. Hasan should prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, discriminating against Muslims is not the answer. Many Muslims serve honorably in the armed forces. You can't persecute an entire class of people based on the actions of one or two individuals.

I have read reports this morning that Mr. Hasan had been seeking legal counsel as he was being harassed for being Muslim. This in no way justifies what he did.... however the military should address the issue of religious harassment in general.

Jesuslove

11-06-2009, 06:22 AM

That and the PC police won't allow any form of racial profiling or religious profiling either.

Racial profiling is wrong. It's easy to suggest it is fair, until you are the person racially or spiritually profiled. During WWII, the US interred Japanese Americans. It turned out to be a horrible mistake and our government later apologized for it.

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 06:23 AM

While I agree this was a horrible thing, and Mr. Hasan should prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, discriminating against Muslims is not the answer. Many Muslims serve honorably in the armed forces. You can't persecute an entire class of people based on the actions of one or two individuals.

I have read reports this morning that Mr. Hasan had been seeking legal counsel as he was being harassed for being Muslim. This in no way justifies what he did.... however the military should address the issue of religious harassment in general.

It's not persecution to ask them to temporarily take a break from the war.
And if I were a good muslim I'd be glad to make that sacrifice if it would likely save the lives of my fellow soldiers.

Maybe the background check would be a better solution. And if anything looks even suspicious, they should be rejected.

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 06:29 AM

Racial profiling is wrong. It's easy to suggest it is fair, until you are the person racially or spiritually profiled. During WWII, the US interred Japanese Americans. It turned out to be a horrible mistake and our government later apologized for it.

Is it ok to do something that is wrong if it prevents something 10 times more wrong from happening, in your opinion?

That being said, I do not believe profiling of any kind is wrong. It is nothing more than a logical and effective use of statistics.

Jesuslove

11-06-2009, 06:52 AM

It's not persecution to ask them to temporarily take a break from the war.
And if I were a good muslim I'd be glad to make that sacrifice if it would likely save the lives of my fellow soldiers.

Maybe the background check would be a better solution. And if anything looks even suspicious, they should be rejected.

So if it had been a Christian man who did this yesterday, you'd be calling for screening or profiling of Christians?

Shonsu

11-06-2009, 07:16 AM

So if it had been a Christian man who did this yesterday, you'd be calling for screening or profiling of Christians?

Christians around the world aren't calling for the destruction of the West and Israel now are they?

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 07:30 AM

So if it had been a Christian man who did this yesterday, you'd be calling for screening or profiling of Christians?

Yes, but that is a very big "if." Because you and I know that wouldn't happen.

Evanescence

11-06-2009, 08:04 AM

Music Dude for pres....kill all the eveil doers!

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 08:07 AM

Music Dude for pres....kill all the eveil doers!

Umm.....where did I mention killing anyone?

Evanescence

11-06-2009, 08:46 AM

We can find someone...I'm guessing anyone who isnt a good outstanding Christian and Republican...

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 08:47 AM

We can find someone...I'm guessing anyone who isnt a good outstanding Christian and Republican...

So I say maybe muslims should be at least temporarily banned from active duty, and you hear "kill em all." You have issues.

Jesuslove

11-06-2009, 08:59 AM

So I say maybe muslims should be at least temporarily banned from active duty, and you hear "kill em all." You have issues.

Music, because one Muslim commits an evil act, doesn't mean we should openly discriminate against them all. How about all the mass murderers that claimed to be Christian. Should we ban Christians from owning guns because of one mass murderer?

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 09:03 AM

Music, because one Muslim commits an evil act, doesn't mean we should openly discriminate against them all. How about all the mass murderers that claimed to be Christian. Should we ban Christians from owning guns because of one mass murderer?

A heck of a lot more than one muslim has commited evil acts recently. If it were just one, or even 100, I wouldn't be in favor of profiling.

You aren't going to get me to change my mind by turning it back to Christians, so stop trying.

In the words of Nirvana, nevermind.

Evanescence

11-06-2009, 09:07 AM

It was sarcasm...

You might rebel as well if your homeland and religion was attacked for no reason...

good ol' GWB and his band of criminals to the rescue !!!!!!!

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 09:13 AM

It was sarcasm...

You might rebel as well if your homeland and religion was attacked for no reason...

good ol' GWB and his band of criminals to the rescue !!!!!!!

I might if that were true, but I still wouldn't resort to the cowardly and immoral tactics they have.

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 09:16 AM

So if it had been a Christian man who did this yesterday, you'd be calling for screening or profiling of Christians?

I'm not calling for profiling because of one isolated event. That would be stupid. In case you've had your head in the sand (or somewhere else) in the last few years, yesterday's occurence is not the first time something like this has happened recently by our peace-loving muslim friends.

Jesuslove

11-06-2009, 09:21 AM

I'm not calling for profiling because of one isolated event. That would be stupid. In case you've had your head in the sand (or somewhere else) in the last few years, yesterday's occurence is not the first time something like this has happened recently by our peace-loving muslim friends.

While your at it, why don't you and your buddies round up the Wiccans, the Jews, the gays, the trade unionists, etc. etc. After all, they are all the enemy (of the conservative movement).

Musicdude

11-06-2009, 09:30 AM

While your at it, why don't you and your buddies round up the Wiccans, the Jews, the gays, the trade unionists, etc. etc. After all, they are all the enemy (of the conservative movement).

Who said anything about rounding anyone up? Man, you guys sure know how to exaggerate.

Oh, and please don't group the Jews in with the Gays and Wiccans. That is extremely offensive to the Jews.

I'm out of this conversation. It's getting pretty nasty and unproductive.

Shonsu

11-06-2009, 09:32 AM

While your at it, why don't you and your buddies round up the Wiccans, the Jews, the gays, the trade unionists, etc. etc. After all, they are all the enemy (of the conservative movement).

Just remember your words in the future when you have to follow Sharia Law here in the US. Don't think it can happen? Take a look at what's going on in the UK. Like I said before, it is the stated goal of Muslims worldwide to bring Sharia Law into all lands by force or by subterfuge. Too many people here have their heads in the sand.

Valpo

11-06-2009, 09:39 AM

I am for the most part here agreeing with JL. Signs of the end times to be sure.

Dude of Music: Do we ban all Roman Catholics from active duty bc of terrorism in Ireland by a certain group of people? Do we ban protestants? Who gets to serve? I understand that Islamic Extremism is a bigger brand here but it sets a dangerous precedent to be banning people based on creed and it severely limits freedom. JL is right that many Muslims serve the US honorably.

Take it a step further, do we ban millennial dispensationalists from the military bc they have a vested interest in protecting Israel not for the sake of it being a Democracy but for the sake of "reigning in God's kingdom?"

To me it just sets a dangerous precedent to start banning people based on beliefs. Whether or not the Koran says to kill infidels, many Muslims in fact do not practice this. There are varying factions of Islam and many American Muslims are quite peaceful. They're theology is still wrong, but they're peaceful. Again on the front lines I'd rather have someone next to me who has got a good shot than good theology. We can work on the theology around a campfire.

At what point does the banning or the limiting stop? I have concerns about that.

Valpo

11-06-2009, 09:42 AM

Just remember your words in the future when you have to follow Sharia Law here in the US. Don't think it can happen? Take a look at what's going on in the UK. Like I said before, it is the stated goal of Muslims worldwide to bring Sharia Law into all lands by force or by subterfuge. Too many people here have their heads in the sand.

Highly doubtful. Even further more it is doubtful this would happen in JL's or any of our lifetimes. America will go anti religious secular before Islamic Extremist. So you will be persecuted for having faith at all, not the "wrong" faith.

And not that I invite persecution, but I remember Jesus saying something about being blessed for being persecuted on account of his name. Remember, the church is not supposed to be some culture within (or out) a culture cut off from the rest of the world. Our citizenship is in heaven, but we march around on this dying earth. We are going to engage hardships.

Evanescence

11-06-2009, 09:42 AM

Deport all white people...

Shonsu

11-06-2009, 10:01 AM

Highly doubtful. Even further more it is doubtful this would happen in JL's or any of our lifetimes. America will go anti religious secular before Islamic Extremist. So you will be persecuted for having faith at all, not the "wrong" faith.

And not that I invite persecution, but I remember Jesus saying something about being blessed for being persecuted on account of his name. Remember, the church is not supposed to be some culture within (or out) a culture cut off from the rest of the world. Our citizenship is in heaven, but we march around on this dying earth. We are going to engage hardships.

Well, I believe we are headed for a one-world government/religious system (and fairly soon). The only one that fits the bill is Islam/Sharia.

Evanescence

11-06-2009, 10:03 AM

NWO coming soon....and people will embrace it

Jesuslove

11-06-2009, 01:55 PM

Who said anything about rounding anyone up? Man, you guys sure know how to exaggerate.

Oh, and please don't group the Jews in with the Gays and Wiccans. That is extremely offensive to the Jews.

God loves all people. The Jews of today aren't better than the average person. And yes, I believe God loves Wiccans too.

Jesuslove

11-06-2009, 02:24 PM

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115230

WND claims there is a link between Hasan and the Obama administration. Cheewiee, is this WND gossip? Is this any different than Prejean porno leaks?

Howlin' Wolf

11-06-2009, 03:26 PM

Well, I believe we are headed for a one-world government/religious system (and fairly soon). The only one that fits the bill is Islam/Sharia.

Maybe you shouldn't read so much Left Behind.

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!

HumanityisSaved

11-07-2009, 02:02 AM

Another big point here is that Obama failed in a defining moment. Hillary was right about him and the 3 am phone call. You don't joke and give shoutouts after such a terrible thing. nObama even got the Medal of Honor thing wrong too. What a joke. This guy is not fit to be president. I hate to say it but I think he's worse than Bush so far. Forget the 3 am phone call he couldn't even give a speech while he was awake. This president needs prayers big time. Pray for him... he is a megalomaniacal child.

Evanescence

11-08-2009, 12:54 PM

Please..worse than GWB? he has a LONG way to go...

Musicdude

11-09-2009, 12:58 AM

Musicdude

11-09-2009, 01:01 AM

God loves all people. The Jews of today aren't better than the average person. And yes, I believe God loves Wiccans too.

I didn't say anything about who God loves and who He doesn't.

But being a Jew by race is not a sin. Being a homosexual or a wiccan is. So you do the math.

Musicdude

11-09-2009, 01:02 AM

Please..worse than GWB? he has a LONG way to go...

Give him time.

Shonsu

11-09-2009, 01:18 AM

Please..worse than GWB? he has a LONG way to go...

I don't believe that. I think he's done more in his first year to damage our national security and economy than GWB ever did. From his "world apology tour" to his "Obamacare" and "Cap and Tax", we're headed for disaster with him in charge.

Shonsu

11-09-2009, 01:32 AM

I've already taken that back and said that a background check would be a better idea than just banning all of them. If anything in their background check looks even suspicious and they have no good explanation for it, I say deny them the priviledge of serving in our military.

The bad thing is, now they're saying that Hasan was the spiritual leader for the other 48 soldiers in the chaplain's absence. How do we know how many of them were "radicalized" by Hasan or may have been radical before? We just don't know and it's just another bomb waiting to go off on more of our soldiers.

Musicdude

11-09-2009, 02:06 AM

The bad thing is, now they're saying that Hasan was the spiritual leader for the other 48 soldiers in the chaplain's absence. How do we know how many of them were "radicalized" by Hasan or may have been radical before? We just don't know and it's just another bomb waiting to go off on more of our soldiers.

It just keeps getting better. :(

Jesuslove

11-09-2009, 04:16 AM

I don't believe that. I think he's done more in his first year to damage our national security and economy than GWB ever did. From his "world apology tour" to his "Obamacare" and "Cap and Tax", we're headed for disaster with him in charge.

What has Obama done to damage our national security? Really?

Jesuslove

11-09-2009, 04:19 AM

Musicdude

11-09-2009, 04:38 AM

Were you afraid of white people after Timothy McVeigh committed domestic terrorism?

Ok, let me explain this to you because you don't seem to get it.

Being aware and maybe even a little paranoid of a particular religion, because of hundreds and hundreds of terroristic acts done by men of said relgion, and done in the name of said religion is perfectly normal, healthy and wise.

But...

Being hateful toward one particular race of people because of a small few (by comparison) terroristic or otherwise evil acts have been done is unarguably wrong.

Here are the key differences in case you missed them again.

1. Religion versus Race.
2. Few isolated incidents versus hundreds of connected incidents.

Now that we are clear on this, I hope to never hear this ridiculous argument again. But I'm sure I will. :rolleyes:

Jesuslove

11-09-2009, 04:51 AM

Musicdude

11-09-2009, 04:56 AM

You're quite condescending. And you cry wolf when people are disrespectful to you.
Sorry.

1. The incident at Fort Hood isn't related to hundreds of connected incidents.
Yes they are. Islam is the connection.

2. Profiling is profiling whether it's race based or theology based, and it's wrong.
Why is it wrong? It doesn't break any of God's laws, so why do you say it's wrong?
Profiling is not hate. I can love someone like Jesus does and still be suspicious of them if there is good cause to be suspicious. Love does not equal naivety.

HumanityisSaved

11-09-2009, 05:23 AM

Sorry.

Yes they are. Islam is the connection.

Why is it wrong? It doesn't break any of God's laws, so why do you say it's wrong?
Profiling is not hate. I can love someone like Jesus does and still be suspicious of them if there is good cause to be suspicious. Love does not equal naivety.

Law enforcement agencies for decades have employed "Profilers" to establish patterns and sudsequently to investigate and guard against those established patterns. Profiling became a political football in the 90's and that is why a lot of libbies feel the way they do about it.

Profiling can be abused there is no arguement there but it is also a VERY GOOD law enforcement tool.

Over 90% of terrorist acts in the past 50 years were perpetrated in the name of the evil religion of Islam. So when policing or preventing terrorism it is simply good police work to carefully consider Muslims.

Shonsu

11-09-2009, 05:25 AM

1. The incident at Fort Hood isn't related to hundreds of connected incidents.

You really haven't been keeping up with this have you? Here's the latest, "Officials: U.S. Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda": http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

And this is from a liberal news source. Not even WND.

Shonsu

11-09-2009, 05:55 AM

And this article sums up the problem nicely: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1109/steyn110909.php3?printer_ friendly.

We are going to "politically correct" ourselves to death.

Shonsu

11-09-2009, 06:05 AM

Ok, this one is from WND but I just couldn't help posting a link to it: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printab le&pageId=115391. It's all about how Obama has acted since this has happened. It's pretty sad.

Musicdude

11-09-2009, 07:08 AM

Law enforcement agencies for decades have employed "Profilers" to establish patterns and sudsequently to investigate and guard against those established patterns. Profiling became a political football in the 90's and that is why a lot of libbies feel the way they do about it.

Profiling can be abused there is no arguement there but it is also a VERY GOOD law enforcement tool.

Over 90% of terrorist acts in the past 50 years were perpetrated in the name of the evil religion of Islam. So when policing or preventing terrorism it is simply good police work to carefully consider Muslims.

Exactly. And of course I'm not saying the abuse of profiling is perfectly acceptable. I am saying the fair and responsible use of it is not only acceptable but very necessary.

Musicdude

11-09-2009, 07:09 AM

Jesuslove

11-09-2009, 07:53 AM

You really haven't been keeping up with this have you? Here's the latest, "Officials: U.S. Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda": http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

And this is from a liberal news source. Not even WND.

So? Even if he is connected to Al-Queda, can you name hundreds of incidents of Al Queda terrorism against America? Seriously?

Jesuslove

11-09-2009, 07:55 AM

Wow. :eek:

WND (Wingnut Daily) is a joke!

cheewiee

11-09-2009, 08:06 AM

WND (Wingnut Daily) is a joke!

Even still... the events chronicled by the WND article did happen... In his first public statements since the shooting, that he was aware of, he spend thre minuites in a light hearted talk about native americans before addressing those who were killed...

The dude is CinC... He is their boss. I would hope if I got killed at Work, the first public remarks my CEO would make after I died, were about me and those who died with me...

In this case.. Obama got it wrong... F- in my book... People died under his watch... it was a disgrace!

Musicdude

11-09-2009, 09:17 AM

So? Even if he is connected to Al-Queda, can you name hundreds of incidents of Al Queda terrorism against America? Seriously?

Why do they all have to be against America to be counted?

Musicdude

11-09-2009, 09:19 AM

Even still... the events chronicled by the WND article did happen... In his first public statements since the shooting, that he was aware of, he spend thre minuites in a light hearted talk about native americans before addressing those who were killed...

The dude is CinC... He is their boss. I would hope if I got killed at Work, the first public remarks my CEO would make after I died, were about me and those who died with me...

In this case.. Obama got it wrong... F- in my book... People died under his watch... it was a disgrace!

Here is a thought, maybe he could try actually being upset about it, like real emotions. That way even if the teleprompter craps out, he won't botch it all up.

Jesuslove

11-09-2009, 10:39 AM

Why do they all have to be against America to be counted?

OK... I'd like to see the list you have of hundreds of Al Queda incidents.

cheewiee

11-09-2009, 11:38 AM

OK... I'd like to see the list you have of hundreds of Al Queda incidents.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-name/

Here is a link... Each of those familys is an incident where Al Queda has destroyed a member of an American Family!

Musicdude

11-09-2009, 11:55 AM

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-name/

Here is a link... Each of those familys is an incident where Al Queda has destroyed a member of an American Family!

I was about to say, every single death at their hands should count as an incident. But regardless, I pulled the "hundreds" estimation out of thin air, but I doubt it would be hard to validate. Start with Cheewiee's link. And if that isn't enough let me know and I'll find some more.

Why on earth you think scum like that has the right to not be offended or inconvienced I have no idea.

If I joined up with a religion with that kind of nasty reputation, I would expect to have to defend myself and prove that I'm not one of the crazies on a regular basis, or just keep quiet about my beliefs.
If it gets too bad, maybe they should consider another religion, maybe one that is known for promoting peace through tolerance peace, not assimilation. They remind me of the Borg on Star Trek. "You will be assimilated or die. Resistance is futile." The Quran teaches this. If there are Muslims that don't follow the Quran, then they aren't Muslims. Just like saying I'm a Christian but I don't follow the bible. I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't follow the bible.

Shonsu

11-09-2009, 12:09 PM

OK... I'd like to see the list you have of hundreds of Al Queda incidents.

Funny how you've backed yourself into defending Al Queda.

Shonsu

11-09-2009, 12:12 PM

WND (Wingnut Daily) is a joke!

If they are such a joke then why have they lead the news about everything going on at Fort Hood before any of the mainstream outlets? All of the news that I've seen so far has been on WND long before any MSM.

Jesuslove

11-09-2009, 12:14 PM

Ok, let me explain this to you because you don't seem to get it.

Being aware and maybe even a little paranoid of a particular religion, because of hundreds and hundreds of terroristic acts done by men of said relgion, and done in the name of said religion is perfectly normal, healthy and wise.

But...

Being hateful toward one particular race of people because of a small few (by comparison) terroristic or otherwise evil acts have been done is unarguably wrong.

Here are the key differences in case you missed them again.

1. Religion versus Race.
2. Few isolated incidents versus hundreds of connected incidents.

Now that we are clear on this, I hope to never hear this ridiculous argument again. But I'm sure I will. :rolleyes:

I was about to say, every single death at their hands should count as an incident. But regardless, I pulled the "hundreds" estimation out of thin air, but I doubt it would be hard to validate. Start with Cheewiee's link. And if that isn't enough let me know and I'll find some more.

Why on earth you think scum like that has the right to not be offended or inconvienced I have no idea.

You contradict yourself. Timothy McVeigh's bombing resulted in over 800 casualties.... So we sholuld blame all Christians? Of course not.

Or Eric Rudolph, a self-procolaimed Christian. who bombed abortion clinics, a gay bar, and the Olympics. Should we blame all Christians? Of course not.

Now I'm sure your next answer will be that these guys aren't real Christians. Well I've seen many in the Muslim community condemn the actions of Hasan the last few days.

Bottom line - it is wrong to profile a whole group of people based on the actions of a few.

cheewiee

11-09-2009, 12:22 PM

You contradict yourself. Timothy McVeigh's bombing resulted in over 800 casualties.... So we sholuld blame all Christians? Of course not.

Or Eric Rudolph, a self-procolaimed Christian. who bombed abortion clinics, a gay bar, and the Olympics. Should we blame all Christians? Of course not.

Now I'm sure your next answer will be that these guys aren't real Christians. Well I've seen many in the Muslim community condemn the actions of Hasan the last few days.

Bottom line - it is wrong to profile a whole group of people based on the actions of a few.

You have named two people, who have engaged in terror, and only one really seemed to be a self proclaimed Christian. The OK Federal Building Bombing wasn't about religion, or faith, it was an attack on the Federal Government.

While I am sure Rudolph claimed faith for the abortion Clinics and the gay bar, he didn't for the olympics....

cheewiee

11-09-2009, 12:23 PM

JL

I would like for you to name me 1 "Christian" organization (Aside from the IRA)that openly endorses terrorist activities against its enemy...

And I would like for you to name me 3 conflicts in the past two decades that didn't involve Muslims...

Jesuslove

11-09-2009, 12:42 PM

JL

I would like for you to name me 1 "Christian" organization (Aside from the IRA)that openly endorses terrorist activities against its enemy...
KKK

And I would like for you to name me 3 conflicts in the past two decades that didn't involve Muslims...

1. civil war in Rwanda
2. civil war in Guatemala
3. the conflict in South Ossetia (Russia, Georgia, South Ossetia)

I hope that answers your question.

How about the conflict in the former Yugoslavia where the "Christian" majority Serbs committed geoncide against the predominately Bosnia Muslims and the ethnic Muslim Albanians in Kosovo.

cheewiee

11-09-2009, 12:45 PM

KKK

1. civil war in Rwanda
2. civil war in Guatemala
3. the conflict in South Ossetia (Russia, Georgia, South Ossetia)

I hope that answers your question.

How about the conflict in the former Yugoslavia where the "Christian" majority Serbs committed geoncide against the predominately Bosnia Muslims and the ethnic Muslim Albanians in Kosovo.

Muslims were involved in Rwanda... They were also involved in the conflict in South Ossetia....

You got me on Guatemala...

I am still waiting for you to name 1 Christian Terrorist Organization

Jesuslove

11-09-2009, 01:23 PM

Muslims were involved in Rwanda... They were also involved in the conflict in South Ossetia....

You got me on Guatemala...

I am still waiting for you to name 1 Christian Terrorist Organization

The KKK is a Christian terrorist group.

The Aryan Nation is another American Christian based hate group.

As for Rwanda: During the Rwandan genocide, Islam as a faith was not the main target of the genocide. Muslims were able to shield most Muslims from the massacres, as well as many non-Muslim Tutsis.

As for South Ossetia: Although there were Muslims in South Ossetia, religion was not the focus of the conflict.

HumanityisSaved

11-09-2009, 01:24 PM

KKK you mean that organization that Robert Byrd DEMOCRAT WV used to rise to political power. I believe he was a high up muckity muck in the KKK too right? Is that right or do I have that wrong I mean I once saw a highway in WV called the Robert C. Byrd highway and surely they would not allow a highway to be named after a KKK guy right? Oh wait... he's a libbie.

Jesuslove

11-09-2009, 01:28 PM

Jesuslove

11-09-2009, 01:29 PM

From the Aryan Nation's website (I just went there and now feel slimy)....

Church of Jesus Christ Kinsman - California Presents

JIHAD IN THE BIBLE

Since the mExicans do not recognize our border, we do not recognize any border of Mexico,

VIOLENCE SOLVES EVERYTHING

HumanityisSaved

11-09-2009, 02:57 PM

:D Strom Thurmand had a shady racist past as well. Meanwhile, he fathered mixed race children. Both parties had shady pasts when it came to racism.

Was Strom a member of the KKK? I don't know my internet is down so I can't google it.:D

Grank

11-09-2009, 08:07 PM

my brother is on ft hood...

Grank

11-09-2009, 08:09 PM

also, i hope they try him under military law :)

he'll get torchered...

pfft, what am i saying... he'll get pardoned.

VerbumReale

11-10-2009, 04:25 AM

Shonsu

11-10-2009, 04:36 AM

That there are people in the KKK and the Aryan Nation who claim to be Christian is troubling indeed. But those organizations are not by definition, Christian. They are white-supremacist organizations that happen to have some people who claim to be Christian in them.

I remember watching a documentary about white supremacist groups on the History Channel and they were speaking to one of the leaders in, I believe the KKK, and he spoke of praying to the god Odin.

Regardless, the purpose of white supremacist groups is basically to promote the so-called "purity" of the white race. This is completely different from Islamic-fundamentalism.

Which is why it is completely illogical to try to compare these groups to Islam and call them "Christian" groups, which they are not. It's like trying to compare apples and..... gorilla poop.

Musicdude

11-10-2009, 05:10 AM

Which is why it is completely illogical to try to compare these groups to Islam and call them "Christian" groups, which they are not. It's like trying to compare apples and..... gorilla poop.

Nice analogy. :D

Jesuslove

11-10-2009, 06:12 AM

That there are people in the KKK and the Aryan Nation who claim to be Christian is troubling indeed. But those organizations are not by definition, Christian. They are white-supremacist organizations that happen to have some people who claim to be Christian in them.

I remember watching a documentary about white supremacist groups on the History Channel and they were speaking to one of the leaders in, I believe the KKK, and he spoke of praying to the god Odin.

Regardless, the purpose of white supremacist groups is basically to promote the so-called "purity" of the white race. This is completely different from Islamic-fundamentalism.

I disagree. If you were to ask members of the KKK and Aryan Nation, they would claim to be Christian, but most would see them as not being Christian. Likewise, I have seen many clerics on television the last few days denouncing the shootings at Fort Hood, claiming the shooting was not in line with Islamic teaching.

All I'm saying is there are mainstream Christians as well as radical Christians; just like there are mainstream Muslims and radical Muslims.

Musicdude

11-10-2009, 07:58 AM

I disagree. If you were to ask members of the KKK and Aryan Nation, they would claim to be Christian, but most would see them as not being Christian. Likewise, I have seen many clerics on television the last few days denouncing the shootings at Fort Hood, claiming the shooting was not in line with Islamic teaching.

All I'm saying is there are mainstream Christians as well as radical Christians; just like there are mainstream Muslims and radical Muslims.

Yeah, but their racism and hatred clearly violates the principles taught in the bible. Whereas the acts of terrorism seen by "radical muslims" doesn't violate the principles taught in the Quran at all.

cheewiee

11-10-2009, 08:03 AM

I disagree. If you were to ask members of the KKK and Aryan Nation, they would claim to be Christian, but most would see them as not being Christian. Likewise, I have seen many clerics on television the last few days denouncing the shootings at Fort Hood, claiming the shooting was not in line with Islamic teaching.

All I'm saying is there are mainstream Christians as well as radical Christians; just like there are mainstream Muslims and radical Muslims.

So, KKK and Aryan nation are attacking people because they are not of a certain color, not because they are not of a Certain religion...

That is the difference... Those Islamofacist Terrorists attack non and Secular muslims because they do not hold to the Religous convictions they have.

You are comparing as someone said earlier, apples and poop.

HumanityisSaved

11-10-2009, 08:06 AM

Islam is an evil religion. Their holy book tells them to kill the infadel as long as they are being attacked by the infadel and since Obama has broken his promise to get out of Iraq this guy prolly felt justified.

BTW did you all hear that Obama has already played golf more in 9 months than Bush did his whole time in office and all I ever heard was "Bush is out playing golf all the time instead of working." Today nObama even said the terrorist shooter in Texas was "Suffering from being over-stressed."

Sheesh. Obama is an epic fail.

Grank

11-10-2009, 08:49 AM

"Suffering from being over-stressed."

cuz dodging deployment is so stressful... this guy is a disgrace. by "this guy" i'm not sure if i mean hassan or obama...

i'm curious to see if he was a sleeper or just a muslim who was look'n for a way out.

Jesuslove

11-10-2009, 10:08 AM

VerbumReale

11-10-2009, 11:17 AM

So, KKK and Aryan nation are attacking people because they are not of a certain color, not because they are not of a Certain religion...

That is the difference... Those Islamofacist Terrorists attack non and Secular muslims because they do not hold to the Religous convictions they have.

You are comparing as someone said earlier, apples and poop.

Exactly!!! The KKK and Aryan Nation are driven first and foremost by their racism. I watched one of those Gangland show episodes where the partcular gang they were focusing on was the Aryan Nation and one of the leaders said that every member is expected to make three things primary in their lives in this particular order #1 "The brotherhood" (or the Aryan Nation) ,#2 the white race, and #3 God. The gang and the white race comes before God. How they view God is shaped by their racism.

Undeniably, a distorted version of the Christian faith is a reality in the Aryan Nation and the KKK, but it is distorted because it is shaped by their racism which is ultimately the ideology that defines them more than any other.

With Islamic terrorism, it is the opposite. It is their extreme religious views that have informed their hatred.

Musicdude

11-10-2009, 11:36 AM

Exactly!!! The KKK and Aryan Nation are driven first and foremost by their racism. I watched one of those Gangland show episodes where the partcular gang they were focusing on was the Aryan Nation and one of the leaders said that every member is expected to make three things primary in their lives in this particular order #1 "The brotherhood" (or the Aryan Nation) ,#2 the white race, and #3 God. The gang and the white race comes before God. How they view God is shaped by their racism.

Undeniably, a distorted version of the Christian faith is a reality in the Aryan Nation and the KKK, but it is distorted because it is shaped by their racism which is ultimately the ideology that defines them more than any other.

With Islamic terrorism, it is the opposite. It is their extreme religious views that have informed their hatred.

You are right.
We could argue about what some Christians do, or some Muslims do all day long. But it comes back to the sacred text (or holy handbook) of said religion. If the Quran is the sacred book of Islam and it makes it very clear that anyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel (but especially Jews and Christians) and needs to be converted or killed. If some Muslims follow the Quran to the letter and some don't, that doesn't matter. I am not talking about some Muslims. I'm talking about the religion it'self. And it is evil.

The bible says that there is no jew or greek, male or female in Christ. So right there, it is clear that racism and sexism are both condemned in the bible. So I don't care if you can show me a hundred thousand racist hate groups that claim to stand on the bible. They don't stand on the bible, as anyone who has read the bible can clearly see.

But the quran is different. It does advocate such hostile actions against unbelievers.

Whereas the bible says we should love our enemies, the quran says we should kill our enemies.

cheewiee

11-10-2009, 11:36 AM

HotWireD

11-10-2009, 12:01 PM

Text of President Barack Obama's remarks Tuesday during a memorial service at Fort Hood, Texas, as transcribed by the White House:

To the Fort Hood community; to Adm. Mullen; Gen. Casey; Gen. Cone; Secretary McHugh; Secretary Gates; most importantly, to family, friends and members of our armed forces. We come together filled with sorrow for the 13 Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.

This is a time of war. Yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great state and the heart of this great American community. This is the fact that makes the tragedy even more painful, even more incomprehensible.

For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that's been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.
But here is what you must also know: Your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life's work is our security, and the freedom that we all too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — that is their legacy.

Neither this country — nor the values upon which we were founded — could exist without men and women like these 13 Americans. And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.

_Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill had served in the National Guard and worked as a physician's assistant for decades. A husband and father of three, he was so committed to his patients that on the day he died, he was back at work just weeks after having had a heart attack.

_Maj. Libardo Eduardo Caraveo spoke little English when he came to America as a teenager. But he put himself through college, earned a Ph.D. and was helping combat units cope with the stress of deployment. He's survived by his wife, sons and stepdaughters.

_Staff Sgt. Justin DeCrow joined the Army right after high school, married his high school sweetheart, and had served as a light-wheeled mechanic and satellite communications operator. He was known as an optimist, a mentor, and a loving husband and loving father.

_After retiring from the Army as a major, John Gaffaney cared for society's most vulnerable during two decades as a psychiatric nurse. He spent three years trying to return to active duty in this time of war, and he was preparing to deploy to Iraq as a captain. He leaves behind a wife and son.

_Spc. Frederick Greene was a Tennessean who wanted to join the Army for a long time, and did so in 2008, with the support of his family. As a combat engineer he was a natural leader, and he is survived by his wife and two daughters.

_Spc. Jason Hunt was also recently married, with three children to care for. He joined the Army after high school. He did a tour in Iraq, and it was there that he reenlisted for six more years on his 21st birthday so that he could continue to serve.

_Staff Sgt. Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to students about her experience. When her mother told her she couldn't take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: "Watch me."

_Pfc. Aaron Nemelka was an Eagle Scout who just recently signed up to do one of the most dangerous jobs in the service — defuse bombs — so that he could help save lives. He was proudly carrying on a tradition of military service that runs deep within his family.

_Pfc. Michael Pearson loved his family and loved his music, and his goal was to be a music teacher. He excelled at playing the guitar, and could create songs on the spot and show others how to play. He joined the military a year ago, and was preparing for his first deployment.

_Capt. Russell Seager worked as a nurse for the VA, helping veterans with post-traumatic stress. He had extraordinary respect for the military, and signed up to serve so that he could help soldiers cope with the stress of combat and return to civilian life. He leaves behind a wife and son.

_Pvt. Francheska Velez, daughter of a father from Colombia and a Puerto Rican mother, had recently served in Korea and in Iraq, and was pursuing a career in the Army. When she was killed she was pregnant with her first child, and was excited about becoming a mother.

_Lt. Col. Juanita Warman was the daughter and granddaughter of Army veterans. She was a single mom who put herself through college and graduate school, and served as a nurse practitioner while raising her two daughters. She also left behind a loving husband.

_Pfc. Kham Xiong came to America from Thailand as a small child. He was a husband and father who followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service. He was preparing for his first deployment to Afghanistan.

These men and women came from all parts of the country. Some had long careers in the military. Some had signed up to serve in the shadow of 9/11. Some had known intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some cared for those did. Their lives speak to the strength, the dignity, the decency of those who serve, and that's how they will be remembered.
For that same spirit is embodied in the community here at Fort Hood, and in the many wounded who are still recovering. As was already mentioned, in those terrible minutes during the attack, soldiers made makeshift tourniquets out of their clothes. They braved gunfire to reach the wounded, and ferried them to safety in the backs of cars and a pickup truck.

One young soldier, Amber Bahr, was so intent on helping others, she did not realize for some time that she, herself, had been shot in the back. Two police officers — Mark Todd and Kim Munley — saved countless lives by risking their own. One medic — Francisco de la Serna — treated both officer Munley and the gunman who shot her.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know — no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice — in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we're working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.
As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are the tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call — the call to serve their comrades, their communities and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm's way.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We're a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

We're a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That's who we are as a people.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day. It's a chance to pause, and to pay tribute — for students to learn the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.

For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, all of us — every single American — must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who've come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in the time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and all stations — all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.

In today's wars, there's not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops' success — no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed. But the measure of the impact of these young men and women is no less great — in a world of threats that no know borders, their legacy will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that's extended abroad. It will serve as testimony to the character of those who served, and the example that all of you in uniform set for America and for the world.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to 13 men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one stryker brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest — when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today's servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown — it will be said that this generation believed under the most trying of tests; believed in perseverance — not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those that we have lost. And may God bless the United States of America.

Jesuslove

11-15-2009, 11:58 PM

Right.. but some people will never figure that out.. and then they bring up Nazi "Christian" Germany and the Holocaust, or Bosnia and Serbia...

It's not religion that killed the Fort Hood victims, it was guns.

Musicdude

11-16-2009, 01:41 AM

It's not religion that killed the Fort Hood victims, it was guns.

Yeah, and we all know that guns have the ability to go kill people all by themselves.

You know what, I've got a 16ga single-barrel break-over shotgun in a case under my bed, and it's probably about 60 years old, and it's never killed anybody. I'm glad my gun is a peaceful gun and not a murdering gun, cause you never know until it's too late.

HumanityisSaved

11-16-2009, 01:43 AM

It's not religion that killed the Fort Hood victims, it was guns.

Are you serious with this? I have a gun that has been in my gun case for 5 years and it has never shot anything in fact it has never been fired once at all. That gun will never kill anyone or anything unless A PERSON picks it up and fires it's projectile into another person.

To say "guns killed the people at Fort Hood is just beyond the pale. What you just implicated is that when the libbie Michael Richards hurt that poor African American man with those racial epithets that it was not Richard's racism, lack of self control, or anger management problem that hurt that poor man it was "Words".

For words to hurt they must be spoken so maybe we should ban free speech.

For guns to kill people they must be fired at people so maybe we should ban the 2nd Amendment.

Seriously? JL you can't be a moderate and believe that guns did it.

Jesuslove

11-16-2009, 03:34 AM

Are you serious with this? I have a gun that has been in my gun case for 5 years and it has never shot anything in fact it has never been fired once at all. That gun will never kill anyone or anything unless A PERSON picks it up and fires it's projectile into another person.

To say "guns killed the people at Fort Hood is just beyond the pale. What you just implicated is that when the libbie Michael Richards hurt that poor African American man with those racial epithets that it was not Richard's racism, lack of self control, or anger management problem that hurt that poor man it was "Words".

For words to hurt they must be spoken so maybe we should ban free speech.

For guns to kill people they must be fired at people so maybe we should ban the 2nd Amendment.

Seriously? JL you can't be a moderate and believe that guns did it.
I know if semi-automatic weapons weren't permitted to be sold in TX (or other states), this type of mass murder would be harder to carry out. I believe everyone has the right to bear arms, but I think the NRA pushes for no restrictions on firearm ownership, and this is just wrong. Surely Jesus would not advocate the carrying or usage of semi-automatic weapons.

Too often, as many have done here, we've blamed the theology or doctrine of a shooter. It's easy to sit here and blame the man's faith for what happened, but I think there is more to it, and to blame this man's faith is a form of scapegoating.

It doesn't matter to me whether you think I'm a liberal, conservative or moderate. What matters to me is that the ability to buy this semi-automatic weapon has resulted in dozens of unnecessary casualties.

cheewiee

11-16-2009, 03:57 AM

I know if semi-automatic weapons weren't permitted to be sold in TX (or other states), this type of mass murder would be harder to carry out. I believe everyone has the right to bear arms, but I think the NRA pushes for no restrictions on firearm ownership, and this is just wrong. Surely Jesus would not advocate the carrying or usage of semi-automatic weapons.

Too often, as many have done here, we've blamed the theology or doctrine of a shooter. It's easy to sit here and blame the man's faith for what happened, but I think there is more to it, and to blame this man's faith is a form of scapegoating.

It doesn't matter to me whether you think I'm a liberal, conservative or moderate. What matters to me is that the ability to buy this semi-automatic weapon has resulted in dozens of unnecessary casualties.

Here is the deal... what you libbies don't get... You enact a semi auto ban... right... Who doesn't get semi auto weapons? normal balanced folk who don't want trouble with the law... Who buys them? People who don't care about the law.

If this guy was determined to carry out his attacks, he would have done so with or without a semi auto weapon ban in place. Its that simple. If we banned guns and he wanted to carry out his attacks, he would have done so with or without such a ban.

It was illegal for the columbine shooters to have guns. It was already against the law, as they were under 18, however they aquired and used said weapons outside of the law.

Get this through your skull. Weapon ban's do jack poop....

Jesuslove

11-16-2009, 04:25 AM

Here is the deal... what you libbies don't get... You enact a semi auto ban... right... Who doesn't get semi auto weapons? normal balanced folk who don't want trouble with the law... Who buys them? People who don't care about the law.

If this guy was determined to carry out his attacks, he would have done so with or without a semi auto weapon ban in place. Its that simple. If we banned guns and he wanted to carry out his attacks, he would have done so with or without such a ban.

It was illegal for the columbine shooters to have guns. It was already against the law, as they were under 18, however they aquired and used said weapons outside of the law.

Get this through your skull. Weapon ban's do jack poop....
Something went horribly wrong. This man, given his mental health history and his being tracked by the FBI, should have never been sold guns. Something is horribly wrong with our system, which allowed this man to legally buy semi-automatic weapons. Maybe more detailed background checks would have intercepted this transaction from taking place. But the conservatives and the NRA want no, or few restrictions on gun purchases and ownership. It is my understanding that some states don't even have background checks.

So Cheewiee, you can keep talking... nothing will ever convince me that Jesus would have supported the owning or usage of semi-automatic weapons for non-combat purposes.

Musicdude

11-16-2009, 04:36 AM

Something went horribly wrong. This man, given his mental health history and his being tracked by the FBI, should have never been sold guns. Something is horribly wrong with our system, which allowed this man to legally buy semi-automatic weapons. Maybe more detailed background checks would have intercepted this transaction from taking place. But the conservatives and the NRA want no, or few restrictions on gun purchases and ownership. It is my understanding that some states don't even have background checks.

So Cheewiee, you can keep talking... nothing will ever convince me that Jesus would have supported the owning or usage of semi-automatic weapons for non-combat purposes.

Jesus is so powerful the idea of Him needing or using any weapon is utterly ridiculous. So though you are technically correct, He wouldn't have carried a weapon at all, it's not because weapons are bad. It's because He doesn't need one.

Second of all, banning semi-automatic weapons might've made the mass-murder more difficult. Maybe he would've had to go to the trouble of planting a bomb in the building, if he was unable to get a semi-auto gun. But he could've managed. And like Cheewiee said, bad guys don't follow the law. If he followed the law, he wouldn't have murdered anyone, regardless of what type of weapon he used.

It is impossible to rid America of semi-automatic weapons. Do you hear me? Impossible. Making them illegal does not get rid of them. It only makes it impossible for law-abiding citizens to purchase them. Law-abiding citizens are not the problem here. I don't care if a law abiding citizen wants to buy a semi-auto pistol to protect himself and his family.

But you can't stop criminals from being criminals, and they will get the guns from illegal sources and they will commit whatever crimes their heart desires with said guns, and you can't stop them.

Case in point.
Is marijuana illegal? Yes.
Has the USA spent untold amounts of money and resources trying to stop the use and spread of marijuana? Yes. Has it worked? No.
The only ones who care if smoking pot is illegal are the law-abiding citizens. People with no regard for the law can and do obtain marijuana quite easily.

So why do you think banning semi-auto weapons is going to get rid of them?
It won't. It will only get them out of the hands of the good guys. The bad guys will still have plenty of them. So how does disarming the good guys stop this sort of thing from happening? It doesn't. It makes it much easier for the criminals to do their crime, because they can be confident that their victims will be unarmed, or at least have a lesser weapon than themselves.

I know you would say cops will still have guns. But how long does it take a cop to get to your house after you call 911? 20 minutes at best.
How long does it take someone who's broken into your house to shoot you? 2 seconds, maybe.

That is assuming you are even able to get to a phone and call 911 in the first place, which quite often you are not able.
If someone breaks into my house, here's what's gonna happen. As soon as I am aware of it, I'm getting the babies into our bedroom with my wife. I'm loading up the 16ga as quietly as possible and I'm sitting on the floor behind our bedroom door aimed at the door with the shotgun, and if anyone comes in they are getting shot. Then once I am in position and the kids and wife are secured, my wife will call 911 while I hold the gun on the door.
Cops are for the most part fine outstanding individuals, and I hold them in the same regard as soldiers. I have the utmost respect and honor for them. But I'm not waiting 20 minutes for them to save me, when I can save myself. If they get to my house before I have to shoot anyone, praise God. I would much prefer it that way. But if not, and I have to choose between them and me, or them and my family. It's an easy choice.

HumanityisSaved

11-16-2009, 05:23 AM

may I call attention to the fact that the OK Fed building bombing and ALL of the 911 deaths were caused by terrorists who did not use any automatic weapons and yes I do believe Jesus would allow peaceable to people to have automatic weapons what's wrong with them? Just because something can be used wrongly doesn't mean Jesus would ban them... we still have sex organs don't we ?

Jesuslove

11-16-2009, 05:30 AM

Musicdude

11-16-2009, 05:52 AM

I disagree. What do you, and what would Jesus see as the "right" reson to have an automatic weapon?

To defend one'self or one's family or one's country against evil-doers.

And weapons are weapons. They are either good, bad or neutral and the same applies from sling-shots to nuclear bombs.

Gandalf

11-16-2009, 06:02 AM

Something went horribly wrong. This man, given his mental health history and his being tracked by the FBI, should have never been sold guns. Something is horribly wrong with our system, which allowed this man to legally buy semi-automatic weapons.
He had been convicted of no crimes, and the FBI had nothing to say that his communications with terrorists were anything other than a legitimate part of his official research into the attitudes of Muslims in the US Armed forces while at war with other Muslims. The Army certainly seems to have some problems with political correctness in not having addressed the fact that they had an officer on active duty who was spouting anti-American rhetoric and sympathizing with the jihadists we're fighting against, but civilian law enforcement had no evidence of a crime on his part, even if he should've been discharged. It's a terrible event, but blaming the authorities for not knowing the future and/or reading his mind is unfair, I think.

Besides, do you really think it's realistic to say that an Army Major could have been prevented from obtaining a weapon? The problem wasn't that Major Hasan bought a gun, but that he had murder in his heart.
So Cheewiee, you can keep talking... nothing will ever convince me that Jesus would have supported the owning or usage of semi-automatic weapons for non-combat purposes.
What on earth could be theologically significant about a semiautomatic weapon in general? A mechanism that more efficiently chambers a round is somehow immoral? Should all the hunters whose deer rifles are semi-automatic be penalized because you don't understand or approve of the technology? In what way is a semiautomatic pistol morally inferior to a revolver? Perhaps we should consider jets with autopilot morally inferior to jets without it because terrorists used the former on 9/11? Maybe it's just about the manual effort: are automatic transmissions inferior to manual transmissions in cars? I might sympathize with that judgment. ;) Or is it about effectiveness as a weapon: double-edged swords are worse than single-edged ones? The Word of God is equated to the former ... that can't be it. Should we consider gasoline morally superior to diesel fuel because the latter was used along with ammonium nitrate fertilizer to make bombs that blew up the OKC federal building?

Throwing Jesus' name out there in this debate, on either side, is just over the top. He never gave any dictates about engineering or technology. He didn't rail against ownership of the most advanced weapons of his day. He used a whip, Himself, but at one point told His disciples to arm themselves with swords, and at an earlier time had told them not to go armed elsewhere. Weapon technology is simply not something He focused on at all, even if the timeliness of being armed could be said to be a minor footnote. Using His name as a banner to try to support a cause He said nothing about is at best not a convincing manner of arguing one's case, and at worst could be thought of as blasphemous. This is equally true of anyone who says that Jesus would want them to stock an arsenal so they can shoot hungry people that come to get their food if society breaks down, or that Jesus would drive a Prius, or that Jesus would oppose socialized health care, or that Jesus would support legalization of drugs, or that Jesus would support Prohibition. Using His name in vain to support our pet political and social causes is neither right nor beneficial.

Jesus would certainly care about the hearts of the people involved. We have been told nothing of His opinions of the tools those people use to do their works, whether for good or ill, nor of His political leanings. If we're going to discuss Jesus' actual teachings, that's great! But using His name as a catchphrase to support whatever argument we happen to be making is not.

Musicdude

11-16-2009, 06:12 AM

Besides, do you really think it's realistic to say that an Army Major could have been prevented from obtaining a weapon? The problem wasn't that Major Hasan bought a gun, but that he had murder in his heart.
Two semi-automatic pistols is pretty low end compared to what he probably had access to.

I don't get that argument either. And I know of people who can fire revolvers faster and more accurately than semi-automatics. I know of people who can bring a knife to a gunfight and win. lol The type of weapon makes no difference in this argument. As I said, weapons are weapons. I carry a pocket knife with me 24/7, and I would feel naked without it. It's a locking knife with a single 4 inch blade. Not a single solitary person has ever been hurt by it, save myself occaisionally when I'm not being as careful as I should. The difference between a tool and a weapon is intent. Just about anything object could be used as a weapon if one was so inclined. Hands and feet are sometimes extremely deadly. Should we ban those?

Just to clarify for JL, cause I get the impression he doesn't really know what semi-automatic means.

With semi-automatic pistols you have to squeeze the trigger each time you fire it. You pull the trigger once for one shot. So it will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger.
With a non automatic pistol such as a revolver, you must pull the hammer back each time before pulling the trigger (unless it's a double-action), adding about half a second to the amount of time it takes to fire a shot.
So it only takes about a half second per shot longer to shoot a non-automatic pistol than to shoot a semi-automatic.

Now semi-automatics have clips instead of cylinders which makes reloading a bit faster as well. But if you are good with a revolver and are using speed-loaders, the difference is negligable.
The only big advantage as far as destructive ability that some semi-automatics hold, is a higher capacity for bullets. So as a revolver usually only holds 6 bullets, some semi-automatics hold up to 16 or so. But all that means is you would have to reload less frequently. And many semi-automatics do not have high capacities like that, and are closer to 6 or 7 bullets.

Full-automatic guns are the AR-15, and M-16's and such that you see in war movies where they hold the trigger down and they rapidly fire bullets until they are empty. Those are already illegal to the general public.

Gandalf

11-16-2009, 06:21 AM

Musicdude

11-16-2009, 06:27 AM

I wouldn't actually go so far as to say there's no difference between any weapons: certainly a weapon like a nuclear bomb that can kill millions of people in an instant is different from a "weapon" like a small knife that can at best (or worst) cause some injury to a small number of individuals. But I'm inclined to think that the difference isn't that either device is inherently morally superior to others, but that the practical uses of them are different and those uses are morally significant even if the devices are not. It would be just as absurd to say that a WMD is no different from a pocket knife as it is to say that a semiautomatic pistol is morally inferior to a revolver.

As for non-combat uses, though, I have several friends who shoot for sport (target shooting at ranges, trap and skeet, hunting, etc.), and probably a little over half their weapons, including most of their favorites to shoot, are semi-automatic ... and they're shooting paper targets purely for the fun of it, which is certainly neither a combat situation nor an immoral act.

I meant as far as right or wrong is concerned. Using a tool to kill people is the point here, not the details of said tool. If killing my neighbor with my pocket knife is wrong then it follows that using a larger weapon and killing more people would also be wrong.

But it also follows that if there is a legitimate good use of a gun, then the same could be said of a nuke.
Even JL has to admit that there is a good use for guns. He is not advocating that police officers give theirs up.

God told David to kill Goliath with his sling. Does that not prove that as far as God is concerned (which includes Jesus) there is sometimes justified and moral reasons to use deadly force?

Gandalf

11-16-2009, 06:43 AM

Of course there are situations where violent force is justified as well as situations where it is not. Paul tells us that the governing authorities "bear the sword" as "God's ministers" to "execute wrath" upon the unjust. He received His doctrine via direct revelation from Jesus, so that would seem to be a pretty good source too.

And JL explicitly allowed for combat being a legitimate use of semiautomatic weapons. He didn't argue that there's no good use for guns. My point was that while there are good reasons to distinguish between moral and immoral uses of violent force, there's no grounds for saying that Jesus approves of certain weapons over others for carrying that out, much less to say that Jesus would disallow certain weapons for other uses.

But I don't think that makes all weapons morally equivalent, because not all weapons are plausibly suitable for the same uses, and those uses have moral significance. That is to say, the mechanisms and such are not moral agents regardless, but their use can carry moral weight. Yes there are presumably both legitimate and illegitimate uses for both nuclear weapons and pocket knives. But there can be valid reasons for prohibiting individuals from obtaining the former, while prohibiting the latter would be laughably silly. The types of plausible uses for the two categories of devices are so different that they cannot be treated equally. That said, I can't imagine a basis for a moral distinction between semiautomatic and non-semiautomatic firearms - their plausible uses are entirely identical.

Musicdude

11-16-2009, 06:51 AM

mat1583

11-16-2009, 07:05 AM

So Cheewiee, you can keep talking... nothing will ever convince me that Jesus would have supported the owning or usage of semi-automatic weapons for non-combat purposes.

By "non-combat" do you mean personal self-defense (not in a state of war) or do you mean recreational target shooting?

In the OT, it is quite clear that God not only allowed for self-defense by violent means, but also gave power and help to the righteous when they needed to defend themselves with violent means. See Joshua 6:21 in which God commissioned the destruction of Jericho, even to the point of killing every man, woman, and child.

The point arises: Well, that was in the OT. It's different now in the NT since Jesus advocates peace.

While it is true that Jesus advocates peace, I think we need to figure out why exactly God allowed self-defense by violent means in the first place. I believe the answer comes when we observe the world we live in. Since the fall of Adam, we have been a sinful world. Evil was allowed into the world, and it brought with it disease, famine, murder, etc. It is the will of Satan that all should die and never have salvation, but it is the will of God that all should live and have eternity. So what happens when evil (satan) tries to take the life of the righteous (children of God)? In our own understanding, would we call God "good" or "just" if He prohibited a believer from defending ones self from evil? Of course not. Is it logical to believe that God would prohibit self defense now in NT times, as opposed to the OT? I believe it isn't.

Now back to Jesus and peace. If Jesus advocates peace, but God allows for violent self defense, isn't that a contradiction? I say it isn't. Take for example, divorce. In OT Law, Moses allowed for men to divorce their wives "by reason of the hardness of [their] heart" (Matthew 19:7-8) Divorce was allowed because of the sinful nature of the people. Now back to NT times. Jesus speaks about divorce and explains that a husband is causing his wis wife to commit sin (adultery) if he divorces her EXCEPT for the case of sexual immorality on the part of the wife. I firmly believe it is God's will that no married couple should divorce, but it is not sinful to divorce in very limited circumstances.

I believe that self-defense is a similar issue. God allowed for and commissioned the use of violent self defense in OT times because evil exists. In NT times, evil still exists, but Jesus advocates peace as opposed to violence. I believe that God is still "just" and "good", at least in my own understanding. For these reasons, I believe that although peace is favorable in all situations, there will be times in which the children of God must protect themselves from evildoers, possibly using violent means. If these means are necessary, I do not believe it is sinful.

And finally, about guns... If self-defense by violent means is not sinful in very limited situations, then I see no difference between using a fist, knife, gun, etc. The point is the same - to stop the attack with the possibility of severe injury and possible death of the attacker.

I know you say nothing will ever convince you, but you should be careful about saying that. You and I are likely very convicted by God's word and our understanding of scripture, although it may be very different interpretations. the thing is, convictions can change if God's word or He directly speaks to us. We should always keep our ears open to what God might be saying, even if it goes against what we've always been convicted of. (I am speaking to myself as well!)

---------------------------
Edit:

It took me a while to craft this post. After reading Gandalf's replies posted before mine, I feel my post is rather useless since I agree with just about everything Gandalf stated. And to think I was going to make a triumphant return! sheesh :)

cheewiee

11-16-2009, 07:40 AM

Edit:

It took me a while to craft this post. After reading Gandalf's replies posted before mine, I feel my post is rather useless since I agree with just about everything Gandalf stated. And to think I was going to make a triumphant return! sheesh :)

Welcome back!

So Cheewiee, you can keep talking... nothing will ever convince me that Jesus would have supported the owning or usage of semi-automatic weapons for non-combat purposes.

nothing will ever convince me that Jesus would have supported or owning the usage of automobiles for transportation purposes

Nothing will ever convince me that Jesus would have supported or owning the usage of televisions for entertainment purposes

nothing will ever convince me that Jesus would have supported or owning the usage of personal computers for communication purposes...

I really could craft a list a mile long about things Jesus had nothing to say about... Other than the fact that Jesus did command his disciples to go buy swords...

I digress though... Any ban you make, is unconstitutional... the SCOTUS has already said so... so just be clear, you are advocating an unconstitutional ban!

Grank

11-16-2009, 10:01 AM

Other than the fact that Jesus did command his disciples to go buy swords...

exactly... he never told them to buy guns... sheesh

Grank

11-16-2009, 10:03 AM

btw, it's not hard for a major to sign out an M9 from the armory...

Grank

11-16-2009, 10:17 AM

It's not religion that killed the Fort Hood victims, it was guns.

i overlooked this post somehow...

if it weren't for guns mr hasan wouldn't have killed anyone.

have you ever dealt with someone with murderous intent???

also, like I said, he's a major in the army. if he wanted a weapon, he could have just gone to the armory on post and gotten one.

Jesuslove

11-16-2009, 10:36 AM

i overlooked this post somehow...

if it weren't for guns mr hasan wouldn't have killed anyone.

have you ever dealt with someone with murderous intent???

also, like I said, he's a major in the army. if he wanted a weapon, he could have just gone to the armory on post and gotten one.

So why didn't Mr. Hasan just get weapons from the base?

cheewiee

11-16-2009, 10:40 AM

Well since you are all wise and know all the answers, why didn't Mr. Hasan just get weapons from the base?

You know you can agree to disagree, but the sarcasm isn't necessary.

Because he had his own guns and didnt' need to obtain them from the base.

Shonsu

11-16-2009, 11:42 AM

Too often, as many have done here, we've blamed the theology or doctrine of a shooter. It's easy to sit here and blame the man's faith for what happened, but I think there is more to it, and to blame this man's faith is a form of scapegoating.

You do realize that the Quran and Mohammad not only condone but command Muslims to kill infidels (US!).

Jesuslove

11-16-2009, 12:18 PM

You do realize that the Quran and Mohammad not only condone but command Muslims to kill infidels (US!).

And I know muslims who would wholeheartedly disagree with you, and say you are taking scripture out of context... and we as Christians all know how hurtful it is when people take the Bible out of context. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peace loving people.

cheewiee

11-16-2009, 12:22 PM

You do realize that the Quran and Mohammad not only condone but command Muslims to kill infidels (US!).

And that's when he brings up the part of the Law commanding Jews to stone rebellious children...

Don't you know Guns kill people... You can leave them in your drawer in your night stand for years... but one day it will slide the drawer open, jump out on its own, and kill someone.. :rolleyes: (sorry James)

As stated, Major Hasan had access. This event would have happened with or without a Semi Weapon ban.

As I mentioned earlier, Columbine, the gunmen, Dylan and Eric, both underage, it was already illegal for them to own a fire arm, yet that did not stop them from obtaining firearms illegally.

cheewiee

11-16-2009, 12:46 PM

And I know muslims who would wholeheartedly disagree with you, and say you are taking scripture out of context... and we as Christians all know how hurtful it is when people take the Bible out of context. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peace loving people.

If you say so...

My Pastor, is a former Muslim. He is Pakastani ethnicity, but he was born and raised in Kawait. While his parents are fairly conservative, he adapted well to the liberal Kwaiti Culture.

When His brother returned from a Semester in the US for School, his brother told him of his conversion. His initial reaction, was to throw his brother against the wall and threaten to kill him over it.

The fact is a muslim converting to Christianity carries a death sentence in many muslim countries... peace loving indeed...

Jesuslove

11-16-2009, 01:30 PM

If you say so...

My Pastor, is a former Muslim. He is Pakastani ethnicity, but he was born and raised in Kawait. While his parents are fairly conservative, he adapted well to the liberal Kwaiti Culture.

When His brother returned from a Semester in the US for School, his brother told him of his conversion. His initial reaction, was to throw his brother against the wall and threaten to kill him over it.

The fact is a muslim converting to Christianity carries a death sentence in many muslim countries... peace loving indeed...

And if a Jew converts to Christianity, the Jewish community treats the conversion much like a death.

The actions of a few don't define a whole faith... thank you Jesus!!

cheewiee

11-16-2009, 02:03 PM

And if a Jew converts to Christianity, the Jewish community treats the conversion much like a death.

The actions of a few don't define a whole faith... thank you Jesus!!

Like death, and actually physically killing someone is TWO different things...

Jesuslove

11-16-2009, 02:38 PM

Like death, and actually physically killing someone is TWO different things...

Do you personally know any ex-Muslims, who have been killed for converting? Sounds like hype to me.

cheewiee

11-16-2009, 02:45 PM

Do you personally know any ex-Muslims, who have been killed for converting? Sounds like hype to me.

Do I personally? No... But are you calling my Pastor a liar?

Jesuslove

11-16-2009, 04:35 PM

If you say so...

My Pastor, is a former Muslim. He is Pakastani ethnicity, but he was born and raised in Kawait. While his parents are fairly conservative, he adapted well to the liberal Kwaiti Culture.

When His brother returned from a Semester in the US for School, his brother told him of his conversion. His initial reaction, was to throw his brother against the wall and threaten to kill him over it.

The fact is a muslim converting to Christianity carries a death sentence in many muslim countries... peace loving indeed...

Do I personally? No... But are you calling my Pastor a liar?

I never called anyone a liar. I simply asked you a question. You said your pastor said his life was threatened. If someone threatened my life, I'd call the police. Did pastor?

And he's still alive right? He wasn't murdered as was threatened....

Just sayin....

mat1583

11-17-2009, 01:07 AM

Welcome back!

Thanks!

I think cheewiee and Gandalf have both illustrated the point well that just because Jesus didn't speak directly about the use of guns doesn't mean He would have banned them, especially considering the fact that He commanded His own disciples to carry a couple of swords.

We also argued the point that self-defense by violent means is not sin, sometimes necessary, and sometimes even commissioned by God. It is not the favorable path, but allowable because evil exists.

JL, do you concede the above points? If not, then why?

Shonsu

11-17-2009, 01:47 AM

Gandalf

11-17-2009, 02:12 AM

HumanityisSaved

11-17-2009, 02:15 AM

Whether we can say the Muslim Qur'an is misquoted by terrorists or not it is still true that Islam is an evil fallen religion. Period! Plain and simple. Islam teaches that Jesus Christ is not the eternal Son of the Father fully Divine and fully man for us and for our salvation. So now.... ask we this: "Did the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob author a religion that teaches that His Son is not His Son?"

The answer is no.

Gandalf

11-17-2009, 02:21 AM

Obviously as Christians we agree that Islam is a false religion. Simple observation is enough to see the extreme violence that modern fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran (and historical ones) lend themselves to. All true, but not how I'd lead off in a conversation with a Muslim if I was interested in sharing the gospel rather than picking a fight.

Jesuslove

11-17-2009, 02:29 AM

It's well known that Islamic countries that observe Sharia Law often consider it a capital offense to convert from Islam. Executions (and other lesser punishments) are well documented and hardly "hype." As for context ... there are many moderate Muslims who are about as Muslim as the average American is Christian. Most of these do not take the violent portions of the Koran literally. There are also many Muslim fundamentalists who do take it literally. It is a historical fact that Islam has spread primarily through conquest and violent forced conversions, and that such is consistent with the Koran. That doesn't imply that every modern Muslim agrees with such approaches, nor does the lack of agreement of every modern Muslim imply that such approaches are not sanctioned by their scriptures. I doubt either group is going to put much weight in our interpretation of the Koran ...
The Qur'an, much like the Bible is open to some degree of interpretation. It would be as easy for a Muslim to cherry pick Christian scripture and say a Christian's Bible is violent. There was a period in time where there were forced Christian conversions as well.

Whether we can say the Muslim Qur'an is misquoted by terrorists or not it is still true that Islam is an evil fallen religion. Period! Plain and simple. Islam teaches that Jesus Christ is not the eternal Son of the Father fully Divine and fully man for us and for our salvation. So now.... ask we this: "Did the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob author a religion that teaches that His Son is not His Son?"
The answer is no.

Islam is a false religion to you. Islam is a very real religion to many. Whether you think Islam is real or evil or anything else, it doesn't change the fact that nearly 1/4 of the World's population is Muslim. And some of those extremist Muslims view Christians as evil. For evample, some Muslims view American Christians as evil for supporting supplying nuclear weapons to Israel. In turn, how would we like it if Iran supplied nuclear weapons to Cuba. Seriously. Instead of calling someone else's religion evil, why don't Christians and Muslims come to an understanding that we (collectively) don't see eye to eye about faith, but it is in the best interest of all peoples that we find a way to respect each other and to get along. That's the only way this world will survive.... peaceful coexistence.

Musicdude

11-17-2009, 02:34 AM

Musicdude

11-17-2009, 02:35 AM

Islam is a false religion to you. Islam is a very real religion to many. Whether you think Islam is real or evil or anything else, it doesn't change the fact that nearly 1/4 of the World's population is Muslim. And some of those extremist Muslims view Christians as evil. For evample, some Muslims view American Christians as evil for supporting supplying nuclear weapons to Israel. In turn, how would we like it if Iran supplied nuclear weapons to Cuba. Seriously. Instead of calling someone else's religion evil, why don't Christians and Muslims come to an understanding that we (collectively) don't see eye to eye about faith, but it is in the best interest of all peoples that we find a way to respect each other and to get along. That's the only way this world will survive.... peaceful coexistence.

Any religion that teaches anything other than Jesus Christ being the salvation for our sins, is evil. Period. End of story.

What the world thinks doesn't matter. The truth is the truth, whether anyone believes it or not.

Gandalf

11-17-2009, 02:54 AM

The Qur'an, much like the Bible is open to some degree of interpretation. It would be as easy for a Muslim to cherry pick Christian scripture and say a Christian's Bible is violent. There was a period in time where there were forced Christian conversions as well.
Anything that is written must be interpreted to be understood ... but that doesn't make the content completely meaningless. Objectively speaking, there truly is a much more violent side to Islam because of the basic premises behind it. We believe that people individually have sinful, fallen natures, and will oppose God unless they are saved through Jesus Christ, so it is necessary to reach individuals with the gospel and allow the Holy Spirit to sanctify them. They believe that people individually are good, but society is corrupt and leads them astray, so it is necessary to transform society and impose Sharia Law to protect people from temptation. In the former paradigm, those who do not believe are to be pitied, but not feared. In the latter, they are to be feared for their negative influence, and eliminated if they will not change their ways.

There are certainly different approaches that are sanctioned (or not) by Muslims, but historically, conquest has been the primary mode of expansion, and in modern times there is a large percentage (though not by any means 100%) that believes a literal, physical holy war against non-Islamic cultures is necessary. This logically follows from their beliefs, though not all Muslims agree with the methods.

There was a period in history when the Church was essentially hijacked by worldly powers, and European kings and popes carried out Crusades (more to reconquer the "Holy Land" out of a belief that the Arabs weren't worth evangelizing than out of any desire to actually convert them), Inquisitions, and other violent abuses. This was wrong and we rightly recognize this and condemn these actions. But we also recognize that these actions were inconsistent with true Christianity, and outside of the brief period of the Dark Ages, all Christians have rejected such actions as being evil and utterly inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. Once the Reformation occurred, and Christians gained access to the Bible, this period quickly ended (thank God!). It's good to recognize and repent of past wrongs, but it's not correct to imply that these wrongs were consistent with the Bible; in all periods when the Bible has been widely available to people, these violent approaches have been utterly rejected by Christians. The same is simply not true of Islam.
Islam is a false religion to you. Islam is a very real religion to many.
He's not saying that Islam is false in the sense of not being real (not existing). He's saying that Islam is false in the sense of not being true. That is an objective statement just like saying that a claim that gravity doesn't apply to you would be false. It's not "false to him" - that's a nonsensical statement. It's either true or false, and we believe that it is clearly false.
Instead of calling someone else's religion evil, why don't Christians and Muslims come to an understanding that we (collectively) don't see eye to eye about faith, but it is in the best interest of all peoples that we find a way to respect each other and to get along. That's the only way this world will survive.... peaceful coexistence.
I agree that calling someone else's religion evil is not going to be an effective method of approaching him with the gospel. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize the fact amongst ourselves. When dealing with Muslims, it'll be much more effective to start with the things they believe that are true (i.e. there is one God, etc.), and from there lead them towards the full Truth, just as Paul started with the truths his hearers had grasped (the OT for the Jews, the elements of truth in Greek philosophy for the Athenians, etc.), and built his case from there in a way they could understand. But as concerns this discussion, it's not inaccurate to note that the murderer was influenced by his faith in a false religion that is known for inciting violence.

Politically speaking, peaceful coexistence is certainly the better alternative to jihad/holy wars ... if you can get both sides to agree to that. But that doesn't mean that the value of the truth claims by various religions are all equal. It doesn't mean that Islam is not objectively false and evil. The problem there comes in getting both sides to agree to such peace, though. Christians (and even most pagans, for that matter) are perfectly content not to conquer the lands of everyone who disagrees with them to forcibly "convert" people. A large percentage of Muslims are not. It takes two to make peace, but only one to start a war ...

Shonsu

11-17-2009, 03:31 AM

Anything that is written must be interpreted to be understood ... but that doesn't make the content completely meaningless. Objectively speaking, there truly is a much more violent side to Islam because of the basic premises behind it. We believe that people individually have sinful, fallen natures, and will oppose God unless they are saved through Jesus Christ, so it is necessary to reach individuals with the gospel and allow the Holy Spirit to sanctify them. They believe that people individually are good, but society is corrupt and leads them astray, so it is necessary to transform society and impose Sharia Law to protect people from temptation. In the former paradigm, those who do not believe are to be pitied, but not feared. In the latter, they are to be feared for their negative influence, and eliminated if they will not change their ways.

There are certainly different approaches that are sanctioned (or not) by Muslims, but historically, conquest has been the primary mode of expansion, and in modern times there is a large percentage (though not by any means 100%) that believes a literal, physical holy war against non-Islamic cultures is necessary. This logically follows from their beliefs, though not all Muslims agree with the methods.

There was a period in history when the Church was essentially hijacked by worldly powers, and European kings and popes carried out Crusades (more to reconquer the "Holy Land" out of a belief that the Arabs weren't worth evangelizing than out of any desire to actually convert them), Inquisitions, and other violent abuses. This was wrong and we rightly recognize this and condemn these actions. But we also recognize that these actions were inconsistent with true Christianity, and outside of the brief period of the Dark Ages, all Christians have rejected such actions as being evil and utterly inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. Once the Reformation occurred, and Christians gained access to the Bible, this period quickly ended (thank God!). It's good to recognize and repent of past wrongs, but it's not correct to imply that these wrongs were consistent with the Bible; in all periods when the Bible has been widely available to people, these violent approaches have been utterly rejected by Christians. The same is simply not true of Islam.

He's not saying that Islam is false in the sense of not being real (not existing). He's saying that Islam is false in the sense of not being true. That is an objective statement just like saying that a claim that gravity doesn't apply to you would be false. It's not "false to him" - that's a nonsensical statement. It's either true or false, and we believe that it is clearly false.

I agree that calling someone else's religion evil is not going to be an effective method of approaching him with the gospel. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize the fact amongst ourselves. When dealing with Muslims, it'll be much more effective to start with the things they believe that are true (i.e. there is one God, etc.), and from there lead them towards the full Truth, just as Paul started with the truths his hearers had grasped (the OT for the Jews, the elements of truth in Greek philosophy for the Athenians, etc.), and built his case from there in a way they could understand. But as concerns this discussion, it's not inaccurate to note that the murderer was influenced by his faith in a false religion that is known for inciting violence.

Politically speaking, peaceful coexistence is certainly the better alternative to jihad/holy wars ... if you can get both sides to agree to that. But that doesn't mean that the value of the truth claims by various religions are all equal. It doesn't mean that Islam is not objectively false and evil. The problem there comes in getting both sides to agree to such peace, though. Christians (and even most pagans, for that matter) are perfectly content not to conquer the lands of everyone who disagrees with them to forcibly "convert" people. A large percentage of Muslims are not. It takes two to make peace, but only one to start a war ...

Exactly! Well put. I'm not nearly as eloquent as you. What JL is espousing is moral relativism which goes against what God says throughout the bible.

Jesuslove

11-17-2009, 03:32 AM

There are certainly different approaches that are sanctioned (or not) by Muslims, but historically, conquest has been the primary mode of expansion, and in modern times there is a large percentage (though not by any means 100%) that believes a literal, physical holy war against non-Islamic cultures is necessary. This logically follows from their beliefs, though not all Muslims agree with the methods.
And not all Christians agree with all methods. In the mind of Muslims, Islam is under attack. The US is occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, two Muslim nations. The US has fought against Iran having nuclear weapons, yet we provide the same weapons to Israel. Again, could you imagine how threatened we'd feel if our enemies provided weapons to Cuba or Mexico?

There was a period in history when the Church was essentially hijacked by worldly powers, and European kings and popes carried out Crusades (more to reconquer the "Holy Land" out of a belief that the Arabs weren't worth evangelizing than out of any desire to actually convert them), Inquisitions, and other violent abuses. This was wrong and we rightly recognize this and condemn these actions. But we also recognize that these actions were inconsistent with true Christianity, and outside of the brief period of the Dark Ages, all Christians have rejected such actions as being evil and utterly inconsistent with what the Bible teaches.
I agree that Kings and governments have conquered nations and converted citizens to Christianity for centuries, but I've never heard of true Christians condemning, apologizing for, or offering repairations for the actions of those peoples who've Christians have conquered. While I agree that conquering a nation is inconsistent with Christianity, many people commit sins against others in the name of religion. The same is true of Islam. Many clerics would condemn the actions of Muslims who advocate violence.

I agree that calling someone else's religion evil is not going to be an effective method of approaching him with the gospel.
I agree. That's why I see peaceful coexistence as the best option for world peace.

Ther problem comes in getting both sides to agree to such peace, though. Christians (and even most pagans, for that matter) are perfectly content not to conquer the lands of everyone who disagrees with them to forcibly "convert" people. A large percentage of Muslims are not. It takes two to make peace, but only one to start a war ...

It does take two to make peace. That's why I actively advocate against the US occupying Iraq. We had no business invading Iraq, and doing so created more enemies for America. From a Muslim perspective, they look at "Christian America" as the invader. They did not welcome the hundreds of thouseands of Iraqi deaths at the hands of what they see to be "Christian America". Prior to the invasion, Muslims and Christians peacefully co-existed in Iraq. Now they do not.

I also want to challenge your statement that a large percentage of Muslims are not a peace loving people. What do you consider a large percentage?

Gandalf

11-17-2009, 04:03 AM

Christianity isn't attacking Islam; the secular governments of Western nations who have been attacked by Islamic terrorists are fighting to eliminate material support for those terrorists. Yes, we should recognize that Muslim people may view it as an "us vs them" thing ... they're the ones who picked the fight, after all ... but that doesn't mean we should buy into their characterization of the fight as regards our own motives. We're not fighting Muslims because we're Christians. We're fighting terrorists because they attacked our country. We're allied with many of the less extreme Muslims in doing so. Characterizing it as a holy war will only make incidents like this one at Fort Hood more likely.

As for the percentage of Muslims who support jihadists, it's hard to quantify and certainly varies among different sects of Islam, but one telling number is that 65% of the Palestinian vote recently went to Hamas, the pro-terrorist organization, rather than Fatah, the more "moderate" party. Support for jihadists isn't universal in the Muslim world, but it is widespread, especially in the Middle East. I don't know whether it's the majority or the minority, and I imagine that would probably depend on how the question was phrased, so I simply mentioned it as being substantial rather than trying to quantify it.

Musicdude

11-17-2009, 04:03 AM

I agree that Kings and governments have conquered nations and converted citizens to Christianity for centuries, but I've never heard of true Christians condemning, apologizing for, or offering repairations for the actions of those peoples who've Christians have conquered. While I agree that conquering a nation is inconsistent with Christianity, many people commit sins against others in the name of religion. The same is true of Islam. Many clerics would condemn the actions of Muslims who advocate violence.

And who would make such an apology and/or reparations? The USA? First, according to our president we are not a Christian nation, so we are in no position to represent Christianity in such a way to the world. Second, we were not a nation at all when said attrocities were taking place, so we can hardly be blamed. So take it up with the UK, if you are serious about this.

I agree. That's why I see peaceful coexistence as the best option for world peace.
But it's only an option if every country on earth desires to have peace. If only one country is bent on conquering others, then that pretty much messes it up for all the rest, and requires someone to put them in check.
Jesus Christ (the Prince of Peace) is the only one who can bring about true world peace, and He will. And it's not going to be done by respecting other people's false religions.

It does take two to make peace. That's why I actively advocate against the US occupying Iraq. We had no business invading Iraq, and doing so created more enemies for America. From a Muslim perspective, they look at "Christian America" as the invader. They did not welcome the hundreds of thouseands of Iraqi deaths at the hands of what they see to be "Christian America". Prior to the invasion, Muslims and Christians peacefully co-existed in Iraq. Now they do not.
Muslims and Christians still peacefully co-exist in America all over the place. I don't know where you get your info from, but that is a pretty sweeping generalization and it just isn't true.

Edit: My mistake on that last comment, you said "in Iraq" and I thought I read "in America."

HumanityisSaved

11-17-2009, 04:35 AM

JL, have you ever played Apples to Apples? Great game lots of fun too.

mat1583

11-17-2009, 05:16 AM

Jesus Christ (the Prince of Peace) is the only one who can bring about true world peace, and He will.

Jesus isn't bringing peace...at least not at first. I understand what you're saying though. After the tribulation and all the saints come back, there will eventually be a new earth - a peaceful one. I'm just looking forward to battling beside the Lion of Judah!

Jesuslove

11-17-2009, 05:27 AM

JL, have you ever played Apples to Apples? Great game lots of fun too.

totally random.

mat1583

11-17-2009, 05:30 AM

Christianity isn't attacking Islam; the secular governments of Western nations who have been attacked by Islamic terrorists are fighting to eliminate material support for those terrorists. Yes, we should recognize that Muslim people may view it as an "us vs them" thing ... they're the ones who picked the fight, after all ... but that doesn't mean we should buy into their characterization of the fight as regards our own motives. We're not fighting Muslims because we're Christians. We're fighting terrorists because they attacked our country. We're allied with many of the less extreme Muslims in doing so. Characterizing it as a holy war will only make incidents like this one at Fort Hood more likely.

Eliminating material support is only one of the major goals of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US wants to force democracy on them, which means Islamic rulers may no longer be able to impose Shariah Law on the people.

I remember when the war in Afghanistan first started; the media kept displaying images and videos of women in head-to toe cover. You could only see their eyes. As Americans we thought "Oh, what atrocities! They treat women so poorly." While this may be true, it's the "Let's do something about it," that got us into trouble. Instead of just chasing down Bin Laden and al Qaeda, we wanted to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban completely and create some form of democracy so the people would no longer be under the strict Shariah Law.

To extremist Muslims in that area, this is an attack on their religion. What would the Jews have done if the Romans had forced them to give up the Laws of Moses? The laws in Afghanistan were formed directly by their religion, so to oppose that law by occupation and force is to oppose their religion. No matter how you try to explain it, it's still an attack on their religion.

Musicdude

11-17-2009, 05:54 AM

What would the Jews have done if the Romans had forced them to give up the Laws of Moses?
They would've put God before government, and obeyed the law of Moses, and if the Roman government punished or even killed them for doing so, so be it. But I don't think they would've attacked the Roman government.

mat1583

11-17-2009, 06:19 AM

They would've put God before government, and obeyed the law of Moses, and if the Roman government punished or even killed them for doing so, so be it. But I don't think they would've attacked the Roman government.

In the OT, God sent His own people to destroy whole cities that were godless and vile, such as Jericho. I mean it's all conjecture about what the Jews or God would have done, so it doesn't really matter too much.

The point is the same. No matter how you try to explain it, one of the goals is to create a democracy there. The only way to do that is to rid the place of the law they are under. And to do so, is to oppose their religion, which is the basis for the law.

Musicdude

11-17-2009, 06:29 AM

In the OT, God sent His own people to destroy whole cities that were godless and vile, such as Jericho. I mean it's all conjecture about what the Jews or God would have done, so it doesn't really matter too much.

The point is the same. No matter how you try to explain it, one of the goals is to create a democracy there. The only way to do that is to rid the place of the law they are under. And to do so, is to oppose their religion, which is the basis for the law.

But you don't see them rising up against their own non-Jewish governmental authorities except for once, that I know of, and that was in Egypt. But that was led by God, it wasn't just a decision based on their persecution. Moses didn't decide on his own that he was tired of his people being persecuted and he would lead a revolution.

Take Daniel for example. When the Chaldeans took over. Even though they worshipped idols, Daniel was still able to keep the law even in captivity. And his friends certainly had no problem standing up to the king when he commanded them to break the Mosaic law and worship an idol. But they didn't attack anyone. They just did what they knew was right, and trusted God to cover their backs.

mat1583

11-17-2009, 06:31 AM

But you don't see them rising up against their own non-Jewish governmental authorities except for once, that I know of, and that was in Egypt. But that was led by God, it wasn't just a decision based on their persecution. Moses didn't decide on his own that he was tired of his people being persecuted and he would lead a revolution.

Take Daniel for example. When the Chaldeans took over. Even though they worshipped idols, Daniel was still able to keep the law even in captivity. And his friends certainly had no problem standing up to the king when he commanded them to break the Mosaic law and worship an idol. But they didn't attack anyone. They just did what they knew was right, and trusted God to cover their backs.

Yes, I agree.

Gandalf

11-17-2009, 07:20 AM

Eliminating material support is only one of the major goals of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US wants to force democracy on them, which means Islamic rulers may no longer be able to impose Shariah Law on the people.
Setting up free, democratic governments is part of the strategy, yes, but not the reason for fighting in the first place. President Bush believed that if the oppressive, totalitarian oligarchies were removed from power and the people were given freedom and allowed to prosper, that would reduce the available recruiting pool for terrorist organizations and turn the people's sympathies away from them. It seems like a sound theory, if perhaps a bit ambitious as a strategy. But these free democratic societies need not reject Sharia Law - in fact, the US-backed Afghan government has implemented it (though we have criticized some of the provisions they've enacted). It's the totalitarian oppression of the people by corrupt leaders that is the target of US democratization efforts. If they have freedom and are allowed some level of material prosperity, they'll be less inclined to blow themselves up to spite us.

I think your point as to how it can be perceived by the Muslims is a valid one. Certainly the extremists will oppose it, but they will oppose us regardless. The important thing is how the average "Afghan on the street" perceives it ... if it helps keep them from being susceptible to the influence of the extremists, that's great; if it makes them more extreme, that'd be counterproductive. Most people, of whatever background, value stability and safety as well as freedom, so if we can help them achieve those, they'll be less likely to upset the balance and less desperate to destroy us. Reaching them is the key in all this.
They would've put God before government, and obeyed the law of Moses, and if the Roman government punished or even killed them for doing so, so be it. But I don't think they would've attacked the Roman government.
Sorry, but history doesn't agree with you. The Jews revolted against the Seleucids in the Maccabean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees) period, then again against the Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roma n_War) in AD 66. The former was successful until the Romans took over; the latter ended in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Prior to the establishment of the kingdom, in the period of the Judges, they were constantly fighting to overthrow Philistine or other invaders. Their overall attitude through history was not to meekly bear whatever the Romans (or other conquerors) dished out; it was to revolt and throw off foreign rule when they had the opportunity. Against the Babylonians and Assyrians, they were simply so outmatched that they never had a chance to try to fight back once they were initially defeated, and God used other means of restoring them to their homeland instead.

Jesuslove

11-17-2009, 07:33 AM

Setting up free, democratic governments is part of the strategy, yes, but not the reason for fighting in the first place. President Bush believed that if the oppressive, totalitarian oligarchies were removed from power and the people were given freedom and allowed to prosper, that would reduce the available recruiting pool for terrorist organizations and turn the people's sympathies away from them. It seems like a sound theory, if perhaps a bit ambitious as a strategy. But these free democratic societies need not reject Sharia Law - in fact, the US-backed Afghan government has implemented it (though we have criticized some of the provisions they've enacted). It's the totalitarian oppression of the people by corrupt leaders that is the target of US democratization efforts. If they have freedom and are allowed some level of material prosperity, they'll be less inclined to blow themselves up to spite us.

I agree with parts of your theory, particularly the part about people being less inclined to blow themselves up if freedom exists, and if people have some degree of self-determination. However, I don't think the US should police the world and impose our values on others. I don't see one form of government being superior to another form of government in every case. Peoples and cultures vary quite a bit around the world. What works in one culture, may not work in another, and vice versa.

Gandalf

11-17-2009, 07:45 AM

Shonsu

11-17-2009, 07:56 AM

Jesus isn't bringing peace...at least not at first. I understand what you're saying though. After the tribulation and all the saints come back, there will eventually be a new earth - a peaceful one. I'm just looking forward to battling beside the Lion of Judah!

I, too, look forward to being alongside Him. But we won't be doing much as He is going to slay them with his Word. There won't be any actual fighting going on.

mat1583

11-17-2009, 08:16 AM

I, too, look forward to being alongside Him. But we won't be doing much as He is going to slay them with his Word. There won't be any actual fighting going on.

Hmm...different thread altogether :)

mat1583

11-17-2009, 08:49 AM

In principle, I largely agree that we should allow other sovereign nations to decide what's best for their own countries, though when it comes to the war on terror, I also understand the policy that "If you're supporting these goons who keep attacking us, we'll come after you just like them." My position has always been that I don't personally have the information that would be necessary to determine whether the invasion of Iraq, etc. was needed, though if those (of both parties) who were in power at the time believed it was, I'll choose to trust that they made the best decsiion they could with the information they had (which is more than I have). Given that we went in, the strategy Bush pushed for (but didn't articulate well) of promoting freedom to reduce the motivation for terrorism seems a good one if we have to rebuild countries whose governments we've eliminated, whether or not those invasions are something we'd repeat.

I also agree that governments aren't one-size-fits-all. There's a reason we didn't try to set up an exact copy of our own federalist republican system in Iraq. But I do think that while democratic forms of government aren't perfect, they do more than other forms we've yet come up with to protect the freedoms of their people. That there's a wide variety of implementations of the basic principles of self-determination, separation of powers, etc. though is probably good and necessary given varied cultures.
What the US did was destabilize an area that was waiting for an excuse to start a civil war. Whether we like it or not, Sadam Hussein was doing a good job of holding back the flood. Who knows...this may have happened anyway if we had allowed him to stay in power. But since WWII, the US and UN have had a history of trying to bring democracy to nations after a conflict, and only a few of these attempts have been successful. The occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII come to mind. A majority of these attempts have been quite unsuccessful. The US even took up the official job and institutionalized reconstruction and stabilization of post-conflict states when it took the position of Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization in the UN. The US also has a history of starting conflicts, assassinating leaders, and helping stage coupes with the goal of bringing in democracy. So not only do we have the power to destabilize a nation, we use that power to destabilize it, we now have an institutionalized path for reconstruction and stabilization which is sanctioned by the U.N. Considering how unsuccessful these attempts have been, I believe it's a huge waste of taxpayer dollars not to mention extremely hypocritical.

btw, this seems to be a decent read if you have the time. I only scanned through it, but I used some of it for reference: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5V-4R70W5G-6&_user=409620&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1097603687&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000019518&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=409620&md5=37c076a52dc3e35d53815 f9275c1cd92

HumanityisSaved

11-17-2009, 08:59 AM

What the US did was destabilize an area that was waiting for an excuse to start a civil war. Whether we like it or not, Sadam Hussein was doing a good job of holding back the flood. Who knows...this may have happened anyway if we had allowed him to stay in power. But since WWII, the US and UN have had a history of trying to bring democracy to nations after a conflict, and only a few of these attempts have been successful. The occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII come to mind. A majority of these attempts have been quite unsuccessful. The US even took up the official job and institutionalized reconstruction and stabilization of post-conflict states when it took the position of Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization in the UN. The US also has a history of starting conflicts, assassinating leaders, and helping stage coupes with the goal of bringing in democracy. So not only do we have the power to destabilize a nation, we use that power to destabilize it, we now have an institutionalized path for reconstruction and stabilization which is sanctioned by the U.N. Considering how unsuccessful these attempts have been, I believe it's a huge waste of taxpayer dollars not to mention extremely hypocritical.

btw, this seems to be a decent read if you have the time. I only scanned through it, but I used some of it for reference: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5V-4R70W5G-6&_user=409620&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1097603687&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000019518&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=409620&md5=37c076a52dc3e35d53815 f9275c1cd92

Medling in the affairs of foreign countries is UNConstitutional. Doing something that does not work over and over again is insane. This is why welfare should be gutted and reworked. I don't care if it is hypocritical or not the issue is Constitutionality.

Gandalf

11-17-2009, 09:30 AM

What the US did was destabilize an area that was waiting for an excuse to start a civil war. Whether we like it or not, Sadam Hussein was doing a good job of holding back the flood.
I would hardly call the area stable before, though Hussein's was merely the worst of several bad regimes in the region. We went in in large part because he lied about having WMDs, thinking that the deterrence against Iran was more important than keeping the UN happy. He miscalculated badly, and now we realize that he didn't really have what he claimed to have. But if not for Iran's interference, the civil war that's now nearly stamped out would've never gotten off the ground. The Middle East has long been unstable, but I don't know if it's accurate to claim we destabilized something that was in such bad shape to begin with. Either way, the goal isn't stability for its own sake, regardless of the means. If a brutal, inhuman dictator is oppressing his people to the point that they're likely to become terrorists, and claims to be making weapons that terrorists would be able to use against large civilian populations, is "stability" a good reason to prop him up? I'm not sure it is. I don't think there's an easy formula to determine whether it would've been better to invade or not, and given the lack of clarity even in hindsight, I think it's best to just move on and handle the situation as it presents itself now in the best manner we're able to.
But since WWII, the US and UN have had a history of trying to bring democracy to nations after a conflict, and only a few of these attempts have been successful. The occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII come to mind.
When has the US (not the UN) failed when it made a serious attempt to do that? Germany, Japan, Israel, etc. all succeeded admirably. South Korea's in pretty good shape, too. I can't think of any failures where it can't be argued that the problem was that we didn't really put in the necessary effort and resources.

That's not to say that I think imposing our will on other nations in the sense of replacing their governments with puppet regimes is a good approach to foreign policy, but when we have had countries as protectorate states, and have helped them set up new governments, those governments have been largely successful.

Certainly, there have been some unsavory involvements with banana republic dictators and the like; I'm not trying to gloss over that. I just don't see a long string of failures when the US tries to aid new democracies.
Medling in the affairs of foreign countries is UNConstitutional.
It's not at all unconstitutional if the President (and Congress, if it involves treaties or wars) approve of it. It may not be good policy. It may be ill-advised. It may be arrogant or otherwise wrong. But one thing it is not is unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't impose limits on what foreign policies may be enacted, only on who in the government has the power to carry them out and approve them.

HumanityisSaved

11-17-2009, 03:48 PM

I would hardly call the area stable before, though Hussein's was merely the worst of several bad regimes in the region. We went in in large part because he lied about having WMDs, thinking that the deterrence against Iran was more important than keeping the UN happy. He miscalculated badly, and now we realize that he didn't really have what he claimed to have. But if not for Iran's interference, the civil war that's now nearly stamped out would've never gotten off the ground. The Middle East has long been unstable, but I don't know if it's accurate to claim we destabilized something that was in such bad shape to begin with. Either way, the goal isn't stability for its own sake, regardless of the means. If a brutal, inhuman dictator is oppressing his people to the point that they're likely to become terrorists, and claims to be making weapons that terrorists would be able to use against large civilian populations, is "stability" a good reason to prop him up? I'm not sure it is. I don't think there's an easy formula to determine whether it would've been better to invade or not, and given the lack of clarity even in hindsight, I think it's best to just move on and handle the situation as it presents itself now in the best manner we're able to.

When has the US (not the UN) failed when it made a serious attempt to do that? Germany, Japan, Israel, etc. all succeeded admirably. South Korea's in pretty good shape, too. I can't think of any failures where it can't be argued that the problem was that we didn't really put in the necessary effort and resources.

That's not to say that I think imposing our will on other nations in the sense of replacing their governments with puppet regimes is a good approach to foreign policy, but when we have had countries as protectorate states, and have helped them set up new governments, those governments have been largely successful.

Certainly, there have been some unsavory involvements with banana republic dictators and the like; I'm not trying to gloss over that. I just don't see a long string of failures when the US tries to aid new democracies.

It's not at all unconstitutional if the President (and Congress, if it involves treaties or wars) approve of it. It may not be good policy. It may be ill-advised. It may be arrogant or otherwise wrong. But one thing it is not is unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't impose limits on what foreign policies may be enacted, only on who in the government has the power to carry them out and approve them. I was speaking of the use of military force.

Under the US Constitution the president has the power to wage war but only if the Congress issues a Declaration of War - war powers were given to the president only to repel sudden attacks. This is why the majority of US military action in the last 60 years has been unConstitutional. Now under the War Powers Resolution the president may send troops into combat for only 60 days unless a declaration of war is adopted by Congress. Iraq was illegal- there was no declaration of war only some broad blanket resolution congress passed. War is seldom necessary but oft employed because the powers that be profit mightily from it.

James Madison- “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

Ask yourself how many of your freedoms were legislated away by politicians Dems and Reps alike- now how many freedoms were taken by "the terrorists"?

Evanescence

11-17-2009, 03:58 PM

The iraq war was pre-planned by PNAC in 1997...all memebers of PNAC were then entered into the Bush Admin. Iraq was a strategic plan to get the uS into the Middle east, protect the puppetmaster- israel, and secure the oil-- 300 billion barrels there.

Bush and Cheney and the lot of them should be put on trial for the murder of an estimated 1 million+ Iraqis...and the deaths of 4000 American soldiers....and nearly 80,000 mamed soldiers.

Iraq was a massive mistake..and wreckless....but yet pre-planned. It was also to trigger jihad...to make the world hate Muslims. It worked...

Gandalf

11-17-2009, 05:33 PM

HumanityisSaved

11-18-2009, 01:32 AM

HiS, I can't see how Congress' authorization of military force against Iraq (or Korea, Vietnam, etc.) is anything other than a declaration of war, for practical constitutional purposes. Congress authorizes military action against an enemy, then the President carries it out. That's what a declaration of war is, however they word it. The only complication seems to be that it's not a sovereign state that is the enemy in this war ... but I don't see how that makes the Congressional action authorizing the President to wage war any less valid.

It is invalid because the US Constitution does let congress "authorize the president to use force" it must be a declaration of war. If congress is too mamby pamby to do it then we stay home. Congress can't just authorize the president to take over 16% of the private sector economy and suddenly mandate that we get health insurance or go to jail for 5 years either.... oh wait....

Musicdude

11-18-2009, 01:47 AM

Sorry, but history doesn't agree with you. The Jews revolted against the Seleucids in the Maccabean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees) period, then again against the Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roma n_War) in AD 66. The former was successful until the Romans took over; the latter ended in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Prior to the establishment of the kingdom, in the period of the Judges, they were constantly fighting to overthrow Philistine or other invaders. Their overall attitude through history was not to meekly bear whatever the Romans (or other conquerors) dished out; it was to revolt and throw off foreign rule when they had the opportunity. Against the Babylonians and Assyrians, they were simply so outmatched that they never had a chance to try to fight back once they were initially defeated, and God used other means of restoring them to their homeland instead.
I'll agree to disagree. I see your examples, and they are factually true, as were mine. But I don't arrive at the same conclusion. I think from your viewpoint it is easy to justify all kind of radical activity that I don't believe is justifiable.

The difference was, when Israel went to take the land God gave them, they were doing God's will. When they rose up and left Egypt and the Egyptian army died trying to stop them, they were doing God's will. If some man flies a plane into a building in the name of allah, he is not doing God's will. Because allah is not God. Allah is an idol which is a man-made god, and completely powerless. I say this because I know JL will say that the Jihadests believe they are doing God's will also, so what's the difference between them and Israel? The difference is the god they follow versus the God Israel follows. One is real and one is make-believe. If I make my own god, and he supposedly tells me to fly a plane into the world trade center, truthfully it is I who desired to do that, because the god I made told me to do it.

Evanescence

11-18-2009, 02:16 AM

Humanity...you are correct....and we have been played with on 3 wars, since WWII...

"beware of the Industrial War Complex..."

Pres Dwight D. Eisenhower

Gandalf

11-18-2009, 02:26 AM

It is invalid because the US Constitution does let congress "authorize the president to use force" it must be a declaration of war. If congress is too mamby pamby to do it then we stay home.
That's simply not accurate. One of the powers granted to Congress is:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Letters of Marque and Reprisal are authorizations of military actions on the behalf of the United States (whether by mercenaries or our own forces) that come short of an all-out War. This power has been used as far back as 15 years after the Constitution was written, when the Quasi-War with France began - an authorization of military force was drafted that did not entirely break off diplomatic relations with France as a formal declaration of war would have done. The Barbary Wars were similarly authorized by Congress, but not as formal wars against nations. These began while Thomas Jefferson, one of the framers of the Constitution, was President. A formal declaration of war against a nation has never been seen to be legally necessary to authorize military action, and that is true of the views of those who wrote the Constitution, not merely of later generations.
Congress can't just authorize the president to take over 16% of the private sector economy and suddenly mandate that we get health insurance or go to jail for 5 years either.... oh wait....
I agree that they don't have Constitutional authority to do that. But they do have explicit Constitutional authority to authorize military action, whether as part of a formal war or something less than that. It's a bit of a legal gray area how much Presidents are allowed to do without their authorization (the Constitution does allow for at least defensive engagements without having to wait for Congressional approval), but when Congress approves, there's no Constitutional difficulty.
I'll agree to disagree. I see your examples, and they are factually true, as were mine. But I don't arrive at the same conclusion. I think from your viewpoint it is easy to justify all kind of radical activity that I don't believe is justifiable.
I don't think that whether revolt is justified depends on whether the people of Israel engaged in it or refrained from it in various circumstances. They did plenty that was right and plenty that was wrong. That they did something or didn't do something says nothing at all about whether that thing should have been done or not. I also don't see revolution itself as being always good or always evil. Sometimes it's justified, and sometimes it's not. But it's certainly not the case that the Jews wouldn't have ever risen up and fought back against the Romans: historically, they actually did so.

I also wouldn't say the god of Islam is make-believe. I think it's quite real, but is a demon who has set itself up as if it were God and deceived them into serving it instead of the true God. Not, of course, a point to start off with in sharing the gospel with a Muslim, but ...

Musicdude

11-18-2009, 04:22 AM

I don't think that whether revolt is justified depends on whether the people of Israel engaged in it or refrained from it in various circumstances. They did plenty that was right and plenty that was wrong. That they did something or didn't do something says nothing at all about whether that thing should have been done or not.
But in those instances where the word makes it clear that God was with them or He was opposed to them, that does prove it. I wasn't saying that just because Israel did it, it must be God's will. Certainly they went against God's will many times.

I also don't see revolution itself as being always good or always evil. Sometimes it's justified, and sometimes it's not. But it's certainly not the case that the Jews wouldn't have ever risen up and fought back against the Romans: historically, they actually did so.
My overall viewpoint is that Christian activism is wrong. In essense you are trying to fight God's fight, and He doesn't need your help. Bombing abortion clinics and stuff like that, doesn't do any good whatsoever and it gives Christianity a bad name, which hurts evangelism which is much more important. I know we aren't talking about abortion, but it's the same deal. Christians physically fighting for God's morals and values, trying to uphold them in their nation, when God can do that. If those people truly are concerned about the state of their nation, and the degradation of morality, they should go evangelize. But that's just my opinion.

I also wouldn't say the god of Islam is make-believe. I think it's quite real, but is a demon who has set itself up as if it were God and deceived them into serving it instead of the true God. Not, of course, a point to start off with in sharing the gospel with a Muslim, but ...
Maybe so. To be as big as it is, it probably has a demon behind it (or many). Either way it's not God.

In our discussions about this, I am speaking pretty bluntly, but I assure you when evangelizing a Muslim (which I have before, as there are tons of them where I live) I would be a lot more tactful, and I honestly would never have any need to even discuss Islam or Allah at all.

We went evangelising at our local mall a couple of months ago on a Tuesday night around 7:00pm and I think probably 95% of the people we saw and talked to were Muslims. Not to stereotype, but you can tell by how they dress usually.

Jesuslove

11-18-2009, 04:31 AM

Because allah is not God. Allah is an idol which is a man-made god, and completely powerless. I say this because I know JL will say that the Jihadests believe they are doing God's will also, so what's the difference between them and Israel? The difference is the god they follow versus the God Israel follows. One is real and one is make-believe. If I make my own god, and he supposedly tells me to fly a plane into the world trade center, truthfully it is I who desired to do that, because the god I made told me to do it.

Well then back to what I said earler... the best we can hope for is peaceful coexistence.

Evanescence

11-18-2009, 04:49 AM

We arent right...and neither are they. Neither can prove our God exists..much less that he is the only one. All we have is our beliefs and good looks...

Grank

11-18-2009, 05:46 AM

We arent right...and neither are they. Neither can prove our God exists..much less that he is the only one. All we have is our beliefs and good looks...

completely incorrect... somebody is right... i bet a lot of ppl were saying the same thing about elijah and the prophets of baal before their hilltop showdown too...

Musicdude

11-18-2009, 06:31 AM

We arent right...and neither are they. Neither can prove our God exists..much less that he is the only one. All we have is our beliefs and good looks...

I can prove it. I can't tell you when, but at some point in the probably not too distant future, it will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to the entire world. And still, some won't believe.

Musicdude

11-18-2009, 06:32 AM

Well then back to what I said earler... the best we can hope for is peaceful coexistence.

I can peacefully coexist with anyone, unless they outright attack me, in which case I'll defend myself.

Jesuslove

11-18-2009, 08:46 AM

I can peacefully coexist with anyone, unless they outright attack me, in which case I'll defend myself.

so with that analogy, the governments and civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq have every right to attack America?

mat1583

11-19-2009, 02:44 AM

so with that analogy, the governments and civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq have every right to attack America?

It's not an analogy, and your logic is all haywire. To actively attack someone on their soil is quite a bit different than defending one's self on your own soil.

But I do agree that the governments and civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq have the right to defend themselves from a foreign occupation. It's probably not a good idea considering the power and might of the US armed forces.

HumanityisSaved

11-19-2009, 03:22 AM

It's not an analogy, and your logic is all haywire. To actively attack someone on their soil is quite a bit different than defending one's self on your own soil.

But I do agree that the governments and civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq have the right to defend themselves from a foreign occupation. It's probably not a good idea considering the power and might of the US armed forces.

You're exactly right... they should want us out of their soveriegn countries.

And I thought nObama campaigned hard on "Get us out of Iraq" "Close Gitmo" "Improve Afghanistan" He's done none of those things and WITH A SUPER MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES! He said he's finally close to a decision on Afghanistan and that he should make it in a couple of WEEKS. This guy is an epic failure. He's a manchild who is inept. But what did we expect from a guy who had never been in charge of anything significant in his life and who had less than 200 days on the job as a senator?
Sheesh! and I thought Bush was a bad president.

Gandalf

11-19-2009, 03:26 AM

Jesuslove

11-19-2009, 03:44 AM

mat1583

11-19-2009, 04:11 AM

I would hardly call the area stable before, though Hussein's was merely the worst of several bad regimes in the region. We went in in large part because he lied about having WMDs, thinking that the deterrence against Iran was more important than keeping the UN happy. He miscalculated badly, and now we realize that he didn't really have what he claimed to have. But if not for Iran's interference, the civil war that's now nearly stamped out would've never gotten off the ground. The Middle East has long been unstable, but I don't know if it's accurate to claim we destabilized something that was in such bad shape to begin with. Either way, the goal isn't stability for its own sake, regardless of the means. If a brutal, inhuman dictator is oppressing his people to the point that they're likely to become terrorists, and claims to be making weapons that terrorists would be able to use against large civilian populations, is "stability" a good reason to prop him up? I'm not sure it is. I don't think there's an easy formula to determine whether it would've been better to invade or not, and given the lack of clarity even in hindsight, I think it's best to just move on and handle the situation as it presents itself now in the best manner we're able to.

I don't remember Sadam ever openly admitting to still having WMDs. While he wasn't completely cooperative with UN inspectors, inspectors allowed in never found any evidence of WMDs. But that's neither here, nor there. And the US has been known to provide aid to questionable countries. Iran comes to mind. Not to mention the full support of Israel to build up their nuclear weapons (which could be used on a large civilian population).

When has the US (not the UN) failed when it made a serious attempt to do that? Germany, Japan, Israel, etc. all succeeded admirably. South Korea's in pretty good shape, too. I can't think of any failures where it can't be argued that the problem was that we didn't really put in the necessary effort and resources.

Somalia 1992-1994 - US starts off by providing humanitarian aid to starving Somalians. Somehow the US army gets involved in inter-clan fighting and nation building. It was a complete disaster for the United States. After 9/11 kept our distance from Somalia even though they were harboring some al-Qaida terrorists. Instead, the CIA got involved in some secret missions to pay Somalian warlords to hunt down al-Qaida. That didn't work either, and was ended in 2006.

Haiti - The US occupied Haiti from 1915 through 1934. The occupation was very detrimental to Haiti. I won't get into the details, but you can easily find them. Then in 2004, the UN began its "peacekeeping" mission in Haiti, also known as MINUSTAH. The effort hasn't seen success due to its struggle for control over armed gangs. Fortunately the United States has been minimally involved in this effort, only sending a few dozen troops and about $20 million in aid.

Kosovo - The UN was not involved in this one, but NATO was...which was backed by US support from Clinton. The success of this mission is still to be seen, but neither has failure. Most people have forgotten about this effort, but we still have troops there and we're still throwing money at it.

Cuba - Bay of Pigs...that's all I need to say.

And let us not forget Vietnam, a HUGE failed attempt on US's part. But alas, we have forgotten.

mat1583

11-19-2009, 04:15 AM

So the world should bow to almighty America because we have power and might? Why shouldn't we respect the sovereignty of other nations and not impose our beliefs on others.

JL, you know me (somewhat), and you know that I agree that we should respect the sovereignty of other nations and such. I am just making the point that if you oppose the US, you're stirring a hornets nest. That doesn't mean it's right for the US to sting.

edit: To clarify my own post, the US had the right to go and attack (defend themselves) from the terrorists since the terrorists brought the war to our soil. But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ceased to be about getting the terrorists long ago.

Musicdude

11-19-2009, 04:53 AM

so with that analogy, the governments and civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq have every right to attack America?

Whether they have the right or not doesn't seem to matter to them.
Sure they have the right to defend themselves (or try to), if they fight fairly.

Musicdude

11-19-2009, 04:58 AM

So the world should bow to almighty America because we have power and might? Why shouldn't we respect the sovereignty of other nations and not impose our beliefs on others.

We do respect them until their "beliefs" motivate them to attack a huge number of American civillians going about their daily routines. They brought the war to us, not the other way around. They fight dirty and don't play by the rules. We are strong enough that we can fight fairly and still win, fortunately. They can bow down or not, I don't really care. But if they bite us we will bite back, and hard. That is the American attitude, whether Christian or not. We have always defended ourselves quite capably, and sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

HumanityisSaved

11-19-2009, 05:39 AM

Let's show some respect. I agree that Obama hasn't been an effective executive so far (though I don't agree with you on what his foreign policy should be), but we can still respect the office of President and do without the name-calling ("nObama," "manchild" etc.).

I have every respect for the office of President but absolutely precious little respect for Barack Hussein Obama and I think he disgraces the office of President. He is inept. He has even jeapordized the trial of KSM in NY by his statements in China.

Jesuslove

11-19-2009, 06:11 AM

Whether they have the right or not doesn't seem to matter to them.
Sure they have the right to defend themselves (or try to), if they fight fairly.
Um.... I think we need to fight fairly too. We've made our share of mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've exectued prisoners, and tortured others. Our actions in Abu Gharib were just plain wrong.

HumanityisSaved

11-19-2009, 06:18 AM

Um.... I think we need to fight fairly too. We've made our share of mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've exectued prisoners, and tortured others. Our actions in Abu Gharib were just plain wrong.

yes Abu Gharib was a disgrace! And as for fighting fairly I think in the situation if Afghanistan the fairest way to fight is the way that wins the fasted so we can get out but now we are mirandizing enemy combatants on the battle field... disgustingly pathetic.

Gandalf

11-19-2009, 06:23 AM

I don't remember Sadam ever openly admitting to still having WMDs.
He didn't directly admit it, but he obstructed the weapons inspectors in order to bluff and make it look like he had something to hide. What's come out about the interviews with him and other regime members after his capture indicates that this was a strategic move on his part, judging that the value of perceived WMDs as a deterrent against Iran was greater than the risk of action by the UN even though it put him in violation of the Desert Storm ceasefire. Obviously, he badly miscalculated.
Somalia 1992-1994
...
Haiti
...
Kosovo
...
Cuba
...
And let us not forget Vietnam, a HUGE failed attempt on US's part. But alas, we have forgotten.
I'm not asking about failures of US foreign policy when we're involved in international conflicts in general. I'm asking for an example of a time when the US occupied a country that had no effective government (presumably because we'd removed it), and attempted to build a new democratic government, but failed. What you listed were primarily foreign aid / UN "peacekeeping" efforts, with an abortive invasion thrown in, plus Vietnam. There are some "failures" in there, but not failures of nation building.

In Somalia, we went in as part of a UN relief effort after warlords had overthrown the government there. We didn't go in and take control of the country, just sent a few troops to try to provide humanitarian aid and protect the food convoys. We did get chased out with our tail between our legs, but there was no nation building effort underway.

In Haiti, I'll grant you that the US did occupy the nation, with terrible results after we pulled out. We were there primarily to protect our own economic interests, and I'm not sure we ever really tried to set up a stable, self-sufficient democratic government, but we certainly failed to do so whether the attempt was made or not.

In Kosovo, we did lead a NATO intervention to stop the genocide. In the aftermath of that war, the UN stepped in, and the Kosovo Assembly was created based on elections authorized by the UN. That assembly has since declared independence, and the US (among other countries) recognizes an independent Kosovo. Serbia still does not. But there is a democratic (parliamentary) government in place, and despite some problems in the country with organized crime, etc., the government hasn't collapsed. While I think the nation-building here was done more by European UN states than by the US, it appears to have been largely successful as of the present. Time will tell.

Cuba ... the Bay of Pigs invasion was a failure, but hardly constitutes a nation-building effort by a US occupying force.

Vietnam was a war that we militarily won three times but lost politically, but it was again not a nation-building effort, and the (pre-existing) government in South Vietnam failed not because people rose up and overthrew it, but because Communist invaders from the North conquered it.

I still can't think of an example where we went in and removed one government from power where we've failed to successfully set up another in its place. We did step in after a coup and try to set up a (less than independent) government in Haiti in the early 20th century, and failed there. But that's one failure in a case where our goal was economic domination rather than freedom for the people of that country. Over against that, we have examples such as Germany, Japan, etc. that have been unquestionably successful.

I'm not saying that I think it's generally a great policy for the US to go around overthrowing governments and setting up new ones in our own image. But when it has been necessary to do so, we've usually succeeded at the attempt. So far, the signs in Iraq are pretty encouraging; Afghanistan is still up in the air. If we are able to stabilize the situation and provide security for the people, though, there's no reason to assume it's doomed to failure given the overwhelming success rate in other such efforts. If we stick it out, I don't think the situation is hopeless, and I think we have an obligation to help fix the mess we've helped create rather than pulling out and leaving the people to fend for themselves against warlords like we did in Haiti and Somalia. Basically, as Colin Powell said, "you break it, you bought it" - we have a moral obligation to stick it out and clean up the mess. Hopefully when all's said and done, the people of Afghanistan (and Iraq, et al) will have some increased level of self-determination and freedom, with stable and prosperous societies. There seems to be at least a good chance of that, based on prior track records. Unfortunately, it can't happen overnight.

I am beginning to lose sight of what all this has to do with Hasan and the shootings, though ...

Gandalf

11-19-2009, 06:26 AM

We've exectued prisoners, and tortured others. Our actions in Abu Gharib were just plain wrong.
I haven't seen evidence of the former claim, but I think everyone agrees that the abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib were wrong. That's why we shut the place down and court-martialed those responsible when we found out about it ... what does it have to do with anything being discussed presently? :confused:

Musicdude

11-19-2009, 06:30 AM

I haven't seen evidence of the former claim, but I think everyone agrees that the abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib were wrong. That's why we shut the place down and court-martialed those responsible when we found out about it ... what does it have to do with anything being discussed presently? :confused:

Just more America stinks rhetoric.

Just further proving the already known fact that libbies hate America.

Jesuslove

11-19-2009, 09:19 AM

I haven't seen evidence of the former claim, but I think everyone agrees that the abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib were wrong. That's why we shut the place down and court-martialed those responsible when we found out about it ... what does it have to do with anything being discussed presently? :confused:

I have seen evidence. Three soldiers were featured on Good Morning America yesterday morning. They caught three or four suspected insurgents in Iraq. They took them to a field and killed each one execution style.

mat1583

11-19-2009, 09:42 AM

I have seen evidence. Three soldiers were featured on Good Morning America yesterday morning. They caught three or four suspected insurgents in Iraq. They took them to a field and killed each one execution style.

And they were tried and given life sentences (if I'm thinking of the right case). Yes, you confirmed that evil exists.

mat1583

11-19-2009, 09:51 AM

I still can't think of an example where we went in and removed one government from power where we've failed to successfully set up another in its place. We did step in after a coup and try to set up a (less than independent) government in Haiti in the early 20th century, and failed there. But that's one failure in a case where our goal was economic domination rather than freedom for the people of that country. Over against that, we have examples such as Germany, Japan, etc. that have been unquestionably successful.

My point wasn't about large scale, full out efforts to destroy a government and then rebuild it (like we tried in Iraq). I said that the US and UN have had a history of trying to bring democracy in during or after conflicts. This doesn't necessarily mean completely rebuilding a nation - it could mean the assassination of a leader, funded coups, military and weapon support to dissenters, so-called "peacekeeping" missions in which the real goal is to dispose of a authoritarian ruler/army. These efforts often seem to be clouded under "humanitarian" aid, but open your eyes. There's an agenda behind it besides just helping the people out. It's costing taxpayer dollars and American lives.

Evanescence

11-19-2009, 10:57 AM

Do we have any miliatry bases in cambodia or S. Vietnam?

Shonsu

11-19-2009, 11:29 AM

Just more America stinks rhetoric.

Just further proving the already known fact that libbies hate America.

You're right. And it is so sad to see it when someone actually tries to defend Islamic terrorists.

Jesuslove

11-19-2009, 11:33 AM

You're right. And it is so sad to see it when someone actually tries to defend Islamic terrorists.

Who defended Islamic terrorists?

Howlin' Wolf

11-19-2009, 11:49 AM

You're right. And it is so sad to see it when someone actually tries to defend Islamic terrorists.

Its equally sad to see someone defend Yankee Imperialism.

Grank

11-19-2009, 03:28 PM

Its equally sad to see someone defend Yankee Imperialism.

not sure i see it as equally sad... but i'm biased

Jesuslove

11-19-2009, 03:41 PM

not sure i see it as equally sad... but i'm biased

Obviously!:eek:

Grank

11-19-2009, 03:58 PM

Do we have any miliatry bases in cambodia or S. Vietnam?

i believe the last US military base in vietnam was closed in '73.

No bases in cambodia that i know of, but we do deploy some soldiers there. In '04 we sent some medics to treat multiple war related trauma (i.e. land mine blasts, gushot wounds, etc.)... also we handed out basic need items for the region like mosquito nets... there's some yankee imperialism for you...

Grank

11-19-2009, 04:01 PM

HumanityisSaved

11-19-2009, 04:56 PM

Most people don't understand what Imperialism is really.

Evanescence

11-19-2009, 05:00 PM

Good points grank...

Radical reps are VERY Imperialistic....

Thats why recently they were up in arms about Obama bwoing tot hat japanzes emporer...soemthing about it makes us look weak...he should be strong and firm. Please...

Grank

11-19-2009, 05:07 PM

Most people don't understand what Imperialism is really.

the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination

Musicdude

11-20-2009, 03:10 AM

mat1583

11-20-2009, 04:54 AM

i hear a lot of ppl here complain about american imperialism, but i never hear anyone advocating giving back the "American" west to any indian tribes... what about texas or hawaii? maybe even florida...

lame...

The issue of giving back lands to the Native Americans is very complex. The lands weren't all taken by force. Some were taken by deceitful treaties. Since the 1970's Indians have been actively trying to reclaim those lands, or at least buy them back because of rightful claims that those old treaties were broken. They are even being backed by the Justice Department! Many tribes in the Northeast have been successful, to the disdain of the citizens in those areas. It's virtually impossible to give back land to the Indians that has already been developed and settled. It's not in its original condition and it can't be reversed. The claims are mostly on unpopulated tracts of land in which the Indians want to develop.

I also think there is a difference between imperialism and the process of civilization. I would argue that the pioneers who headed west were not trying to expand an American empire, but exploring and spreading out a civilization that was still in its fledgling stages. The true American empire did not begin till after the Civil War when the Union swallowed up the South and created the United States of America as we know it today, which continued to expand West. Some even attribute this to a Manifest Destiny - "a term that was used in the 19th century to designate the belief that the United States was destined, even divinely ordained,[1] to expand across the North American continent" [wikipedia]

Grank

11-20-2009, 06:03 AM

The issue of giving back lands to the Native Americans is very complex. The lands weren't all taken by force. Some were taken by deceitful treaties. Since the 1970's Indians have been actively trying to reclaim those lands, or at least buy them back because of rightful claims that those old treaties were broken. They are even being backed by the Justice Department! Many tribes in the Northeast have been successful, to the disdain of the citizens in those areas. It's virtually impossible to give back land to the Indians that has already been developed and settled. It's not in its original condition and it can't be reversed. The claims are mostly on unpopulated tracts of land in which the Indians want to develop.

I also think there is a difference between imperialism and the process of civilization. I would argue that the pioneers who headed west were not trying to expand an American empire, but exploring and spreading out a civilization that was still in its fledgling stages. The true American empire did not begin till after the Civil War when the Union swallowed up the South and created the United States of America as we know it today, which continued to expand West. Some even attribute this to a Manifest Destiny - "a term that was used in the 19th century to designate the belief that the United States was destined, even divinely ordained,[1] to expand across the North American continent" [wikipedia]

haha... i started thinking about manifest destiny when you were talking about the pioneers heading west. manifest destiny is imperialism. had we not stopped when we hit the ocean i think America would be much stronger than it is today. we could have taken what is now canada and mexico rather easily, yet for some reason we did not. can you imagine if America had the added rescources of Mexico and Canada??? intensity...

I think we can attribute the downfall of the sioux to imperialism. also the wrongful acquisition of georgian lands from the cherokee nation can be attributed to imperialism(read national greed). To be honest the list is huge... Kiowa, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ute, Shoshone, Paiute, Nez Perce, Apache, Navajo, etc.

We could even talk about the great indian leader tecumseh. His lands(term used loosely) were taken from him by the american gov't. Like a lot of indians, the shawnee believed the concept of "owning" land was rather silly. This didn't stop a minority of tribal leaders from turning over the land to the white man(Just like the sioux). Since tecumseh believed nobody owned the land and hence couldn't give it away he formed an alliance of indians stretching from canada to the gulf of mexico. He died in the war of 1812. If Tecumseh and chief joseph were alive at the same time and had comms the USA would be a lot smaller lol

The mexican american war even reaks of imperialism...

When we annexed Hawaii we almost put the former Queen, Liliʻuokalani back on the throne instead. Apparently Grover Cleveland was friends with her. Too bad Bill McKinley took office after Cleveland. We all know what hawaii is today... a state. Annexation FTW!!! love dole pineapples

For the record, I'm not for giving the land back.

mat1583

11-20-2009, 08:04 AM

haha... i started thinking about manifest destiny when you were talking about the pioneers heading west. manifest destiny is imperialism. had we not stopped when we hit the ocean i think America would be much stronger than it is today. we could have taken what is now canada and mexico rather easily, yet for some reason we did not. can you imagine if America had the added rescources of Mexico and Canada??? intensity...

I think we can attribute the downfall of the sioux to imperialism. also the wrongful acquisition of georgian lands from the cherokee nation can be attributed to imperialism(read national greed). To be honest the list is huge... Kiowa, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ute, Shoshone, Paiute, Nez Perce, Apache, Navajo, etc.

We could even talk about the great indian leader tecumseh. His lands(term used loosely) were taken from him by the american gov't. Like a lot of indians, the shawnee believed the concept of "owning" land was rather silly. This didn't stop a minority of tribal leaders from turning over the land to the white man(Just like the sioux). Since tecumseh believed nobody owned the land and hence couldn't give it away he formed an alliance of indians stretching from canada to the gulf of mexico. He died in the war of 1812. If Tecumseh and chief joseph were alive at the same time and had comms the USA would be a lot smaller lol

The mexican american war even reaks of imperialism...

When we annexed Hawaii we almost put the former Queen, Liliʻuokalani back on the throne instead. Apparently Grover Cleveland was friends with her. Too bad Bill McKinley took office after Cleveland. We all know what hawaii is today... a state. Annexation FTW!!! love dole pineapples

For the record, I'm not for giving the land back.
I disagree that manifest destiny is imperialism. First and foremost, manifest destiny is just the idea that our nation was destined or ordained to spread all the way to the west coast. Imperialism is a policy of expansion by taking foreign lands and controlling them by force. I know, it's all semantics.

I think I agree with you about imperialism though. And I'm glad we've made the distinction between imperialism in the sense of expanding territories and "imperialism" that is used in the sense of one nation getting into the affairs of other nations. There's a difference. Today's imperialism is no longer about expanding our territories or acquiring new, foreign lands. It's about dipping out hands into the honey jar.