|
Saturday Night Racer
http://www.latemodelracer.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl Saturday Night Racer >> SNR LOUNGE >> New York Post; Afraid to Kill http://www.latemodelracer.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1260599753 Message started by Kdawg on 12/11/09 at 10:35pm |
|
Title: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by Kdawg on 12/11/09 at 10:35pm Guess who sent me this one.... > > New York Post; Afraid to kill > > By RALPH PETERS > > Updated: 4:32 AM, November 24, 2009 > > It's not true that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. Even dead terrorists aren't good. But at least they're dead. And that helps. > But political correctness has possessed Washington. It's so bad that even Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who's done a great job in many other respects, parrots the clich� that "we can't kill our way out of this." > > Well, folks, there's no other way out of this all-or-nothing struggle with fanatics. Three thousand years of history teach that there's no alternative -- none -- to killing fanatics in large numbers when your enemies are ablaze with religious zeal. > What Gates and countless others really mean is that we're unwilling to kill our way out of this assault on our civilization. So the terrorists keep on killing us. > > We tell ourselves that one more charm offensive, one more inept aid program, one more surge of troops who aren't allowed to fight will persuade terrorists on a murderous mission from their god to lay down their arms and run for alderman. > We refuse to see the world through terrorist eyes. Instead, we superimpose liberal-arts-faculty values on bloodthirsty zealots, asking what we've done to make them so angry. > The result? We grant captured terrorists more rights and better treatment than nonviolent offenders in a US county jail. We cater to them at the gentrified prison at Guantanamo (yet the global media insist that Gitmo's just a big torture chamber). > We tell ourselves we'll impress our enemies with our humanitarianism. But how many Gitmo prisoners have turned pacifist or expressed regrets? If you were convinced that you were doing God's will, would you be budged by a captor who gives you priority health care, a religiously correct diet, special worship privileges and free legal counsel? Allah has made his enemies weak . . . > > The laws of war provide for the battlefield execution of illegal combatants -- those who refuse to wear uniforms or identifying insignia or who commit atrocities. Instead, we give them flu shots before American citizens can get them. > When a madcap ideologue such as Attorney General Eric Holder tells Congress we mustn't be afraid to try terrorists in our judicial system, he gets it exactly wrong. The terrorists believe we're afraid to kill them. And they're right. > So we'll get the upcoming propaganda bonanza of the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his terrorist barbershop quartet. And we'll squander hundreds of millions of dollars on special security precautions in Manhattan. The inevitable outcome? We'll make heroes of the terrorists throughout the Muslim world. > Meanwhile, down in Texas, terrorist assassin Maj. Nidal Hasan's lawyer is already making a mockery of our judicial system. Hasan will become a terrorist icon, too. > And even if Hasan, KSM and the boys are all convicted of multiple counts of premeditated murder, they won't be executed for many years to come -- if ever. > How does this deter fanatical enemies? Our insistence on treating terrorism as shoplifting that got a little out of hand does not protect Americans. > > Terrified of the new global reality, Washington refuses to accept that we're no longer dealing with the political terrorists of the 20th century -- some of whom could, indeed, be won over or bought off. We're now dealing with religious madmen hungry for an apocalypse. And our government and the media scramble to deny that Islam has anything to do with it. The poor terrorists just have grievances. > > If Khalid Sheik Mohammed has a heart attack during his trial, he'll get better health care than most Post readers. Paralyzed from the waist down, Maj. Hasan will get priority on rehab treatment over our vets from Iraq and Afghanistan. > Bring terrorists to Manhattan? They should never have made it to Gitmo. > Ralph Peters' latest book is "The War After Armageddon." |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by mudslinger47 on 12/11/09 at 11:59pm Ya know, folks have been worried for years now that this would turn into another Vietnam, we should be so lucky. This radicals have one thing on their minds and they aren't going to stop in 18 days or 18 months or 18 years or 18 decades. Unless we kill every last one of them, and that is an impossibility, they will keep coming and coming and coming. Remember the droid in Terminator (the original) When the good guy described Arnold? His job is to kill you and he won't stop, ever!!! Same thing here. There is no end to it here in my life time and I doubt in my kids lifetime, maybe in my grand kids life time because in order to stop them, you have to educate and that can't happen over night. Pleasant dreams!! Duane |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by Wooliebuger1 on 12/12/09 at 8:45am So true Duane, it is never going to end, we are infidels(SP) and its their job to take us out. Yes we have another Viet Nam, and its not going to end soon. A lot of good men and women are going to be lost for what, a country that does not even want us there and people that are heck bent on killing us. Better get the body bags ready for use. The Russians saw what a mess it was and turned and got out before they lost a lot more men and women also...JMOO...Don >:( :( :-[ :-/ |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by formercrewguy on 12/12/09 at 9:01am The tactical difference between Russia and the US in Afghanistan is completely different. Russia had no intentions of freeing the people of tyranny and establishing a democratic country. They were in it for personal domination. It didn't work. The entire populace became guerilla fighters, and drove Russia out. Our tactics have a much better chance of working. Is it worth the cost?..............I'm not sure. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/12/09 at 3:26pm formercrewguy wrote on 12/12/09 at 9:01am:
So you think that the US goal in Afghanistan is to free the people of tyranny and establishing a democratic country? If that's our goal, then we are in for a long and fruitless war. Democracy only comes to those that desire it and fight for it themselves. History has proved this time and time again. There was a time when conservatives understood this and embraced a more conservative use of our military. "Nation Building" has always been a policy of liberals, (In 2000, GW Bush criticized Clinton for unwise democratic "Nation building" in the Balkins), but since GW Bush began his series of military backed "Nation Building" experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan, conservatives have done a complete political 180 and now embrace "Nation building" as a viable goal. I still believe the best use of our valuable and precious military members is in the defense of America and our interests, not in building highways and hospitals in Afghanistan for a people that would shoot any one of us if they found out where we were from. And btw, where are the tea party folks demanding that the costs be considered? If spending a trillion dollars on health care for Americans is bad, then how can spending a trillion dollars (or more) to build a democracy for people who don't want it be a good idea? Just asking, that's all. dsc |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/12/09 at 3:34pm mudslinger47 wrote on 12/11/09 at 11:59pm:
Over 58 thousand Americans killed in Viet Nam. Over 1900 MIA in Viet Nam. 150,000 seriously wounded. Uncounted numbers of mentally wounded. What are you smoking??? |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by mudslinger47 on 12/12/09 at 3:41pm dscEvents wrote on 12/12/09 at 3:34pm:
Point here Dave is this ain't going to end. It can't because they can fly an airplane into a building anytime they want. Or have another Maj. Hassan. Its just the way it is. I know you know there are only three avenues with our terrorists, convert, submit or be killed. and they are still teaching that in there schools, even here in the states. Vietnam ended, this won't. Get my drift? Duane let the yabut's begin. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/12/09 at 4:03pm That sounds a lot like, "We can't win". When liberals pointed out that same thought, they were called "defeatists", unpatriotic" or accused of having no faith in our military. But you bring up a good point. It is pointless to declare war on an "attitude" or a "tactic". How do you fight it? On what front? How can you fight a conventional war against a point of view? Well Duane, you are correct. YOU CAN'T! Imagine if WW2 had been called "The War on Naziism". Then we surely didn't win that one because there are still Nazis around the US and the world. But I still think that to compare Afghanistan to Vietnam without considering the massive casualties in Vietnam is insensitive to those who lost family members in that conflict. dsc |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by formercrewguy on 12/12/09 at 4:16pm The only comparison of Afghanistan to Vietnam is the fact that politicians are running it. NOT the military. It has proven to be a disaster since Korea. Also...........I can GUARANTEE.......if the President gave the green light to the Marines, to go get Osama by WHATEVER means..........Osama would be in custody or dead in 1 month......... |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by fromthegrandstands on 12/12/09 at 4:24pm GW Bush was critisized for claiming something to the effect it would be easy to win the war in Iraq, yet, I remember him making exactly the opposite statement, and sayingsomething more like this WAR WILL NOT BE EASY, NOR WILL IT BE QUICK I also remember statements from the White House to the effect of WE'VE NEVER HAD TO FIGHT THIS KIND OF ENEMY - THEY DO NOT FIGHT WITH THE RULES OF WAR -YET WE ARE FORCED TO I remember PEOPLE talking at that time with the concensus that You HAVE TO FIGHT A TERRORIST like a TERRORIST would FIGHT YOU. You HAVE to STOOP to their LEVEL or else you WILL NOT WIN! (THANKFULLY in so far as War Casualties go...maybe POLITICIANS and MILITARY have gotten smarter since Vietnam, and haven't sent in the huge numbers of Ground Troups to a Certain Death.) ok, ok, I KNOW...Politicians have NOT gotten "Smarter" |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/12/09 at 4:33pm fromthegrandstands wrote on 12/12/09 at 4:24pm:
If WE stoop to THEIR level to win, then THEY have WON. Can't any of you true Americans see this??? |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by fromthegrandstands on 12/12/09 at 4:48pm Dave, While I agree, you can NOT "Deal" with a Terrorist. They are not an ARMY of a NATION with a political agenda. You CAN NOT beat them with WORDS, SANCTIONS, LAWS, or even PRISON. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by jr07 on 12/12/09 at 10:47pm So you think that the US goal in Afghanistan is to free the people of tyranny and establishing a democratic country? If that's our goal, then we are in for a long and fruitless war. Democracy only comes to those that desire it and fight for it themselves. History has proved this time and time again. There was a time when conservatives understood this and embraced a more conservative use of our military. "Nation Building" has always been a policy of liberals, (In 2000, GW Bush criticized Clinton for unwise democratic "Nation building" in the Balkins), but since GW Bush began his series of military backed "Nation Building" experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan, conservatives have done a complete political 180 and now embrace "Nation building" as a viable goal. I still believe the best use of our valuable and precious military members is in the defense of America and our interests, not in building highways and hospitals in Afghanistan for a people that would shoot any one of us if they found out where we were from. And btw, where are the tea party folks demanding that the costs be considered? If spending a trillion dollars on health care for Americans is bad, then how can spending a trillion dollars (or more) to build a democracy for people who don't want it be a good idea? Just asking, that's all. dsc ######## Dave, We finally found something to agree on. Escalating in Afghanistan is a bad idea. The fighting of this war needs to be done with technology and special ops like Biden suggests. (I CANNOT believe I'm saying that.) We have the technology available in drones that can carry payloads of any type of weaponry that the situation calls for with the ability to fly them though your front door from thousands of miles away. My 1st question would be why do we not make destruction of the poppy fields our number 1 priority? It is the only way that they have to raise money for weapons and payroll. Without the poppy fields they are done, yet we allow them to carry on unmolested. Question #2 would be why are we not using the technology? There are only 2 reasons that I can think of and neither one of them make very much sense. We either don't want to reveal the technology by using it or we don't want to spend the money to use it. Fighting this war on the ground is going to get very ugly. As far as the Tea Party folks. I believe most of them are more concerned with the domestic agenda. Taxes and spending. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by mudslinger47 on 12/13/09 at 12:00am And btw, where are the tea party folks demanding that the costs be considered? If spending a trillion dollars on health care for Americans is bad, then how can spending a trillion dollars (or more) to build a democracy for people who don't want it be a good idea? At this point, Dave, the folks pushin' health care aren't going to fly airplanes into buildings, the terrorists did and will again if given the chance. All I'm sayin' is this is going to be long and any President that thinks he can get us out in 18 months is lying and he knows it. I'm a TEA party member and I want them to fight the war anywhere but on our soil. Why is that so hard to understand. I also agree that the politicians are in the way AND I concur that if allowed to do so our military could level Afghanistan if needed, it just our politicians in the way. Is that what is needed? (leveling) don't know, above my pay grade. Duane |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by Kdawg on 12/13/09 at 12:35am jr07 very well stated Duane, In so many words you stated that we need to fight them over there so that they can not fly airplanes into our buildings (is that fair enough??) If so...Then I must say, that no terrorist is going to fly a plane from afganistan into our buildings. In fact 9/11 planes took off from U.S. Soil. Bring my brothers back home before more of them die. We have no business being over there. Hell, we have the enemy embedded in our own military on our own soil. Get em the f@ck out of there and bring them home. It would ease stress on the economy, and the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard can focus their attention on secure our borders. Dammit man...Secure our borders and they can't get in here. IMO the only way out of this mess is WWIII and WWIII is exactly what the a-holes want. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by jr07 on 12/13/09 at 8:21am wrote on 12/13/09 at 12:35am:
VERITAS |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by 18racr on 12/13/09 at 9:24am formercrewguy wrote on 12/12/09 at 4:16pm:
WELL SAID,,, We could if He wanted to,, |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by 18racr on 12/13/09 at 9:30am dscEvents wrote on 12/12/09 at 4:33pm:
Dave, as a TRUE American I would love for our troops to be able to do whatever it took to get this over with, True Americans back in WWII didnt care if they bombed a factory right next to a school, We bombed the darn thing just like the japs and the Nazi's did, Guess what? WE WON !!!,,, So I say it's time to act like our enemy and do whatever it takes to finish them off, YES WOMEN AND CHILDREN, BECAUSE THEY WOULD KILL YOUR MOM AND KIDS IF THEY HAD A CHANCE...So yes lets do it !! |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/13/09 at 9:55am 18rcr, You certainly have a right to your opinion. But everything you said goes against my Christian upbringing and values. But I realize that my understanding of Christianity might be different from others understanding of our faith. It also goes against what I have always thought were American values. Ben Franklin once said that a nation willing to trade it's values for security deserves neither. dsc |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by Kdawg on 12/13/09 at 10:21am dscEvents wrote on 12/13/09 at 9:55am:
Mr Roosevelt said.. Quote:
DSC with all due respect, your Christian upbringing and values have ZERO place in War. The only thing you can bring with you is your faith and desire for the Lord to forgive you. If not, then you might as well ask them to kill you first. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by 18racr on 12/13/09 at 10:23am dscEvents wrote on 12/13/09 at 9:55am:
It just goes to show you that nobody can be correct all the time, even Ben had a bad day,,, American values goes hand in hand with defeat of the enemy, atleast our forfathers thought so, fighting wars like we do now (not fighting to end it) is going to get alot more Americans killed and prolong the fear of economy, Get in kick ass and do whatever it takes to get our troops home so we can start weeding out the enemy here at home, |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/13/09 at 11:57am I'm sorry if I disagree with you guys here, but I do. If Kev thinks that there are places where Christianity has "zero place", then we really have a different view of our Faith. It has always been my understanding that we should try to be Christians even in the face of great danger and adversity. But I could be wrong. I'm no Biblical scholar, and I haven't been to Bible study in a number of years. Duane may be a better source on this one as I think he regularly attends a Bible study of some kind. But I do find it surprising that Christians can actually question whether killing innocent women and children is consistent to Christian values. I would have thought that was a no-brainer, but what do I know? As a Christian and an American, I believe we have every right to defend ourselves and our families, as when an intruder enters my home. But I am still conflicted as to whether that includes 18rcr's suggestion of killing women and children so we can prevent some future action against us. BTW, I'm not one to preach to anyone that they have to practice Christianity as I beleive it to be. 18 and Kev are free to believe or reject my Christian views. I have never believed in forcing Christianity on others. Everyone has a right to accept or reject. I was just expressing my opinion on the matter. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! dsc |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by Kdawg on 12/13/09 at 12:24pm DSC, Everyone is entitled to an opinion...that's what everything is on here anyway. In response to Christianity not having a place...... "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" There's nothing Holy about war...War is fought 247 365. Unless of course your talking about blowing the holy hell out of something....but then I never thought that made any sense. "though shall not kill" self explanatory. So you see, it does not take a scholar to see that there is no place for Christianity in War. If it will make you fel better I could revise 18racr's opinion by saying we should drop leafletts so they would have fair warning to leave. And another clarification, no one is calling for the murder of women and children, but collateral damage will occur. War is Hell Sir. Merry Christmas to you also...but that's out of place here. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/13/09 at 1:57pm Kev, You must be misunderstanding my point, because in your answer, you are actually making a good argument in support of my point. You state some scripture that actually show that Christianity and war are incompatible. That's what I have been saying for several posts now. I never tried to make the point that there was something Holy about a war. Just that war supporters seem to be forgetting their Christian values. But you seem to be saying that we should "switch off" our Christian values in order to engage in warfare. That's where we disagree. Our values, Christian or American, should not be "part-time". I don't think Christianity is something you practice at your convenience or only when it's easy. Anyone can do that. What's really hard is staying true to your values when the going gets tough. At least I know it's hard for me. I try, but am not always successful in staying true to my Christian values, but I try. Some here don't even seem to want to try. dsc |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by 18racr on 12/13/09 at 2:35pm I could be wrong but I think I remember a story in the bible about God sending armys against other armys to destroy them, not give them hugs and food,, could be wrong and maybe I should reread the story but I think thats basically how it went.. Here's one story line from bible,, ask yourself Dave , how christian like would this be to you? I think a few innocent people suffered didnt they? When the Israelites fell into idolatry, God caused other nations to defeat and enslave them (2:11-15). and another,, God sends plagues on the Egyptians to convince Pharaoh to let the Israelites go. At the same time God hardens Pharaohs heart. There are plagues of frogs, lice, flies, death of livestock, boils, and hail, locusts and darkness. All the plagues wreak havoc on the Egyptians but don’t affect the Jews. Pharaoh only gets more stubborn. Finally, the Passover occurs. God vows to kill the firstborn of every family in Egypt. If the children of Israel would put the blood of a male lamb without blemish on their doorposts, God would pass over them and not kill their firstborn. All of the households in Egypt suffer the loss of one. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/13/09 at 5:29pm 2 things 18rcr, First. It was God sending those army's, not a mortal human with mortal human failings. I'm sure you would agree there is a difference between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of mortal men. Second. You quote from the Old Testament. Many Old Testament rules are clarified and even contradicted in the New Testament. Particularly in regards to conflict. In just one example, Jesus pointed out in the New Testament that Moses had it wrong in the Old Testament when he said "an eye for an eye". Jesus corrects this according to the gospel of Matthew: You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV Jesus goes on to repeat the idea in Luke 6: 27-31 If someone were to say this today they would be accused of being a panty waist by Hannity, Limbaugh, and the chicken-hawks that support wars in the comfort of their air-conditioned studios. dsc |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by 18racr on 12/13/09 at 6:45pm dscEvents wrote on 12/13/09 at 11:57am:
Becareful,,,,The Bible says to give him the other cheek,, your values may be tested someday,, if mine are tested I will ask for forgiveness ,Dave I will never think we should not do what is needed to insure the safety of my fellow Americans, even the ones that voted for Obama, even idiots need protection and if it means inocent people might die to protect my country from the others then so be it,,drop some papers warning of future death because the bad guys are mixed among them and then let them have it, If you think they wouldnt hand your butt over to the bad guys so you can be slaughtered then you my friend are sadly mistaken, 98% would hand your butt over in a heart beat, another one my friends will ship out on the 21st, I pray God looks over him and everyone else over there, but he knows if he is captured he will be killed,,but he has to be polite and make sure nobody calls the guy they capture a single bad name, THATS THE WAR THEY HAVE TO FIGHT,,,I say kill them all and let God sort them out,,just my own opinion,,but will never change it |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by NAIL IT WHOYA. on 12/13/09 at 6:57pm Well, there are Gods rules and there are society's rules. Society forces one to break Gods rules sometimes.... Thats why we are forgiven. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by jr07 on 12/13/09 at 8:10pm dscEvents wrote on 12/13/09 at 9:55am:
####### Actually the quote is "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither". That is the point of nearly every arguement I make concerning the erosion of the God given liberties bestowed upon us through the U.S. Constitution. Our founders realized that our individual sovereignty was a God given, sacred blessing. Jesus referred to it in Rev.3:11. "Hold fast to what you have, that no one may steal your crown." Your crown of sovereignty as in free to make your own choices, responsible for the actions and consequences of those choices and beholding to no man or government entity unless those choices or freedoms infringe on anothers. P.S. The 6th Commandment states thou shall not murder. One could open another debate on war killings. Murder or defense? Defense for the ones on Gods side, murder for the other? Not an issue that will ever be solved, at least not by man at this level of existence. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by mudslinger47 on 12/13/09 at 10:03pm With all due respect, I believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have had a little collateral damage, as did the bombing of Berlin and London. The former ended the war and stopped even more from being killed. Not pretty, but the way it is. In the New Testament, it is written "This is the new Covenant". That doesn't change anything that happened in the Old Testament, it just means, to me, that that isn't the way we do it now. That is at least my understanding Duane |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/13/09 at 11:04pm jr07 wrote on 12/13/09 at 8:10pm:
Jr07, Wouldn't you agree that Jesus might not be referring to a material crown, but a spiritual one? I think he meant for us to hold fast to our values, so that no one should "steal" our path to heaven. But I could be wrong. But it is clear that you all seem to be saying that Christianity is something you can reject in a crisis, then just ask forgiveness. But my understanding of scripture requires repentance before forgiveness. A preacher once told me a story about a man that would use prostitutes every week, then come to church every Sunday to receive his forgiveness. When the preacher asked the man why he wouldn't stop seeing prostitutes, the man answered, "Why should I change my behavior when I can come here and be forgiven each time I stray from Christianity?" The preacher explained that forgiveness is not meant as a "get out of jail free card". If your heart doesn't accept the teachings of Jesus, HE WILL KNOW and your forgiveness will not be granted. That may be of concern to those of you who are hell bent(bad choice of words) on getting a chance to kill, then simply asking for forgiveness. It might not work out that well if you never had an intention of following Jesus in the first place. Yes, following the rules of Christianity can be difficult in difficult times. But if it was easy, then everyone would go to heaven. dsc |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by jr07 on 12/14/09 at 8:22am dscEvents wrote on 12/13/09 at 11:04pm:
############ Dave, I firmly believe that Jesus never spoke a word that didn't refer to the spirituality of man. The truth is eternal thus he would never have referred to temporal themes. I do not think of my God given liberties bestowed upon us by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution as temporal and neither did our founders. "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Do you really believe that these men wrote these words from and for a material world perspective only? If you do, than I am so sorry that you do. Perhaps that is why we are freely allowing our God given freedoms to be slowly but consistantly stolen from us on a daily basis. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars" was something that our founders were attempting to prevent a truly free man (material and/or spiritual) from ever having to face again. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by mudslinger47 on 12/14/09 at 8:25am dscEvents wrote on 12/13/09 at 11:04pm:
|
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by bluebyu on 12/14/09 at 8:45am 18racr wrote on 12/13/09 at 6:45pm:
What comes first God or Country? You sound like Country comes first then God. It was the death penalty that killed Christ. If Christ had not turned the other cheek and let man murder him there would be no salvation for you. Right? |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by bluebyu on 12/14/09 at 8:57am As for "we were attaked first." The US sends a lot of death and destruction around the world for the US and its allies gains. The politicians wont let you win a war but they start plenty of them. So maybe its our politicians that we need to be going after. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by formercrewguy on 12/14/09 at 9:22am bluebyu wrote on 12/14/09 at 8:57am:
Rest assured.......come Nov. 2010, we will............watch and see. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/14/09 at 11:11am Jr07, Actually I was making that very point that you made in your reply to my post about material things. But you had seemed to use the scripture to imply that defending a material crown justified pre-emptive violence. I was pointing out that material things are not what Jesus was trying to protect. You seem to agree with my point at the same time you are disagreeing with it. And Duane, If you (and 18rcr) truly don't know why we are supposed to "turn the other cheek", then there's no point debating the issue. But here it is from the Big Guy Himself: You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. —Luke 6:27-31. NIV These seem pretty clear to me. I'm not sure why this is such a controversy. I can understand if you disagree with the words of Jesus regarding non-violence in our modern and dangerous world. But at least be honest and say, "I don't believe in that passage". Some people try to deny that Jesus had a very specific point of view on non-violence. Others make excuses and justifications to violate His teachings. But He was pretty clear throughout the New Testament about His views of non-violence and pacifism. But some think that when the going gets tough, it's okay to reject His teachings. My point is that when the going gets tough, that is the time when it is MOST IMPORTANT to remember His teachings. BTW, I'm not always successful in that effort, but I try. dsc |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by CamaroKid on 12/14/09 at 11:15am 1.) when an enemy attacks, and runs and hides among civilians and all are killed in "the fight" it is not the fault of the soldier responding to the attack, but the attacker who hides among the innocent and brings death and destruction to their lives. You really need to get this straight. 2.) "getting a chance to kill" shame on you. Our soldiers don't have a thirst for blood, if the terrorists, taliban, al-quida, etc.etc. laid down their arms today and said they wanted piece, it would all be over. As far as being a christian, yes it is a heavy thought weighing death and war with the Bible. You may think you feel righteous as far as " thou shalt not kill". But God also looks down on your "Judgement" of other Christians Dave, and I think all are equally important, so you might want to look into cleaning you own yard before you complain about your neighbors. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/14/09 at 11:47am Camaro, Where have I passed judgment? Is discussing what is in the Bible "passing judgment"? Is questioning someones understanding of scripture "passing judgment"? I have NEVER called into question anyone's "good faith" beliefs about the Bible. Having a disagreement IS NOT PASSING JUDGMENT. Educating people as to what is ACTUALLY in the Bible is not passing judgment. If I have EVER implied that anyone here is a "bad Christian", then that would be wrong, but I have been pretty careful in my words not to do that. I have never told anyone they are "going to Hell" for their beliefs. I only question some peoples understanding (or lack thereof) of the Christian doctrine. So I take offense to your baseless accusations and misquotes. Also, I NEVER accused the military of a desire of "getting a chance to kill". I was talking about 18rcr's statement that he would kill women and children in order to protect himself. If you are going to attack me about something I have said, at least have the integrity to get your facts straight! I completely stand behind my beliefs about Christianity and will not be silenced by the likes of Camarokid or anyone else who believes that Christianity is a "part-time" faith. Or one that believes that disagreement with ones beliefs is "passing judgment". I'll let God do the judging. He is much wiser that a mere mortal like myself. dsc |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by jp80 on 12/14/09 at 12:37pm yes get the poppy fields because there is nothing like the smell of napalm in the morning.... always liked that saying from apocalypse (sp)now |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by dscEvents on 12/14/09 at 1:18pm I have to admit it. I love that film! "Never get out of the boat!" |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by bluebyu on 12/14/09 at 1:23pm dscEvents wrote on 12/14/09 at 11:47am:
Nice response. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by Blasticus on 12/14/09 at 1:36pm I've read a good portion of the bible. I have faith in humanity. I taught my sons right from wrong while they were growing up, and I didn't teach it from the bible. It was all about doing the right thing...period. My sons turned out to be respectful, honest, young men. My youngest is a Marine. He's been wanting to serve his country since he was 15. I was hesitant at 1st. thought, but signed his papers in 07, so he could pretrain before going to boot camp. He is ready to fulfill his duty, and I truly hope he doesn't read Miranda Rights to any of these terrorists a-holes, and shoots them where they sit or stand. Also, I might mention, he wants to continue service to his country or community by working for the FBI or being a Police officer. I couldn't be more proud. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by CamaroKid on 12/14/09 at 1:47pm Reply # 18 Christianity enters the conversation as a barometer, to imply you have something others don't, to in essence question others belief. quote"If Kev thinks that there are places where Christianity has "zero place", then we really have a different view of our Faith. It has always been my understanding that we should try to be Christians even in the face of great danger and adversity." If you don't think that sounds judgemental then we have a different view of what you said. And I am not nor ever going to try and stop you from doing or saying whatever you please, it's your life to live, not mine. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by Kdawg on 12/14/09 at 3:05pm Camarokid, dsc cornfused me with that post as well as another. I've read and reread what he's been saying and still don't get it. Apparently somehow him and I have the same view, but somehow we are appearing to argue with each other. I guess the difference between him and I, is that in the face of certain death, he's going to say "Thank You sir may I have another" whereas I'm going to shoot first. I'm sure I'm still mistaken, so I will just say it again.....except for protection and forgiveness, Christianity has zero place in war. You can not be a good soldier and a good christian whilst in a battle for your life. As far as I read you are supposed to embrace your enemy and have compassion for other people. Well, in my world, if I was in battle, I'm going to shoot the enemy. And to slightly clarify another thing dsc tried to pin on me....In this battle we are waging, the enemy is combining weapons and soldiers with religion and civilians. No I won't condone the blind carpet bombing of towns and villages as in WWII, but If a target is known to house weapons or soldiers, Blow It Up with out regard for loss of innocent life. It's not my problem they were not born into the best country in the world and I was. Sucks for them and Neener Neener. ;) |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by bluebyu on 12/14/09 at 3:18pm Ahh religon and politics you gotta love those two topics. Hey can we throw in some gun control. lol |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by CamaroKid on 12/14/09 at 3:18pm "In this battle we are waging, the enemy is combining weapons and soldiers with religion and civilians. No I won't condone the blind carpet bombing of towns and villages as in WWII, but If a target is known to house weapons or soldiers, Blow It Up with out regard for loss of innocent life" I agree 100%.... and I blame the deaths of the innocent on the "so called" soldier that hides among the civilians ( I say so-called because they're to chicken to wear a uniform or carry a flag), he is responsible for the deaths of the innocent. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by mudslinger47 on 12/14/09 at 3:20pm dscEvents wrote on 12/14/09 at 11:11am:
First of all, I believe everything in the Bible, period. In your first verse it speaks in singular, I take that as one man or woman. And the last line in the second verse explains it all to me also, if I wrong someone, I can expect to be wronged right back. In other words, if I attack someone, I can expect them to attack back. NO? And again, this is in singular. Duane |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by Kdawg on 12/14/09 at 3:34pm bluebyu wrote on 12/14/09 at 3:18pm:
LOL...It keeps them busy...... Gun control is hitting your target without setting down nor spilling your beer. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by jr07 on 12/14/09 at 5:00pm dscEvents wrote on 12/14/09 at 11:11am:
###### Dave, Something must be getting lost in translation. No where on this thread have I disagreed with you other than pointing out a misquote of Ben Franklin and then attempted to illustrate the conditions of spirituality under which our country was formed. Never was I defending "justified pre-emptive violence" nor did I ever refer to a "material crown". Again, I am sorry if some people don't feel a spiritual need to defend their God given inalienable rights whether they be of this world or the next. If you believe that they do indeed come from God then why would you not defend them to the fullest possible extent? As far as escalating in Afghanistan I thought that I had given my opinion at the beginning of this thread in which I made it clear that we agreed on the issue. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by 18racr on 12/15/09 at 5:02pm Dave, one of your quotes from the bible says if someone takes from you that your not suppose to ask for it back,, I just wonder if you would even follow that one line? I bet you would ask for it back and would call 911 as fast as your fingers could push the numbers, I don't know of one person that could follow all the rules that god has set in place and God knows it can't be done,(but doesn't mean you have a get out of hell free card) so for you to quote them and judge people on them is wrong, maybe you was just bringing them up as why people shouldn't feel or do some things, if your without sin then I can see why you did it, But I bet you are with sin, one sin or another, you cant sit there and tell me you honestly would follow every rule God has in place, you would not let a man knock the crap out of you, take your things and do nothing about it, can you? ,,,,as far as me wanting to kill women and children? No I would rather OUR troops fight head to head with the baastards but we know that doesnt happen very often, they run and hide and the women hide them,, So I say if they are willing to hide among the women and children then we should do what it takes to get this over with,,Turn the other cheek? Your a better christian than me if you can have someone punch you in the mouth and not strike him back,, I think you wouldnt be in much of a hugging mood if it was to happen to you,,, WAR IS HELL AND IF YOU BELIEVE YOU SHOULDNT KILL THE ENEMY THAT IS THIRSTING FOR YOUR HEAD THEN BY ALL MEANS PLEASE STAY OUT OF MY FOX HOLE, NO HUGGING WILL BE DONE AROUND ME, I WILL BE THE ONE SHOOTING THE MF'rs,, Country before God? NO,,,But God created this country I live in and I will defend it every chance I get.. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by bluebyu on 12/16/09 at 7:15am God did not create this country but he has the whole world in his hands. Cmon if you know it sing along. This country was created under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. A murder on the run breaks into your house and takes your wife and kids hostage. Should the cops blow your house up and all in it to get the bad guy? What makes you think those woman and children aren't afraid for their lives and doing what they are told. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by CamaroKid on 12/16/09 at 7:39am Quote: "What makes you think those woman and children aren't afraid for their lives and doing what they are told." What makes you think they are? I'm going by the thousands of first hand reports from troops and reporters in the middle east, detailing the struggles of winning over local villagers so they will quit hiding and assisting the terrorists. |
|
Title: Re: New York Post; Afraid to Kill Post by jr07 on 12/16/09 at 8:08am bluebyu wrote on 12/16/09 at 7:15am:
######## Our founding fathers did not see it that way.. While it is true that the majority of them may have been deists, almost to the man they believed that divine providence played an unmistakable part in the ability to acheive independence and give birth to this nation. |
|
Saturday Night Racer » Powered by YaBB 2.2.3! YaBB © 2000-2008. All Rights Reserved. |