RE: US Airstrike in Somalia

RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

mcp -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 6:43:46 PM)
quote: Op-war and rumors of war.......... "The war to end all wars - WW1". People have thought we are in the end times since the beginning of the church age. Even during the world wars of the early 1900s; afterall, the midEast was part of the battle ground in both wars. I do believe we are getting close; but it should be noted that there have been few multi-decade periods in history without some major skirmish. The way I see it, in this world, war is the norm, peace is the exception.

mcp -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 7:03:37 PM)
quote: I weigh the word of God into the matter... What grants the United States the right to kill innocent people? The bigger picture? I am glad you weigh the word of God; being an online pundit, you can loosely interpret scriptures to make your point with out any body dying due to decision on your part. Or maybe you are totally right; practically no wars (or retaliations) were ever appropriate from children of God [kinda like Quaker viewpoint]. Look, I know what you are driving at- the principle of not having collateral damage is very important; but in times where you are 'danged if you do, danged if you don't', you may (as a decision maker) need to act and act fast. This action ways larger principles [like trying to save the lives of 2000 over the 20 lives you strategically take]. quote: We are better than those we kill... God is on our side. As to this statement, this is just a cop-out. Based on what you said earlier about defense being appropriate and scriptural, I could throw this back in your face in a hypothetical: "So you think killing a criminal who broke into your house and put your family in danger is justified? You better than him? Doing the Lord's work, are you?" Romans and the whole context of scripture addresses the role of governments to make decisions internally and across sovereign states. They have a 'right' to be in charge, because they are in charge (and yes, answerable to God). If the leaders (from any country) make these decisions in good faith in order to preserve the peace in the long run or preserve life at a greater level, then what scripture are you going to beat them over the head with about their rights?

mapachito13 -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 7:05:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcp "The war to end all wars - WW1". More like the war to BEGIN all wars!

mcp -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 7:15:31 PM)
quote: I guess it wasn't a good idea to let Bush Sr. (then head of the CIA) give all that training and weapons to the Mujaheedin and his then buddy Osama to use against the Russians in Afghanistan. Looks like we created another monster. Well, I am surprised you didn't mention what made them a monster. Bush senior pushed back on Saddam during the first Gulf war at the behest of Kuwait, with the allowance of using Saudi Arabia as a staging area. This is what really set off the militant Islamists. But guess what we were fighting off Russia for in the first place? Ding, ding; OIL. Of course, we also didnt want Russia to increase its strategic locations or subjugate the Persians, et al. But this was close to a death nell for USSR. So bringing the cold war closer to an end was a good benefit for dealing with the Osama types at that time. Again, one dimensional arguments are not effective for foreign policy. I am sooo glad that we allowed Russia as an ally in WW2; it was worth the cold war, imho.

mapachito13 -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 7:18:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcp quote: I guess it wasn't a good idea to let Bush Sr. (then head of the CIA) give all that training and weapons to the Mujaheedin and his then buddy Osama to use against the Russians in Afghanistan. Looks like we created another monster. Well, I am surprised you didn't mention what made them a monster. Bush senior pushed back on Saddam during the first Gulf war at the behest of Kuwait, with the allowance of using Saudi Arabia as a staging area. This is what really set off the militant Islamists. But guess what we were fighting off Russia for in the first place? Ding, ding; OIL. Of course, we also didnt want Russia to increase its strategic locations or subjugate the Persians, et al. But this was close to a death nell for USSR. So bringing the cold war closer to an end was a good benefit for dealing with the Osama types at that time. Again, one dimensional arguments are not effective for foreign policy. I am sooo glad that we allowed Russia as an ally in WW2; it was worth the cold war, imho. I guess we've always been about short term goals. Only the ones that can be accomplished in, oh, four to eight years.[;)]

colliefan -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 7:51:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud There is never anything sad about a dead Al Queda leader. What about 12 potentially innocent civilians? Were they sacrificed in the name of democracy? In war, some innocent people, unfortunately die. Now maybe this will help the genocide saving more lives![:@]

colliefan -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 7:54:19 PM)
quote: The way I see it, in this world, war is the norm, peace is the exception. So, peace is merely the abscence of conflict. Peace is our time. Nevile Chamberlain Sure Nevile

mcp -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 8:43:44 PM)
quote: I guess we've always been about short term goals. Only the ones that can be accomplished in, oh, four to eight years. Can't disagree too much there.[&o] Though keep in mind, there are several agencies (including CIA) where its members are career. They do care about solving foreign problems; it's just nobody can agree on how.

SovereignIsHe -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 8:49:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcp I am glad you weigh the word of God; being an online pundit, you can loosely interpret scriptures to make your point with out any body dying due to decision on your part. I haven't seen a verse that gives anyone the right to take life without just cause... quote: As to this statement, this is just a cop-out. Based on what you said earlier about defense being appropriate and scriptural, I could throw this back in your face in a hypothetical: "So you think killing a criminal who broke into your house and put your family in danger is justified? You better than him? Doing the Lord's work, are you?" If I keep the response to the person or persons it would be justified, if I made a bomb(and I know how...:P) and blew up half the block killing the bad guys I wouldn't be justified... And the SAME government that can kill people getting bad guys would lock me up... quote: Romans and the whole context of scripture addresses the role of governments to make decisions internally and across sovereign states. They have a 'right' to be in charge, because they are in charge (and yes, answerable to God). If the leaders (from any country) make these decisions in good faith in order to preserve the peace in the long run or preserve life at a greater level, then what scripture are you going to beat them over the head with about their rights? Romans 13 doesn't grant freedom to kill anyone the civil authoirty so chooses... The sword is due those who do evil, not those who happen to be in the way... John

mcp -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 8:56:57 PM)
quote: More like the war to BEGIN all wars! All aware of the irony; that's why the original phrase is still used ad nauseum & it fit perfectly on my soapbox[:D]

colliefan -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 10:31:59 PM)
quote: I haven't seen a verse that gives anyone the right to take life without just cause... What does the war on terrorism mean; we have evil people whose sole aim is world domination and to bring in a world-wide Islamic reign. And people just want to think things will go away if we treat them nicely. Should this be the way we dealt with the Nazis? Look what Nevile Chamberlain tried and look what it got him: a bombed out London,

mcp -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 10:52:38 PM)
quote: I haven't seen a verse that gives anyone the right to take life without just cause... It is probably right around the verses that gives an individual the right to kill someone breaking into their house and endangering their family[8D]. The problem isn't that we disagree that killing must have a just cause to even come close to be biblically supported; the problem is that you assume that gov'ts making decisions that allow for collateral damage as unjustified. I have already explained that there can be higher principles than saving 100% of innocent lives, which is indeed a high standard in and of itself. Otherwise, you condemn all wars/gov't actions ever executed as unjust. Hence, by your reasoning, all wars to date are unbiblical. quote: If I keep the response to the person or persons it would be justified, if I made a bomb(and I know how...:P) and blew up half the block killing the bad guys I wouldn't be justified... And the SAME government that can kill people getting bad guys would lock me up... You missed the point (counterpoint to your original inference rather). The point is that your snide comments about how gov'ts acts assuming God winks and smiles at them could be turned on you. I used a scenario that you accepted as appropriate to act in defense. I then used similar polemics to charge you with feeling more loved by God than the perpetrator. This wasn't an argument that you had the same rights in handling bad guys as sovereign nations do. Also, regarding us thinking we are right and the other side wrong; that also could be applied to you and a potential perpetrator. All parties to a war/struggle see themselves as on the side of right (otherwise they couldn't justify their actions). quote: Romans 13 doesn't grant freedom to kill anyone the civil authoirty so chooses... The sword is due those who do evil, not those who happen to be in the way... Romans 13 doesn't address collateral damage in times of war or in police action. This has to [or not] be interpreted or deduced from the whole context of scripture. You have made your stance; if you don't see my analysis, then we just disagree on how the gov't is empowered to make these hard decisions.

SovereignIsHe -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 11:20:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colliefan quote: I haven't seen a verse that gives anyone the right to take life without just cause... What does the war on terrorism mean; we have evil people whose sole aim is world domination and to bring in a world-wide Islamic reign. And people just want to think things will go away if we treat them nicely. Should this be the way we dealt with the Nazis? Look what Nevile Chamberlain tried and look what it got him: a bombed out London, Here's a problem... If we are going to call terrorist evil people for killing people( and rightly so) why are we going all over the world when in a month more unborn children will be put to death in the name of freedom? The same govenrment that says Osama is worthy of death, says that the unborn is to... I see mentons of 3000+ being murdered on 9-11 and think that takes place every two days in America, so what's the big deal... We are willing to kill innocent people in another country yet we sit by while the body count of the unborn climbs daily making whatever evil terrorist are doing look likes child's play... You can say the two items are not connected, but evil is evil and if one truly believes the government can kill innocent people to surpress evil than they should have no problem with a JDAM taking out an aborition clinic... John

rabstark -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 11:34:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 I don't remember the term Al Qaeda being used before 9-11. Now every bomb that goes off in the world is attributed to Al Qaeda. I guess it wasn't a good idea to let Bush Sr. (then head of the CIA) give all that training and weapons to the Mujaheedin and his then buddy Osama to use against the Russians in Afghanistan. Looks like we created another monster. It was used, they just weren't considered a major threat to the US until they attacked the USS Cole in 2000. Just as a matter of information, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan took place in 1978, during the Carter Administration. Bush Sr.'s term as head of the CIA ended when Ford left office in 1977. He had nothing to do with the training and equipping of the Mujahadin.

mikeman2 -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 11:37:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: The angels in Heaven is rejoicing because another Moslem terrist has done BIT THE DUST!!! Halleluyah!!! The more a them terrists we kill and send strait to the Devil the closer we all get to reel PEACE. Well I don't know how the angels might feel about it, but there is certianly no reason for us not to be glad it happened. quote: Proverbs 24:17 "Should your enemy fall do not rejoice, when he stumbles do not let your hearts exalt. For God will be displeased and turn his anger from him." Now you kids don't want to look like those crazy people dancing in the steets in the Middle East after the twin towers came down do you?

SovereignIsHe -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/2/2008 11:38:36 PM)
quote: It is probably right around the verses that gives an individual the right to kill someone breaking into their house and endangering their family[8D]. It's probably not... quote: The problem isn't that we disagree that killing must have a just cause to even come close to be biblically supported; the problem is that you assume that gov'ts making decisions that allow for collateral damage as unjustified. I am asking where such actions are justified in the bible... I am not assuming, I am asking... I don't see it, so show me... quote: You missed the point (counterpoint to your original inference rather). The point is that your snide comments about how gov'ts acts assuming God winks and smiles at them could be turned on you. Yet it wasn't.... You didn't turn it on me... You failed... You would have to make a person who is acting in the wrong be right for your point to work... You can pretend he's right, but the actions of the person breaking into my home define him... quote: I used a scenario that you accepted as appropriate to act in defense. No... The scenario is covered by the bible in regards to defending oneself... To allow myself or those under my charge to be killed is to break God's law... quote: I then used similar polemics to charge you with feeling more loved by God than the perpetrator. Which has zero to do with things... quote: Also, regarding us thinking we are right and the other side wrong; that also could be applied to you and a potential perpetrator. All parties to a war/struggle see themselves as on the side of right (otherwise they couldn't justify their actions). You can say that the perpetrator is in the right, but that would defy his actions... I can show beyond a doubt that someone breaking into my home is wrong... So your point is lacking... Not to mention I am not killing my innocent neighbors while dealing with the bad guy... quote: Romans 13 doesn't address collateral damage in times of war or in police action. This has to [or not] be interpreted or deduced from the whole context of scripture. Never said it was, or implied... I spoke to what the verses speak to, that being the civil goverment being God's minister for those who do evil... Of course taking that at face value it's fair to say that being so would put onus on the government to act in a godly manner... quote: You have made your stance; if you don't see my analysis, then we just disagree on how the gov't is empowered to make these hard decisions. I know how... I can drag up a 100 posts on Romans 13 I have posted on this forum. How isn't the issue, but in regards to taking innocent life, where is the relief in God's word for doing so? John

tracydolls -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/3/2008 12:26:42 AM)
quote: What does the war on terrorism mean; we have evil people whose sole aim is world domination and to bring in a world-wide Islamic reign. And people just want to think things will go away if we treat them nicely. Should this be the way we dealt with the Nazis? Look what Nevile Chamberlain tried and look what it got him: a bombed out London, I'm sure the Islamincs are like " we have evil people whose sole aim is world domination and to bring world-wide Christian reign. And people just want to think things will go away if we treat them nicely."" .................. We got into WW2 in 1941, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. hitler came to power in 1933 in Germany. Nevile was defending london, what were doing for 7 years? 1933 26 1934 15 1935 20 1936 8 1937 8 1938 6 1939 3 1940 5 1941 4 Lynching records Look what war got us, the wrong fight, the killing of innocents, for what? Bush got us down the street from Armageddon, that's all this is.

mcp -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/3/2008 1:15:45 AM)
quote: I am asking where such actions are justified in the bible... I am not assuming, I am asking... I don't see it, so show me... The Bible is not explicit regarding governments and their duties regarding collateral damage either way. You have inferred your interpretations; just as Americans do regarding self defense "rights". I could one up the self-defense assumption, go to the OT, and justify a system where my family could avenge my death unless the perpetrator found a city of refuge. So, since the Bible gives the concept of government legitimacy, I then used natural arguments of common defense (and associated principles and strategies) to show a long standing concept of just war (collateral damage). If I am wrong, then prove me thusly w/ references. The rest of your "rebuttals" degenerate off target or into that which is not comprehendable. We disagree on certain moral thresholds but then you use your moral assumptions to conclude your arguments. I am glad you are comfortable with your answers. BTW, in case it was lost on the audience, I never disagreed with protecting oneself and others [and too assume it moral mandate to protect others, not necessarily oneself though].

SovereignIsHe -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/3/2008 1:35:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcp The Bible is not explicit regarding governments and their duties regarding collateral damage either way. In other words you have NOTHING.... And given that we are talking about the the taking of innocent live the onus is on those who think it's ok to show cause... The bible says when we can take life and they center on having just cause. quote: You have inferred your interpretations; just as Americans do regarding self defense "rights". You shall not murder. If were to stand by and allow myself to be murdered I would be breaking the above command, no less than I cannot commit suicide and not break the same law... Same goes for those God has placed in my care... quote: I could one up the self-defense assumption, go to the OT, and justify a system where my family could avenge my death unless the perpetrator found a city of refuge. That's not self defence that is judgment and punishment... After the fact.. quote: So, since the Bible gives the concept of government legitimacy, I then used natural arguments of common defense (and associated principles and strategies) to show a long standing concept of just war (collateral damage). If I am wrong, then prove me thusly w/ references. You leap from legitimacy of government to the concept of just war(a thread all it's own) to that equating to the ok for killing people with no just cause, and I might add, with prior knowledge... It's factored in... quote: The rest of your "rebuttals" degenerate off target or into gibberish. I am not the one pushing the ridiculous point where you can make a thief the good guy? Talk about gibberish... quote: We disagree on certain moral thresholds but then you use your moral assumptions to conclude your arguments. Sure... Like bad guys aren't actually bad and can't be turned into good to make you silly point? Or that it's ok to kill innocent people if you trying to save more innocent people... It's all about intentions... quote: This is close to several logical fallacies. I am glad you are comfortable with your answers. I am not the one advocation the killing of innocent people so I can be comfortable with my answers John

ladyingrace1979 -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/3/2008 5:09:31 AM)
darren.been and Jhud, WOW your responces are very sad. The angels are not rejoycing, they are crying, and it is not something to be happy about. Inocents were killed and a muslim went to an eternal seperation from our Lord Jesus Christ. It is disgusting that beleivers would find this a hapy thing. Shame on the both of you.[&o] The deqath and damnarion of any person is an extreemly sad event.

tracydolls -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/3/2008 8:31:23 AM)
quote: WOW your responces are very sad. The angels are not rejoycing, they are crying, and it is not something to be happy about. Inocents were killed and a muslim went to an eternal seperation from our Lord Jesus Christ. It is disgusting that beleivers would find this a hapy thing. Shame on the both of you. The deqath and damnarion of any person is an extreemly sad event. that's what tripped me out about this forum. period. the unadultered glee at the other mans calamity, that shook me, the Christians I know are joyous in the Lord and sad about this world, they are not fooling themselves into thinking the world, gov't, people are righteous. Only the Lord is. It made me think of a poem i heard awhile ago; they came to get the Jew and I did not speak out, for it was'nt me, they came to get the Native, """" on & on When they came to get me, there was no one to speak up for me.

mcp -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/3/2008 8:40:51 AM)
quote: In other words you have NOTHING.... And given that we are talking about the the taking of innocent live the onus is on those who think it's ok to show cause... The bible says when we can take life and they center on having just cause. You shall not murder. If were to stand by and allow myself to be murdered I would be breaking the above command, no less than I cannot commit suicide and not break the same law... Same goes for those God has placed in my care... I explained my justification for my argument earlier. But you justify saving your life over the perpetrator and say that is implied from "you shall not murder". That is the only verse you provided and it isn't explicit to when to apply or what is just cause. Hundreds of years of theology have been argued over the Bible's views on "just cause" and self defense and gov't's roles. You keep saying "just cause" as if you have some explicit law the government is required to follow in order to carry out war and justice. I have already explained how "just cause" is determined by gov'ts. The Bible doesn't speak directly to all war scenarios. In fact, the OT is rife with many unpalatable war acts. quote: You leap from legitimacy of government to the concept of just war(a thread all it's own) to that equating to the ok for killing people with no just cause, and I might add, with prior knowledge... It's factored in... These aren't leaps. This was short hand of assumptions to conclusions. my first assumption was gov't is legitimate body from scriptural perspective; from there I deduce they have rights to protection and justice for citizens through "just war". Then in carrying out one aspect of just war (to stay on core argument, we assume all other criteria for just wars are met) I argue that governments can have just cause for colateral damages through the criteria on jus in bello. quote: I am not the one pushing the ridiculous point where you can make a thief the good guy? Talk about gibberish... Sure... Like bad guys aren't actually bad and can't be turned into good to make you silly point? OK, OK. Of course they are silly points. I was using absurdity to illustrate the invalidity of your original ad hominem attacks. This was an equivalent of "I know you are but what am I" or "no, your ugly". I am not pulling for perpetrators or saying your logic flows just like this argument on the just killing issue. I should have cleared this up a long time ago. And I apologize for the gibberish comment; that wasn't necessary. I just couldn't follow some of your last syntax on earlier posts. As far as just cause and gov't action in war; I look for your thoughts on this scenario (classic story)- A bridge tender takes his boy to work.... the scheduled train is coming and he is right at the point where he has to set the bridge down for the train. He notices his boy caught down in the drawworks; but he doesn't have time to save him. He has to throw the works in motion to save the train of people or climb down to get his boy and have a large accident. Is throwing the switch actively murdering his boy who is questionably innocent, or does he have just cause? Should he do nothing so that his hands are "clean" even though he could have saved the people's lives? Are there Bible verses that explicitly give him his calling on this matter?

trainfan -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/3/2008 12:09:10 PM)
quote: The sad thing here is that there are 11 families today that are not celebrating this military action. I wonder how they must feel about all of this. I wonder if the parents feel their kids' deaths were worth it. I wonder how this makes them feel about our country. Did you all read the link in the OP? It points out that under this guy the group he led has adopted Iraq style tactics of IED's and assassinations. They have also been responsible for attaks on journalists and aid workers. There is a tape of this guy ordering an attack on peacekeepers. The violence created by this guy has triggered Africa's worst humanitarian crisis and clashes in the capital has killed 6500 people in the last year alone. The article also quoted some terrorist saying that there was two "important" people killed in the airstrike. Just a little food for thought. Since the top Al Qaida people are rarely without body guards to do their dirty work for them how many of the people who were killed were actually terrorists? Also since terrorists now train women and disabled people to be suicide bombers how many women were actually innocent bystanders? I wonder how the Somali's feel about the death of this guy who has done nothing but further destablize their home and turn in into more of mess than it already was.

colliefan -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/3/2008 12:27:42 PM)
quote: Nevile was defending london You MUST be joking. Nevile's "peace in our time" resuted in a bombed-out city!

colliefan -> RE: US Airstrike in Somalia (5/3/2008 12:33:04 PM)
The Islamic fanatics know we we are weak and will run from any conflict. They care not one whit about loss of life in their community or the camps of the enemy. They are evil and their sole goal is world-wide domination of Islam. And the weepy, soft liberals are going to give it to them on a silver platter. And they will have no one to turn to them that fanatics come for their heads.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI