Well my cheek hurts :lol:
Turn the other cheek-- they didn't hit, they killed.. As for the oppressed, I would feel bad, but--what would the ending be. kinda like the lesser evil of the two. or give a little to save a-lot.
It is a little touchy Hobo, and I do understand where you are comming from.. We are IMOP talking about saving family and friends, -- If someone was too try to kill one of my members of my family, I would do anything to keep it from happening.. Whether it would be putting my own life at stake, or taking one.. And Knowing I would be justified..


I know this will probly open a can of worms and it is tredding on thin ice to breach this BUT--

There are soldiers for Christ, and those soldiers kill and die in a war. WHY? To save thier loved ones.. {Not like the dark ages, that is not what I am talking about}
But Those who live by the sword, will die by the sword. Thus the faith and patients of the saints..
It is not like they are out to murder, but to live and have done what they could to save a life, even if it means to have to take another, or give there own..

The Jehadist, are out to Murder, it is not for the sake of survival. But to murder, because like the dark ages, those that are like the USA, do not believe like they do..

We have been through this on other threads,, The church did it in the past, and so forth and so on. BUT I am talking survival...

 

Redeemed said:

OOfff!!! What a "pleasant" surprise big man! I'm glad to see you here! Still wondering, though, what "drew you in?"

.

So, HOW would you keep them out of the hands of nutcases? And WHY would you distrust a Pro-gun President and his VETO pen (supplied by the gun lobbyists?)

And, when statistics show that most fatal accidents are caused by EXCESSIVELY speeding vehicles, and most MASS killings are committed with full auto weapons, You'll just blame that on the innocents for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

This is an interesting theory. Can you provide proof? [no scripture, please.] Scientific proof that the human "soul" is NOT upward looking, and peaceloving?

I won't argue with you that the "Bible" says that the nature of man's heart is SIN. But do you see that all around you? Why, then, do people come running to help accident victims? Go on search parties for bodies of women they've never met? Comfort those who've lost all in a flood, etc.? No.... I believe the nature of the human heart is love and caring. And I see nothing happening around me to dispell that belief.

According to the Bible, the only "natural sin" that we are born with is the defiance of God. Other than that.... "we are made in HIS image!" And is not his image one of LOVE and caring?

And there have been OTHER "jihads" before this one. How did they end? Oh.... according to you, they never DID end! Personally, I don't really know HOW the Jihad between Salladin and the British Empire ended. I've read about it long ago, but am not current. Perhaps, YOU will explain how that one "ended." I fear that you have subjugated your knowledge of History for the "sabre rattling" of the current "so called" Leader of the Free World.

I say again.... no JIHAD existed before we attacked Iraq. Or at least, not to this level. It was as a result of our attack that their leaders were able to cry "JIHAD!" and recruit the young and impressionable INTO their war against us. We "descended" upon their lands with military force, to which they were obliged to respnd. Prior to the "war" declared by our President, most of them were pursuing engineering degrees and such!

Let me ask you this. Prior to the "criminal" act of 9/11, how many Islamic Youths were in training camps to fight against America? Maybe 10 %. Even with the level of poverty that was their daily lives, did they NOT beg for our Ipods, CD's, etc? This is not a whole CULTURE that is aligned against us. It is the radical "fringe." We are not fighting a Holy WAR against ALL muslims! (if we WERE, we'd have put all American Muslims in concentration camps by now) we are fighting a radical and criminal organization, which is growing stronger with each STUPID mistake we make!

NO! I don't believe Patton WOULD fall prey to these tactics. He would have "cut them off" from their supply lines, attacked their strongholds with overwhelmeing force. and "negotiated" the surrender of their remaining forces with an "attitude!" And YES.... he would have blamed the whole mess on the "warring parties" in Congress! He ALSO would have invaded the northern part of Pakistan to get the job done, and let someone ELSE apologize for it later! Bush claimed that NO government would be spared if it harbored terrorists, yet he "caved" in to the leader of Pakistan to help him keep his job!

I'm sorry, but I don't believe this is necessarily TRUE. They HAVE done so, in some cases, yes. But, they have ALSO "allowed" some to be rescued. They want to prove their point, and show their seriousness. But, they have yet to invite the full force of the American Military Might. They know they cannot win a war of attrition, but only one of public opinion. They are also smart enough to realize that every act of "brutality" marginalizes them from the very public they wish to ensilst.

This would be a time to "hold 'em." We cannot afford to "lose" this one. And we have no choice but to fight it out now that Bush has played his hand. Thousasnds, if not millions, may lose their lives. But, in the end, as always, DIPLOMACY will rule the day. Although I once thought Bush had lost his mind and launched us into Armageddon, I now believe otherwise. (I AM allowed to change my mind!) I now see this as just ONE MORE religious war, ALL of whcih have been "quelled" by diplomatic endeavors.

As you said.... ALL Humankind is, in finality, prescient of its own survival.

We are to use the inteligence that God and experience has given us to rise ABOVE the situation and find an answer. Is that an answer to your question? I doubt it. But, for now, under the circumstances that Bush has put me under, it is all I can think of for this post.

If I should happen to stumble across the REAL solution.... I'm SURE you'll be the first to know! :wink:

 

I am a Republican. I vote against Democrats.

Guns..I don't think semi-auto weapons should be available to the public.

Bush....I voted against Kerry & Gore more than I voted for Bush. And I made the right choice.

Iraq....Sadam had to go. We did the right thing, but it hasn't worked out well. May not ever work out well.

9/11....An isolated success by the gang who couldn't shoot straight. The way we handle them in Somalia is more to my liking....bomb them hard whenever we find them. We should have done nothing for about 60 days; let 'em think they have struck with impunity and then touch off a MOAB over Tora Bora. Then another, if someone moves.

Illegal immigration...I can't get excited about it. You ain't gonna believe what all this will do to the price of food.

Palestine...The Palestinians stupidly voted in Hamas. And Hamas stupidly betrayed the trust of the voters. Now Hamas has Israel surrounded the same way that Kansas has the US surrounded. We will back Abbas, Fatah will prevail, and Hamas will suffer a setback.

Abortion....the woman has a right to choose.

Guantanamo....Let em rot there. They declared war.

The price of oil....let it run up. Market forces will prevail when oil becomes too expensive. That's what happed to its predecessor, whale oil; it got too expensive.

The future....We will someday run very low on oil and history will look back on these days in wonder. There will never be a real replacement, but life will go on.

 

Darn GH, I am not good at coordinating all the quote thingy's so I can't answer in the same format you used. So I do my best this way.

What drew me in? This thread just looked like one of those general "what do you think" threads so I took a leap to jump in.

How would I keep them out of the hands of nutcases? Well, I really don't have a good single answer.

Why would I distrust a Pro-gun President and his Veto pen supplied by the gun lobbyists? I distrust ALL government, period. Bush or the Republicans only appear pro-gun to gain favor with a particular group of people. History is replete with examples of goverments being experts at taking away individuals rights. Who is currently President and what party they belong to makes no difference.

Statistics show that most fatal accidents are caused by excessively speeding vehicles? Ok I can see speed being a major contributor but where is the corrilation to enjoying a high performance car. That's assigning guilt based solely on capability. You have the capability to be a murder, rapist, child molestor, etc, etc. Are you?

Most mass killings are committed with full auto weapons? WRONG! Full auto weapons have been illeagal to own without a Class 3 licence since the late 1930's early 1940's. It is pretty difficult to get and expensive so most people don't own them. There is no way possible, short of counting killings by a countries military forces, that your statement is accurate. The killings at VT were with two semi auto pistols. Columbine killers used several weapons but mainly semi auto pistols and shotguns. If you are going to stand by this one you better go get some proof.

Can I provide proof of moral decay (no scripture please). Scentific proof that the "soul" is not upward looking and peaceloving? Well first, where is the scientific proof for your use of the word "soul?" Ok, sorry about that but you first say no scripture then you use the term "soul" which is an unscientific term usually reserved for theological discussion. Go back into history and lets look at the list of barbaric leaders and oppressive governments. Saddam in Iraq, Idi Amin in Uganda, Stalin in old USSR, Castro in Cuba, Aparthid in South Africa, Genocide in Rwanda, Honor crimes in Pakistan, complete opression of any alternative religious expression in Saudi Arabia, the slavery trade by the USA, Great Britian, France, and many other nations, and large portions of the history of the Roman Empire. That's just scratching the surface. We can hit on the tyranny of the church and the inquisitions and the Salem witch trials as well. Oh man, there is more than enough historical evidence to show man's dark side and I do not have to hit word one into the Bible.

I will not dispute with you that there are instances where man comes to the aid of man. Just like your examples of helping accident victims. Staying away from the Biblical explanation as you requested there is a scientific explanation for it.....its called species preservation which is almost as powerful a force as self preservation.

How did other jihads end? Well honestly I do not know. I am not that much of a student of history on jihads to know for sure. I know from some limited history that the US had to use some pretty harsh tactics in the Phillipeans to put down Islamic uprisings while we controlled the islands. The British did the same in their colonial areas. So did some jihads end? Yes, so you are wrong in assuming that I think they never did. You know what happens when you assume don't you? What I am referring to is what some have explained is a driving force in the current Islamic radicals thinking. That is that the ultimate goal of Islam is world domination. That any land ever taken by Islam, and falls out of Islam's hands, must be retaken at all cost. That is what has been given as a reason for the almost constant fight by Muslims against Israels existence and for terrorist attacks against the US for having a presence in the Middle East. These folks have taken teachings and beliefs from Islams beginnings in the middle ages as a reason for their jihad against the world today. In short, the radicals we fight today are taking their cues from their leaders who started their belief system some 1400 years ago. Even you would have to agree that is some pretty tenacious beliefs. Oh yeah, I subjugate what knowledge I have to no one! That includes you, Bush, Republicans, or Democrats. Got that buddy!

No Jihad existed before we attacked Iraq? See my long winded above speech. Jihad has been cried for many years going back in the current times to the colonial period in Egypt with the forming of the Islamic Brotherhood. Prior to the war declared by our President, most were pursuing engeneering degrees and such? You are mixing apples and oranges and going off on a rabbit trail away from anything I intended. Many of them are still pursuing engeneering degrees and such. That has not changed. Most Muslims are not activily participating in terrorist activities. That in and of itself does not mean that Jihad began after we invaded Iraq. You are pulling at staws and chaseing shawdows on this one.

Prior to the "criminal" act of 9/11, how many Islamic youths were in training camps to fight against America? Maybe 10%? First, we were not "mugged" or "robbed" on 9/11. WE WERE ATTACKED BY A COORDINATED STRIKE BY A TERRORIST GROUP! Sorry, but to me that is more than just "criminal." You want to send the FBI to investigate and arrest them. Fine. That is what we did during the Clinton Administration when they bombed our embassies and the USS Cole. What good did it do? NOT A DAMN! Stick your head in the sand for all I care but don't ask me to do it. This is not an issue of civil disobediance where you send in mounted police on horseback to restore order. Second, even if there are only 10% of them involved in fighting against us then that is a very large number. Even if it is only 1% .....out of a group of believers that numbers over 1 billion....that is a very formative fighting force if for no other reason just the shear number of people. Third, I agree with you that we have made some really stupid mistakes in fighting this war. But the only thing more absurd is to go back to what did not work before and treat these fanatics like common criminals.

Here we agree totally! Like I said, we have made some stupid mistakes and I hope we don't keep making them.

I agree but I believe that they think we never will bring our full force against them. Bin Laden never thought we would set foot in Afghanistan.

You are right that we can not afford to lose this one. However, I see little evidence that we (collectively) have what it takes. More of our so called leaders, on both sides, are more concerned about consolidating their power base in Congress than they are about the threat we face. Who suffers? We all do. But one thing I do disagree with you here is that Diplomacy will rule the day. History shows, to me at least, that diplomacy will work only if you have two sides ready to seriously talk. And when I say talk I mean that they are intelligent enough to know that war and fighting will not solve their probelm. Right now we do not have two sides ready to talk. In the abscence of two talking sides you have no choice but to do what FDR's goal was in WWII.....and that is complete and unconditional surrender of the enemy. We fought them till they became knowledgeable about how futile war is for solving problems and like talking more than war.

Hey that goes back as an example of the darkness of man and moral decay.

Why would you doubt that it could be the answer to my question?

 

Excellent Post Redeemed!!

Now For mine :lol: :lol:

We Didn’t Start The Fire

Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnny Ray
South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio

Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, Television
North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe

Rosenbergs, H Bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom
Brando, The King And I, and The Catcher In The Rye

Eisenhower, Vaccine, England's got a new queen
Maciano, Liberace, Santayana goodbye

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Joseph Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser and Prokofiev
Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc

Roy Cohn, Juan Peron, Toscanini, Dancron
Dien Bien Phu Falls, Rock Around the Clock

Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team
Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland

Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Khrushchev
Princess Grace, Peyton Place, Trouble in the Suez

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Little Rock, Pasternak, Mickey Mantle, Kerouac
Sputnik, Chou En-Lai, Bridge On The River Kwai

Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle, California baseball
Starkwether, Homicide, Children of Thalidomide
Buddy Holly, Ben Hur, Space Monkey, Mafia
Hula Hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no-go

U2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy
Chubby Checker, Psycho, Belgians in the Congo

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Hemingway, Eichman, Stranger in a Strange Land
Dylan, Berlin, Bay of Pigs invasion

Lawrence of Arabia, British Beatlemania
Ole Miss, John Glenn, Liston beats Patterson

Pope Paul, Malcolm X, British Politician sex
J.F.K. blown away, what else do I have to say

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again
Moonshot, Woodstock, Watergate, punk rock
Begin, Reagan, Palestine, Terror on the airline
Ayatollah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan

Wheel of Fortune, Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide
Foreign debts, homeless Vets, AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz
Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law
Rock and Roller cola wars, I can't take it anymore

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it


Sorry couldn't help it!! :lol:

 

Redeemed said:

Well.... you did allright toward the end! :lol:

Fair enough, but those of us who believe in gun control DO have a simple answer. Applications, background checks, waiting periods and flat out banning the manufacture or importation of the most lethal of them. Of course, that won't stop ALL nutcases from getting them, but if we stop MOST of them, we will save many lives.

Well, the original question was meant to be tongue in cheek. But, personally, I disagree that Bush OR Republicans are only pandering to the NRA types. It IS interesting, though, that HIS administration (more than any other in American history) has taken away so many of our rights, yet leaves us with the ability to own the guns with which we might would fight him over it!

Where's the correlation? It is IN the capability. I'm not assigning any GUILT. But the fact is, without the capability to be speeding to that extreme on a public highway, there is little or no POSSIBILITY of creating the statistic of fatal accidents related to speed. Same applies to the capability of a weapon to kill multiple targets before anyone can do anything to stop the perp.

No, obviously I misspoke. I meant to say semi-auto with multiple round mags. However, it is interesting that you mentioned the timeframe before full autos were banned. I believe that was about the time of Al Capone and other mafia types who were responsible for some of the OTHER mass killings in American history. Too bad the ban wasn't comprehensive enough to save the lives of the students at Columbine and VA Tech. And, BTW, no one needs a license to illegally "convert" a semi to a full auto.

Well, obviously valid examples, but most of them can be traced to the beleifs or actions of only a FEW leaders. Many of those who followed them, did so out of fear for their OWN lives. And for each of your examples, there were millions of people in those countries who felt otherwise. And, in fact, at other times in the history of those same countries, governments and people acted much more peacefully. So, what changed? The people and culture? Or the leadership?

And I guess I should have said "essence" of Man, instead of "soul." :wink:

Hmm.... I could be wrong, but I believe that MOST non-human species don't actually exhibit this "species preservation" that you speak of. Other than protecting their OWN young, which not all of them do, most of them have no regard whatsoever for their fellow species. Many are, in fact, predatory by nature. Sure, there is a driving "mating" force that ensures their survival as a species, but I don't believe there is a "soul" that is even "mindful" of the idea of preservation. So, if you are saying that ONLY mankind has this thought for preservation, then it is part of the "essence" of man, and contradicts your own belief that we are all dark inside.

My "assumption" may have been too losely based on this quote from you:

I'm not so sure that I believe, nor that there is proof, that the ULTIMATE goal of Islam is World domination. And I certainly haven't seen evidence that Islamists have been trying to "retake" Spain all these years since the Moors lost it, or any other lands for that matter EXCEPT Israel. And I believe THAT conflict is based MOSTLY on a simple LAND dispute, rooted in historical and Biblical conflict between Muslims and Jews.

I don't know who's "giving" what, but I believe that the everlasting conflict between Muslims and Jews is biblical in origin, and exacerbated by the fact that they both claim the same "turf." The attacks against the U.S. are solely because we back Israel, and additionaly because we have established military bases on their Holy Lands, which defines us as "infidels." And again, I point out that there is no Great Commandment in the Quran about converting the whole world at the point of a sword. The vast majority of Muslims have no such intentions. We are, as you say, fighting only a radical fringe.

Yeah.... I GOT it! Didn't mean to p!ss you off! But, you ARE spouting the same "talking points" that Bush is trying to sell the World. He refuses to acknowledge the TRUE motivation of the terrorists because he doesn't want to remove his bases from the Middle East! So he propagates this belief that they want us all DEAD. When, in reality, they just want us out of the HOUSE!

I said, "or at least not to this level." Sure, there has always been conflict between our cultures. But, prior to this war, there were only limited "terrorist attacks" by fringe elements of radical Islam. It is clear in the Bin Laden tapes (and others) that a NEW cry of Jihad was issued as a result of our attack on them in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was a rallying cry to get recruits. I'm sure you realize that not SO long ago, Americans were able to travel freely and securely in MOST Muslim lands. That would not have been possible if there were an "active" Jihad against us at that time. Not to mention the years of cooperation with Muslim countries on oil projects and such. I stand by my statement.

Perhaps, I was overgeneralizing a bit. But, it is a FACT that thousands have joined the "movement" as a result of our declaration of war. What was once a few radical extremists, has become almost "mainstream" in some areas. But, I agree that we may be splitting hairs in our individual beliefs concerning the origin, essence and magnitude of the Jihad. Fact remains that, as a teenager going to the movies in peace, I had heard all about Communism, but can't seem to remember EVER hearing the word "Jihad." Now, the whole World has heard it.

As you said, we had been "attacked" before, just not on our soil. Terrorism has been around for years, and has always been treated as a "crime." No, not the FBI. I prefer the CIA, the Mossad and any other clandestine agencies that could have "snuck up" on the small band of Al Queda at the time, and its leader UBL, and either captured them and brought them to justice.... or just flat out eliminate them. As for what good Clinton did? Well, he did just as I am suggesting. He found UBL standing out in the open thinking he was free and clear, and had it not been for some "friendly" diplomats standing with him, he would have pushed the button on a cruise missile and eliminated him. NOW, we can't even FIND him! So.... who's plan was working better? Oh, and don't forget to factor in the 3,000+ American soldiers who have DIED in what seems so far to be a vain attempt at finding him.

My head is NOT stuck in the sand. And I was NOT counting the entire Muslim population of the world. I was refering to maybe 10% of young Islamic males who MIGHT not have been too fond of us before, but were not actively involved in fighting us. Now, nearly EVERY young Islamic male who even THINKS he doesn't like us is training in a camp somewhere to join the fight. And there aren't a million of US fighting them either. We have a mere 130,000 or so troops fighting what Bush wants us to believe is the most IMPORTANT battle of our time?? And many of them are "weekend warriors!" Talk about "absurd!" No, I don't see how we can go BACK.... but what is so absurd about "marginalizing" them and their cause by treating it as a CRIME, and catching them the old fashioned way (CIA, etc.,) and prosecuting them? Would this not have taken away their "romantic appeal" that we have allowed them to engender? Would this not have been an example to other young Muslims that crime doesn't pay and that terrorism can't win? Instead, we have given them the romantic impetus of being the victims in all this! We have given THEM the same "enlistment" propaganda that we ourselves used in 1941.


And so far, they are right!

This is a good point. We may HAVE lost the moment when diplomacy might have worked. But, Bush is no FDR, and we certainly aren't scaring them into talking the way we are going about things!

If YOU say so.... :wink:

Didn't MEAN anything by that. Just maybe, because I'm not so sure I believe it myself! The current leadership in our country has demoralized ME to the point that I'm not sure I SEE a way out of this. Like you said, it's "business as usual" in Washington these days, and no one really is having a dialogue on how to solve this problem.

Nice discussion, Redeemed! Thanks.

 

GH, I want to apologize to you for that comment I made. Yes you did tick me off with yours because you assumed too much about me just because I have conservative beliefs. The one thing I think I hate the most about the current level of politics is how quick everyone is to label someone. I am very independant minded. If I think you have a point I will support you to the hilt......but I don't carry water for anyone. Regardless I owe this apology because I was trying to yank your chain....and that is not what I believe in nor was it right.

Thanks and likewise it is always a good discussion with you.

 

Didn't know where to put this, and this seems to be a close enough thread..


If the National Gaurd is to gaurd the nation, what in the world are they doing in another..? :?

When I think of National Gaurd, I think that they are to protect the Nation in the Nation. Not be sent over sea's.. Isn't that for the Army, Navy, Airforce, Marine's.. ?

 

Slimland they are just another part of the military and they have as much right to be over there as any of the other parts of the military. Or atleast thats my take on it as they are protecting our Nation by fiting the enemy.

If you folowed the same logic the Coast Gaurd should only be alowed to protect our coast but, they served in World War 2 in the Pacific against the Japs.

 

Ok,, So if all these are deployable,, What is our defense here?