Christians and Views on War/Warfare

[LifeMaiden]

Somewhere in the long abortion thread, there was a brief little discussion in some posts regarding how Christians viewed war. Before I became pro-life I used to think, well, most Christians I've encountered or seen on tv support the defense of the USA, of course, if we're being attacked...and thought it was strange because war 'aborts' the lives of many people...not just the soldiers, but civilians, and women and children are the ones who often end up suffering the most.


What are your views on war and warfare, and how were they influenced by your Christian views and what the Bible says about war? Do you believe that war is a necessary evil, and or a terrible sin?


I see war as a sin, but something that IS necessary. The shaping of countries and politics are often determined by the wars a country has fought, and one only has to look at the US to see this.... as Von Clauswitz, Prussian military leader, said " War is continuation of politics by other means."


I have to admit that I find it annoying when people do protest against war, and they have every right to do that, but I also think it's a slap in the face to the men and women who risk their lives every day defending our principles and our country, and freedom. And yet, some of them are the parents of children who are in Iraq or other countries.

[Ephinie]

Oh, good topic, IM.

I think that war is evil, but it is also necessary. That's where the whole, "necessary evil" idea comes in, I guess. Also, while war in and of itself is evil, one can have good and noble reasons for going to war - such as the protection of liberty.

Of course women, children, the elderly, and all who are weak in some way are going to suffer the most during war. That's a consequence of living in a fallen world. That's exactly why war should never be entered into lightly, and it should be only a last resort. Plus, any time a decision to go to war is made, the "benefits" or what we hope to gain by it needs to be carefully weighed against the cost. What cost could be greater than human lives? The only thing I can think that would even approach being worth it would be the eradication of severe oppression. Then, of course... there are defensive wars. It takes two to make a war, so the decision to go to war is justified if it's because the other side is coming to invade, kill, and/or enslave you. From a Christian perspective, we should NEVER be the aggressors in a war of conquest.

[Wendygirljp]

Personally, I have no difficulty with the concept of protesting against a war. I believe that expressing one's beliefs in a civil manner to be a right for those who live in a democracy or republic.

I DO have difficulty with treating the military personnel badly, however. They are being in service, following orders from those who are higher up in the chain of command. The chain of command may include the President of the United States, in the case of the U.S., as he is the Commander in Chief. It is not the fault of the military "troops" that they are in a war. They are following orders. If they do not, they could go to prison.

Bottom line, protest the idea, not the person. This is my perspective.

[Ephinie]

Personally, I have no difficulty with the concept of protesting against a war. I believe that expressing one's beliefs in a civil manner to be a right for those who live in a democracy or republic.

I DO have difficulty with treating the military personnel badly, however. They are being in service, following orders from those who are higher up in the chain of command. The chain of command may include the President of the United States, in the case of the U.S., as he is the Commander in Chief. It is not the fault of the military "troops" that they are in a war. They are following orders. If they do not, they could go to prison.

Bottom line, protest the idea, not the person. This is my perspective. I wonder if there would be a way for people to stage a protest against a war while at the same time showing support for their troops.

[LifeMaiden]

I think that would be very difficult, because to say you're protesting war means you are protesting the very thing that makes up war...( aside from the politics)...the people who partake in the combat.

War is just very messed up, not always cut and dried as it appears to be, because in Vietnam, we believed we were 'fighting the evils of communism' and then things got really messed up. No one really cared towards the end. Technically, for example, in Afghanistan, when the Soviet Union was the aggressors, the US supported the side of the Afghan rebels, many of whom later became the Taliban. And we know that sad story.

[Wendygirljp]

My position is that the military troops were not the ones who decided to go to war. Therefore, they are not the culprit, but technically, they, too, could be seen as the victims. And yes, they are "part of the war machine", if you wish - they decided to join the military on their own. They were not threatened with prison if they did not join, as what happened during the Vietnam era with the draft.

You mentioned about Vietnam being about fighting against communism. The difficulty was there as well, given that the military were treated poorly by some, and treated kindly by others. To find out it is possible that it was not really about communism but of possible corporate interests? That sounds a bit like the violent overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

I have noticed that, when Russia was in Afghanistan, that it was Russia who was invading. When the U.S. is in Afghanistan, it was saving Afghanistan. Why would Russia have really been in that country? It isn't like the country could have supplied great amounts of natural resources. Russia was in the midst of financial ruin at that time, so it was not for "world domination". Just a question I have never really heard of a good answer on it.

These are good discussion topics, I think. Thank you, IceMaiden, for starting these topics which all can talk and share.

[Narborg]

Personnly, I think that htere are times when wars is nessasey, but that they are very rare. It is true that God lead the Isralites into war often, but theta was against evil perople who God wanted to get ride off. If they had liserned to God and repented, they would not have dead. The Bibe saysthat we will have pece one day, and we should all pray that peace will came to the parts of the world where there is war.

[Solya]

I have got a very firm dislike of war. I know that sometimes it is necessary to provide a country with a lot of change, but overall the end never totally justifies the means for me. I can't stand to feel the misery and the pain of other people which is caused by any kind of war... war is something which completely messes the whole world up and which should only be used if there are no other solutions. What outcome of it is worth the cost of thousands of lives? And also, I am reminded of one particular quote from a song I frequently listen to: "some people lost their lives before they died". I certainly think that this is true for the ones who serve their country in a war.

As some of you might have read, I've got a soulbrother who serves my country in the air force. :) He once told me that he joined in with them not only because he liked the job idea but also because he wanted to be able to help in a more lasting way than just demonstrating against things like a war. I guess he feels like he's at the root of every issue now and that he can help both his country and the people he loves in this way. That's why I never protest against the armed forces, haha, but that is why I choose to protest against the idea of a war instead.

[inkspot]

I think from a Christian perspective, there is an idea of a "just war." Six conditions must be satisfied for a war to be considered just:

* The war must be for a just cause.
* The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority.
* The intention behind the war must be good.
* All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first.
* There must be a reasonable chance of success.
* The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.

It seems cut and dried, and it even seems to give us the option of being the "aggressor" in a war, if the cause is good (I guess you could say in Iraq, maybe removing an evil dictator was a good enough cause, if you wanted to justify the war). Sadly, the just war theory doesn't make it incumbent upon us to know what to do if once we have "won" the war we set out to win, the nation where we're fighting is in shambles with new, worse forces vying for power.

I was reading the obituary of the Episcopalian Bishop of Atlanta, I believe it was, the other day, and he was a complete pacifist who felt war was always wrong, and instead of going to war, the USA should "make friends of enemies" by investing in the economic stability and social betterment of nations which dislike us.

Any thoughts on this idea?

[EveningStar]

A just war is one that relates to a nation as self defence relates to an individual.

If an innocent person was walking down a sidewalk one night and was attacked, and the result would be that one would live and one would die, the moral answer would be that the innocent person deserved to live more than the attacker.

Now extend this to nations. You can say it's one million people in Country A being attacked by one million people in Country B and consider it a war. Or you can equally consider it one million cases of somebody from Country A attacking somebody from Country B and consider it self defence.

Let's take it a step farther. A man escapes from an assylum. He has a gun. He shoots one person at random. Finds someone else and shoots them too. He approaches a third person with gun in hand. We might be tempted to say it is not self defence if the third person takes action before the gun is actually pointed at him. Chances are we won't, and we won't think that unreasonable. How about when a country does that to other countries? Such as when the National Socialist government of Germany overran small territories, then finally took Poland? Should France have waited to see if it needed to defend itself? Should England have waited?

It's not as simple as the anti-war rhetoric makes it out to be. On the other hand I graciously concede it's not as simple as the pro-war rhetoric makes it out to be.

[Queen Swanwhite]

I don't think that war is always nessescary, and attacking a country just for the land and/or people is wrong. But, I do believe that if a country is attacked, it has the right to fight back, no matter how fierce, because it is their territory and they own it.

[LifeMaiden]

What about justifying war when it comes to protecting another country's people during such great tragedies like genocide? When the US sees and knows terrible things are happening in countries like Rwanda and former Cambodia, do we have the right/or is it right to get involved and help these countries?

[inkspot]

If we did take action, like military action in Sudan, say, where former Sec of State Colin Powell did find genocide, a lot of people in the USA would be very upset because while it was terrible what was happening, it was no threat to us -- and our boys are being killed faraway in a war that's not ours.

But as ES pointed out, this was the same reasoning used to delay the onset of WW II: it was faraway and not a concern to us, or even to the major nations of Europe, really, until the threat was at their door, you know.

If we look at it from a practical standpoint: as long as we can be assured that it's happening to other people faraway and will never touch us, then no, we have no cause, or no compelling reason to take action. At least, this seems to me to be what a lot of protesters think. That it's not worth the shedding of our blood unless we are directly threatened, which by Sudan or Cambodia, we were not.

Also, I am wondering what my Bishop (see my previous post) would think: he advocated no war, ever, and instead we should "make friends of enemies" by investing in these nations which are doing the bad things, and transforming them into good nations. I wonder how this would have worked in a Sudan, say, and I get the impression the genocidal government would simply have taken our investment in them and used it to step up their genocide ...

For me, I don't know. I was on a plane on the runway not long ago when our departure was delayed while a grieving family on the next runway over received the flag-draped coffin of their soldier home from Iraq. Those of us who could see it from our side of the plane were in tears. Did the soldier's death accomplish nothing? We deposed Saddam, but Iraq is still a mess, and wouldn't that family rather have their live child than know that Iraq is no longer under the threat of a mad dictator? I don't know.

[LifeMaiden]

Well, and that's what bothers me sometimes about the US. We don't 'get involved' until war is at OUR doorstep or unless it's something that seems politically charged or profitable. Why did we get involved with Afghanistan and the Soviets, taking the side of the rebels who would one day become the Taliban? Or Vietnam? It isn't like what was happening in those respective areas was threatening us either, and yet the US got involved with complicated consequences. It seems like the US 'chooses' to get involved in certain wars and not in others, for whatever reasons. And other people always end up suffering.

" War means fighting, and fighting means killing."

General Nathan Bedford Forrest


" War is Hell."

General William Tecumseh Sherman

[inkspot]

Too true, IM. I think the politicos have to walk a tough line between being practical and being idealistic, and usually practicality wins out.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Personally, I have no difficulty with the concept of protesting against a war. I believe that expressing one's beliefs in a civil manner to be a right for those who live in a democracy or republic.

I DO have difficulty with treating the military personnel badly, however. They are being in service, following orders from those who are higher up in the chain of command. The chain of command may include the President of the United States, in the case of the U.S., as he is the Commander in Chief. It is not the fault of the military "troops" that they are in a war. They are following orders. If they do not, they could go to prison.

Bottom line, protest the idea, not the person. This is my perspective.
There's nothing civil when it comes to terrorists who feel it is necessary to blow up innocent people because they don't accept their religion. Try getting a thousand feet from them without being attacked, let alone having a civil negotiation with them.

[Aitoren]

There's nothing civil when it comes to terrorists who feel it is necessary to blow up innocent people because they don't accept their religion. Try getting a thousand feet from them without being attacked, let alone having a civil negotiation with them.

Although that makes it sound like terrorists are rabid creatures tearing people to shreds everywhere. Actually, most in the middle east are just normal people who, due to family members dying, or some sort of other trigger, out of the blue decide they don't want to live anymore (or they want to get revenge more than they want to live), and seek out some terrorist group, and wind up dead some months later. Not that I'm implying that you can have civil negotiations or whatnot like you said. It's just the reason for them acting as they do isn't that we don't follow the Islamic faith. If it were, they'd find it a bit easier, I think, going after the Indians closer by them. (which they have in the past, mind you)

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Although that makes it sound like terrorists are rabid creatures tearing people to shreds everywhere. Actually, most in the middle east are just normal people who, due to family members dying, or some sort of other trigger, out of the blue decide they don't want to live anymore (or they want to get revenge more than they want to live), and seek out some terrorist group, and wind up dead some months later. Not that I'm implying that you can have civil negotiations or whatnot like you said. It's just the reason for them acting as they do isn't that we don't follow the Islamic faith. If it were, they'd find it a bit easier, I think, going after the Indians closer by them. (which they have in the past, mind you)
No, I didn't say "those in the Middle East". I said "terrorists". That's why they're called terrorists. All of them are rabid creatures tearing people to shreds. Normal people as you referred to aren't terrorists, or they aren't what I'm referring to as terrorists.

Right. We don't follow the Islamic faith. So what should we do? Respect the extremists who do and let them wreak havoc over the world?

[Wendygirljp]

Capt.JS - You posted "There's nothing civil when it comes to terrorists who feel it is necessary to blow up innocent people because they don't accept their religion. Try getting a thousand feet from them without being attacked, let alone having a civil negotiation with them."

If you re-read my post, I was talking about civil protest. I was not talking about terrorism. Civil negotiation? Where did that come from?

You also posted later, "Right. We don't follow the Islamic faith. So what should we do? Respect the extremists who do and let them wreak havoc over the world?"

Who is "we"? If you are talking about the U.S., many people do! Your tying in Islamic faith to extremists is not only, imho, unjustified, but somewhat bigoted, as the vast majority of Muslims are NOT extremists at all. If you are saying they are, that would be like saying Christians are racial bigots and murderers because the KKK, who claims to be Christian, are so. I know they are not. I know Muslims are not terrorists. Those who claim to be terrorists are not following Islam. Islamic terms one hears on news programs are taken from extremists, not Muslims.

My suggestion - look at your words and see if maybe you need to reword to create accuracy before you push the return button.

[LifeMaiden]

No, I didn't say "those in the Middle East". I said "terrorists". That's why they're called terrorists. All of them are rabid creatures tearing people to shreds. Normal people as you referred to aren't terrorists, or they aren't what I'm referring to as terrorists.

Right. We don't follow the Islamic faith. So what should we do? Respect the extremists who do and let them wreak havoc over the world?


Terrorists of any race or religion to me are not to be respected...how can a person respect someone or a group that makes it a point to take innocent lives for their 'cause'? When the terrorists ( and they could have been ANY race, again, or any religion) attacked the World Trade Center, they attacked the USA, period, and our principles of freedom and democracy, even if our country isn't perfect.

"Normal" people are usually peace-abiding citizens. We here in this country have the freedom to protest a war, or to disagree with something our government is doing. While I may not agree with the principles behind a war or wars, I will support the men and women who die for their country, who put their lives on the line for the rest of us.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Capt.JS - You posted "There's nothing civil when it comes to terrorists who feel it is necessary to blow up innocent people because they don't accept their religion. Try getting a thousand feet from them without being attacked, let alone having a civil negotiation with them."

If you re-read my post, I was talking about civil protest. I was not talking about terrorism. Civil negotiation? Where did that come from?

You also posted later, "Right. We don't follow the Islamic faith. So what should we do? Respect the extremists who do and let them wreak havoc over the world?"

Who is "we"? If you are talking about the U.S., many people do! Your tying in Islamic faith to extremists is not only, imho, unjustified, but somewhat bigoted, as the vast majority of Muslims are NOT extremists at all. If you are saying they are, that would be like saying Christians are racial bigots and murderers because the KKK, who claims to be Christian, are so. I know they are not. I know Muslims are not terrorists. Those who claim to be terrorists are not following Islam. Islamic terms one hears on news programs are taken from extremists, not Muslims.

My suggestion - look at your words and see if maybe you need to reword to create accuracy before you push the return button.

IM, couldn't have said it better myself.

Wendygirl, wow. All right, civil negotiation. Who are we negotiating with, now? Our own government? All right, what do you propose we negotiate? No war, right? Where does that GET us? People throughout time have protested and tried to civilly negotiate with our government to end war. If I misinterpreted what you said, I'm sorry.

When I spoke of those that followed the Islamic faith, I was talking about the ones who ACTED upon it, i.e. harming others. I thought that was a given. EXTREMISTS is the term we use to talk about the terrorists. That's why I said "extremists". I did not say "the Muslim population". I'm talking about the terrorists, not the "normal people".

[Aitoren]

When I spoke of those that followed the Islamic faith, I was talking about the ones who ACTED upon it, i.e. harming others.

Ya might wanna clarify that. Sounds like following the Islamic faith fully means blowing people up... which really isn't that... well, you know, right.

If we are attacked directly, say anything from 9/11 to I dunno, rampant kidnappings and car bombs, we shouldn't just stand by and try to talk sense to terrorists if they really don't care to talk, and really aren't doing anything but kicking your... rear... around. You should, and have the right to, fight back, right? We're defending ourselves in the whole terror war, after all, aren't we? We just didn't suddenly decide that these guys were muslim and that was bad and that they might blow us up. They kind of did worse than that. And so we need to respond accordingly.

Edit: Random quote I saw a second ago that just made me laugh:
You can get more with a kind word and a gun, than you can with just a kind word.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Ya might wanna clarify that. Sounds like following the Islamic faith fully means blowing people up... which really isn't that... well, you know, right.

If we are attacked directly, say anything from 9/11 to I dunno, rampant kidnappings and car bombs, we shouldn't just stand by and try to talk sense to terrorists if they really don't care to talk, and really aren't doing anything but kicking your... rear... around. You should, and have the right to, fight back, right? We're defending ourselves in the whole terror war, after all, aren't we? We just didn't suddenly decide that these guys were muslim and that was bad and that they might blow us up. They kind of did worse than that. And so we need to respond accordingly.

Edit: Random quote I saw a second ago that just made me laugh:
You can get more with a kind word and a gun, than you can with just a kind word.
How many times do I need to clarify myself?? I'm talking about the people who do terrible things in its name, not saying that all people who follow it are bad.

[Aitoren]

How many times do I need to clarify myself?? I'm talking about the people who do terrible things in its name, not saying that all people who follow it are bad.

Sheesh, don't get your pants tied up! I was just saying! Besides, the rest of that quote was agreeing with you. Just lighten up! ;)

[JackD]

Everybody's always attacking Muslims for being terrorists. What'd they do? Take a look at the Irish! Are they Muslim? No. Do they bomb places and are many terrorists? In NI, yes. Terrorists are trying to get their deepest beliefs across. They resort to violence because they won't be heard by other means. And maybe, just maybe, they're right. If they have no other way of getting their point across, they're forced into it, and frankly, I agree. That's what America gets for being so self centered and selfish. I don't know what you were all expecting with foreign policies that are so greedy. You don't see us here in France doing anything like invading countries with false reasons. If the terrorists attack, fine, you have a right to attack back. Just maybe you should think next time and not provoke them in the first place. Although now I think we may have drifted from the idea of this thread...

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Sheesh, don't get your pants tied up! I was just saying! Besides, the rest of that quote was agreeing with you. Just lighten up! ;)
GAH!!! GIMME THAT GUN OF YOURS!!! Just kidding.

[Adanedhel]

Everybody's always attacking Muslims for being terrorists. What'd they do? Take a look at the Irish! Are they Muslim? No. Do they bomb places and are many terrorists? In NI, yes. Terrorists are trying to get their deepest beliefs across. They resort to violence because they won't be heard by other means. And maybe, just maybe, they're right. If they have no other way of getting their point across, they're forced into it, and frankly, I agree. That's what America gets for being so self centered and selfish. I don't know what you were all expecting with foreign policies that are so greedy. You don't see us here in France doing anything like invading countries with false reasons. If the terrorists attack, fine, you have a right to attack back. Just maybe you should think next time and not provoke them in the first place. Although now I think we may have drifted from the idea of this thread...

Amen to that Bro... I love people with other perspectives that are willing to share them. You say you are from France. I actually respect France, and I am American. Went there this summer. Beautiful country you have. Well, so I have to agree with you on the selfish, double standard views the US foreign policy has. I would, however, disagree with you that the US is involved with that kind of policy making alone. Believe it or not all countries have thier own selfish stints of foreign policy. Take for instance France. THey have sold weapons technology for money to many nations in which "Terrorism" thrives today (I have to check sources but I believe it was North Korea and Iran but many years ago). As individual nations I think we need to come to the conclusion that each nation is soverign, each nation's peoples are human, and terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. First we must eliminate our ignorance before we can attempt any positive solutions.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Everybody's always attacking Muslims for being terrorists. What'd they do? Take a look at the Irish! Are they Muslim? No. Do they bomb places and are many terrorists? In NI, yes. Terrorists are trying to get their deepest beliefs across. They resort to violence because they won't be heard by other means. And maybe, just maybe, they're right. If they have no other way of getting their point across, they're forced into it, and frankly, I agree. That's what America gets for being so self centered and selfish. I don't know what you were all expecting with foreign policies that are so greedy. You don't see us here in France doing anything like invading countries with false reasons. If the terrorists attack, fine, you have a right to attack back. Just maybe you should think next time and not provoke them in the first place. Although now I think we may have drifted from the idea of this thread...
Yeah, it is cool that you let loose your opinion like that. Most people sugar coat what they want to say so others don't get offended and start attacking. But I have to say that I disagree with the fact that many people find Muslims to be terrorists. I'm not saying that's not true, but I think they have a right to. A great deal of terrorists we hear about come from that region in the world, because where they live, religions like Islam thrive. There are terrorists all over the world, but a thick, steady stream come from that region. There's no inconsistency, and so people are constantly drawn into thinking about them as terrorists.

[Wendygirljp]

JS,

You posted, "IM, couldn't have said it better myself.

Wendygirl, wow. All right, civil negotiation. Who are we negotiating with, now? Our own government? "

You were the one to use the term "negotiation" in the first place. I was addressing the comments you made. I made no initial comment about civil protest equates to negotiation. If I meant negotiation, I would have said that, not protest.

It appears as if you are reading into many people's posts, as well as making assumptions, i.e., "A great deal of terrorists we hear about come from that region in the world, because where they live, religions like Islam thrive." It appears to me that you are saying, basically, that because terrorism, to you, seems to come from the Middle East, it is THAT reason why Islam thrives. Is this what you are saying?

[Aravis Kenobi]

I, like a lot of other people, don't particularly enjoy war, but sometimes, it's necessary. If we didn't stand up for ourselves, what would happen to our country? We would be destroyed because we don't want to make anyone angry. I don't agree with killing innocent civilians, but unfortunately, that sometimes happens accidentally, not on purpose. I support our military fully, but I don't really support the idea of war. I think it was either Wendygirljp or IceMaiden who said, "Protest the idea, not the person" Good idea. Let's protest the idea, not the person. I also don't think that we should negotiate with terorists (sp?). Do we have any guarantee that the terrorists will fulfill their end of the bargain if we negotiate?

[The Half-Blood Prince]

JS,

You posted, "IM, couldn't have said it better myself.

Wendygirl, wow. All right, civil negotiation. Who are we negotiating with, now? Our own government? "

You were the one to use the term "negotiation" in the first place. I was addressing the comments you made. I made no initial comment about civil protest equates to negotiation. If I meant negotiation, I would have said that, not protest.

It appears as if you are reading into many people's posts, as well as making assumptions, i.e., "A great deal of terrorists we hear about come from that region in the world, because where they live, religions like Islam thrive." It appears to me that you are saying, basically, that because terrorism, to you, seems to come from the Middle East, it is THAT reason why Islam thrives. Is this what you are saying?
WHAT??? What are you talking about?? No way am I saying that! I'm saying that people BECAUSE Islam is so widely practiced in that area, many terrorists are produced from it! It seems like you're reading my posts, trying to find something wrong with them so you can attack me. In the past you seem to enjoy singling other users out. Reading into other people's posts? More like responding and keeping the discussion going! You act like I just personally insulted you for attempting to explain why people think of Muslims when they think of terrorists. Is that such a ridiculous thing to do?

[Aravis Kenobi]

There's a difference between Islam and terrorism. We discussed this in my cults/world religions class. Islam is what they believe and stuff (I don't want to go into detail). Taliban, on the other hand, is where most terrorists come from. the Taliban is a more extreme, more devoted form of Islam. If Wendygirl finds something wrong with my posts, I won't respond in anger.

[Wendygirljp]

Aravis - you are quite accurate in what you were taught in your class. Extremism, in essence, is not the religion, and terrorism does not come from the religion itself, but from those who are manipulating others for their own personal agenda, imho. I would not know if "devoted" would be a good word - maybe "extreme" or "skewed"? Hard to say on that one. Basically, however, yes, you have the right idea.

JS - no, I am not looking for "fault" in your posts. Your verbiage seems to be lacking a bit of "logic flow", however. For example,

"I'm saying that people BECAUSE Islam is so widely practiced in that area, many terrorists are produced from it!"

Would that be the same as saying, because Christianity is so widely practiced in the U.S., many KKK members are produced from it."? Does Christianity really teach bigotry? Not the last I checked.

That is the difficulty with the lack of understanding. If one is, in these "delicate" issues, even the slightest defensive, it can look like an attack. I have nothing personal against you in the least. And no, I am not feeling attacked, myself, whether you are intending so or not. Because of this perspective, I could not feel "insulted" at all.

When you attend university, you might want to consider a critical thinking class to assist you in seeing things from multiple perspectives. It can be quite helpful in negotiation, discussion and even debate.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Aravis - you are quite accurate in what you were taught in your class. Extremism, in essence, is not the religion, and terrorism does not come from the religion itself, but from those who are manipulating others for their own personal agenda, imho. I would not know if "devoted" would be a good word - maybe "extreme" or "skewed"? Hard to say on that one. Basically, however, yes, you have the right idea.

JS - no, I am not looking for "fault" in your posts. Your verbiage seems to be lacking a bit of "logic flow", however. For example,

"I'm saying that people BECAUSE Islam is so widely practiced in that area, many terrorists are produced from it!"

Would that be the same as saying, because Christianity is so widely practiced in the U.S., many KKK members are produced from it."? Does Christianity really teach bigotry? Not the last I checked.

That is the difficulty with the lack of understanding. If one is, in these "delicate" issues, even the slightest defensive, it can look like an attack. I have nothing personal against you in the least. And no, I am not feeling attacked, myself, whether you are intending so or not. Because of this perspective, I could not feel "insulted" at all.

When you attend university, you might want to consider a critical thinking class to assist you in seeing things from multiple perspectives. It can be quite helpful in negotiation, discussion and even debate.
What are you TALKING about??? Christianity, the KKK? Can anybody explain this for me? PLEASE. Christianity, the last time I checked, did not teach to murder and lynch colored people, so how would they be produced from it under its influence? Just in case you didn't know this, Islam, interpreted by the Muslim extremists, at least, teaches that the infidels of the world, or people who don't believe what they believe, either should be converted or DIE. THE PEOPLE WHO DO THESE THINGS IN THE NAME OF ALLAH ARE TERRORISTS. They are produced from this religion. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to hear how.

Come on, don't get into the whole "critical thinking class" thing cause you can't support your own arguments, and when you know others are right, you say things that are blatantly false to defend yourself, or say that you already said what they said in a different way. People don't respect other people if they can't admit that what they've said is incorrect, or if they've interpreted someone else's post WRONGLY.

[Apple_Of_Life29]

CJS...and everyone else actually, i have a question for you. what exactly, in your own words, defines a terrorist? im curious.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

CJS...and everyone else actually, i have a question for you. what exactly, in your own words, defines a terrorist? im curious.
To me, a terrorist is an extremist who kills and destroys things in the name of their religion.

[echoscot]

What are you TALKING about??? Christianity, the KKK? Can anybody explain this for me? PLEASE. Christianity, the last time I checked, did not teach to murder and lynch colored people, so how would they be produced from it under its influence? Just in case you didn't know this, Islam, interpreted by the Muslim extremists, at least, teaches that the infidels of the world, or people who don't believe what they believe, either should be converted or DIE. THE PEOPLE WHO DO THESE THINGS IN THE NAME OF ALLAH ARE TERRORISTS. They are produced from this religion. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to hear how.

Come on, don't get into the whole "critical thinking class" thing cause you can't support your own arguments, and when you know others are right, you say things that are blatantly false to defend yourself, or say that you already said what they said in a different way. People don't respect other people if they can't admit that what they've said is incorrect, or if they've interpreted someone else's post WRONGLY.


Unfortunately, I have to admit, that as a Christian, the history of how Christianity has been manipulated is very accurate and Wendygirl was very astute in his observations. The KKK was started under supposed "Christian" principle. We could open a whole new thread about the Scriptures they used, or I would say misused, to not just alienate black people but declare white supremacy. And if you read the scriptures, the Bible does appear to advocate capital punishment and "wiping out the pagan nations". As a Christian, I have a better understanding out of a relationship with Christ what the intent of those passages are, but Wendygirl was correct that it has been used to advocate many horrible things. Therefore it is difficult to make statements that more terrorists come from Islam because there are more people in Islam in the Middle East. I believe he, WG, was giving you some pretty darn good advice about debate and critical thinking skills. We all could use some of those skills, even the most well trained of us sometimes has lapses of emotionalism, as opposed to objectivism.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Unfortunately, I have to admit, that as a Christian, the history of how Christianity has been manipulated is very accurate and Wendygirl was very astute in his observations. The KKK was started under supposed "Christian" principle. We could open a whole new thread about the Scriptures they used, or I would say misused, to not just alienate black people but declare white supremacy. And if you read the scriptures, the Bible does appear to advocate capital punishment and "wiping out the pagan nations". As a Christian, I have a better understanding out of a relationship with Christ what the intent of those passages are, but Wendygirl was correct that it has been used to advocate many horrible things. Therefore it is difficult to make statements that more terrorists come from Islam because there are more people in Islam in the Middle East. I believe he, WG, was giving you some pretty darn good advice about debate and critical thinking skills. We all could use some of those skills, even the most well trained of us sometimes has lapses of emotionalism, as opposed to objectivism.
Ah, suppose you're right. But I still can't agree with what WGJP said, because, as simple as it sounds, I don't agree with it. I was building on the idea that people focus on terrorists coming from that part of the world because that's all we hear about...one Muslim attack after the other.

As you said, the Scriptures were interpreted by Christians as a warrant against colored people. But in my opinion, that does not change anything. That does not change the fact that many terrorists are Muslims because they inerpreted their own Scriptures to the extreme. Hence extremists.

[Apple_Of_Life29]

To me, a terrorist is an extremist who kills and destroys things in the name of their religion.

so....it has to be in the name of their religion? but the oklahoma bombing wasnt done in the name of any religion im pretty sure, but he was considered a terrorist all the same...i think a terrorist doesnt do it in the nme of their religion, but what they believe(which includes religion.)

[The Half-Blood Prince]

so....it has to be in the name of their religion? but the oklahoma bombing wasnt done in the name of any religion im pretty sure, but he was considered a terrorist all the same...i think a terrorist doesnt do it in the nme of their religion, but what they believe(which includes religion.)
Right, but those aren't the type of people we're talking about. I see what you mean, but when people discuss terrorists, they almost always mean extremists who cause terror in the name of their religion.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Hey guys, no need to ruin everyone's party about this, but do you think that we could answer each other in nicer ways? I'm reading some of the posts, (though this isn't my thread) and frankly, I'm disappointed about how many people are jumping all over each other (I've done my share, but I'm trying to fix that) In fact, I'm planning on sending a pm to a member for something I've done in my thread, "If you're religious, are you a born-again Christian?" What if a non-Christian saw how we jump on each other, calling ourselves Christians. What would that do to their decision to follow Christ? I've had my say, now, continue with the discussion.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Hey guys, no need to ruin everyone's party about this, but do you think that we could answer each other in nicer ways? I'm reading some of the posts, (though this isn't my thread) and frankly, I'm disappointed about how many people are jumping all over each other (I've done my share, but I'm trying to fix that) In fact, I'm planning on sending a pm to a member for something I've done in my thread, "If you're religious, are you a born-again Christian?" What if a non-Christian saw how we jump on each other, calling ourselves Christians. What would that do to their decision to follow Christ? I've had my say, now, continue with the discussion.
No, you lightened the party. :D Yeah, this thread is leaning to a nastier side. I try to contain myself, but at some things, it's nearly impossible.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I know how you feel. I sometimes lose my temper with people, so it makes it hard to post nice things. If something makes you steamed, log off or get off, take a walk outside or something to cool you off. Then come back, think through your reply, or don't reply at all.

[Wendygirljp]

JS -

"Just in case you didn't know this, Islam, interpreted by the Muslim extremists, at least, teaches that the infidels of the world, or people who don't believe what they believe, either should be converted or DIE. THE PEOPLE WHO DO THESE THINGS IN THE NAME OF ALLAH ARE TERRORISTS. They are produced from this religion."

You said the magic word - extremists - and any extremists, whether they be religious extremists, like the KKK or Bin Laden's group, they are not following their religious teachings as they were taught, originally.

From Muslim teachings, the infidel is not one who just believes differently, but historically (Western Ways to the Center, Carmody & Carmody), the "infidel" was the invader, who would come into the Muslim's land and home, rape, pillage and murder. To "kill the infidel" means to defend yourself, NOT to attack those who are Christian and Jewish, as so many people believe - except by extremists.

Extremists have also twisted the meaning of "jihad" as well. It does not define itself as a war on others, as is taught in the news media. That is an extremist definition, not a Muslim one. It means "inner struggle" or "lesson" - a personal issue.

Please do not say I can't back up my words - I have sources "coming out my ears", to use the popular idiom. Most of my sources are approved for accredited programs in universrity level classes on the subject of Comparative World Religions.

Personally, I think, due to maybe a bit of defensiveness, you were misinterpreting what I was saying.

To summarize - extremism is not mainstream religion, no matter what religious belief it may be.

I hope this helps.

[LifeMaiden]

I know how you feel. I sometimes lose my temper with people, so it makes it hard to post nice things. If something makes you steamed, log off or get off, take a walk outside or something to cool you off. Then come back, think through your reply, or don't reply at all.

Indeed I agree because I am very tempermental. There have been times when I made no bother to stop my angry words on a post I was typing, but went back to re edit, and re edit it again. More smarter would have been just to get up and cool off and think more clearly to post something less angry, but no less passionate.


One of the discussions here seemed to turn sort of crazy, because I understand the frustrations of not being to get through to the other person...you feel you're banging your head against the wall, and then the argument has no purpose...it is no longer a debate or bantering of ideas and opinions back and forth, but becomes a I AM RIGHT and YOU ARE WRONG and that's that!!

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Right on all accounts, Wendygirljp, but I was explaining what terrorists (in the case of our discussion) are, in this case people who take their religion to the extreme, word for word. The fact that this occurred in Christianity makes no difference. It only supports the fact that this has repeatedly occurred throughout history. While infidel means "invaders" to the Muslims who practice it "correctly", I guess you could say, that does not change the fact that it means "peoples who practice different religions and hence should be killed" to the extremists/terrorists.

[Wendygirljp]

JS - I guess I do not understand what you are attempting to say, then, and how it relates to the subject at hand.

Thank you for attempting to clarify your point to me.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

JS - I guess I do not understand what you are attempting to say, then, and how it relates to the subject at hand.

Thank you for attempting to clarify your point to me.
Let me clear this up. I am not saying that I think Islam is a terrible religion, or anything of that nature. For these past few posts, I have been trying to explain WHY so many terrorists are produced from the Islam religion. Of course, in any religion, if the Scriptures are taken in a way they were not intended to be taken (word for word, to the extreme) there will be extremists. But this is not, and never was, what I was arguing about. I was simply answering a user's question as to why I think many people think almost all terrorists are Muslim. I'm not going to get into that again, because I've explained my views a whole lot of times. Can you understand what I'm saying now? This whole thing kind of got confused as the thread progressed. I think we agree with each other a little more than we think, cause I'm not disagreeing with you. It just wasn't what I was arguing against. Everything you've said is truthful.

[Queen Swanwhite]

What about justifying war when it comes to protecting another country's people during such great tragedies like genocide? When the US sees and knows terrible things are happening in countries like Rwanda and former Cambodia, do we have the right/or is it right to get involved and help these countries?

Hmm, but I said if someone is attacking their own countries. Fair point though. America is stronger and richer than rwanda etc. so they would have more powerful weapons. Perhaps they should help.

Fair point BTW. :)

[General Oreius]

I believe that war is an evil and terrible thing, but there are times when it is necessary. Here's the examples I can think of: You've probably already heard this before, but many times God called Israel to war to destroy evil. Jesus will be coming back as a warrior in order to defeat Satan and bring peace to the world. The Civil War was probably the only way the issue of slavery and racism could have begun to have been addressed. World War II ended the possible world domination by three evil empires. The Revolutionary War freed the American Colonies from the injustice and somewhat tyrranical rule of Great Britain (It didn't help that King George III was insane), and started the U.S.

And I do believe that sometimes America does tend to stick there noses into other countries business, but that is more the fault of the leaders (Who ARE human after all). I also believe that protest against a war is guranteed by free speech, but it does tend to get disrespectful of the soldiers who risk their lives for us. And in the case of parents like Cindy Sheehan (Not to be disrespectful), it was their son(s) or daughter(s) who made the decision to join the military and therefore follow the orders of the President. Also, yelling at a joint session of Congress that the Iraqis want the U.S. to get out of Iraq when you probably haven't even been there is a little hypocritical and stupid in my opinion.

P.S.
I hope I didn't stray TOO far from the current discussion. I just wanted to express my views.

[LifeMaiden]

That was very intelligently stated, General O. Leaders make mistakes all the time for they are only human, and it depends on what interests they have at stake. War is also, unfortunately, a profitable business for the military and arms dealers.


I believe as Americans we should all unite against terrorism of ANY kind, from ANY race or religion or creed. That includes the type of terrorism, which was harder to detect, from fanatics like Timothy Mc Veigh. The Muslim Fundamentalists give other peace-abiding Muslims a bad name in my opinion, because most people I know here who follow the Islam faith are strongly against terrorism.

[Adanedhel]

That was very intelligently stated, General O. Leaders make mistakes all the time for they are only human, and it depends on what interests they have at stake. War is also, unfortunately, a profitable business for the military and arms dealers.


I believe as Americans we should all unite against terrorism of ANY kind, from ANY race or religion or creed. That includes the type of terrorism, which was harder to detect, from fanatics like Timothy Mc Veigh. The Muslim Fundamentalists give other peace-abiding Muslims a bad name in my opinion, because most people I know here who follow the Islam faith are strongly against terrorism.

Then we should also protect our homeland from oursleves. We must not forget that some call us terrorists. This nation aught to get rid of our own faults before looking to solve others. Like scripture says, "Don't try to remove the speck in your brothers eye until you have removed the plank in your own"(not exact words).

[onlymystory]

I've been reading this thread a little and I just wanted to put my two cents in on war in general. As a college student, I've sat through several lectures in which my teachers have stated that the general belief is the next world war will happen in the next 20 years. I personally give it about 10 years at the max. Albert Einstein was quoted as having said that he knew not with what weapons World War III would be fought with but World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones. I hear a lot of people saying that another war might wipe the majority of the planet out but that we'd be rebuilding and strong again very soon. I have to say I hope this next war knocks the entire world back to the Middle Ages. I certainly recognize that there are times when war is unavoidable but I think our modern society has grown immune to its effects. We sit at home and watch on tv and think well it just won't touch us.
A favorite author of mine created a species called Stormwings. The creatures feed on human flesh that has been killed in battle. They fly in flocks following war parties. In one scene, a girl is told that Stormwings and other immortal creatures (unicorns, taurus, etc) are created by humans dreaming of them. She asks who could possibly dream of a Stormwing, a creature who can't even be stood near because they reek of death and decay. The girl is told that a young woman was walking by a field in which a battle had been fought. The field was littered with bodies and made the woman sick, yet the remains of the armies had already moved on to fight someone else. She wanted a creature that would remind humans that war is a terrible thing and always will be.
I think our society needs something like that. I personally hope we are tossed back into the Middle Ages because I think we need to learn some valuable lessons. I'm not saying life was great back when we didn't have the medicines or knowledge that we do now. But people recognized that war is a devasting thing and not something to be taken lightly.
I suppose my overall stance is that I despise war with all my heart, however I realize it is occasionally necessary. But I feel it should be the last possible resort and I would rather war not be fought at all. I read a lot of these posts and see how we theorize about the benefits of war on terrorism and war in general. I wish I could give more people a taste of the effects of war. I watched as one of my best friends was carried off the plane in a coffin. His brother was given leave to come home for the funeral. His plane was to come in the next day. We found out three days later that he had been shot. He is now paralyzed from the waist down. I've seen too many of my friends go off to war thinking it was some great lark and the US would kick butt and come home. Now I watch 22 year olds walk around haunted by the things they've seen. That is, the friends who have made it home. This last spring I went to Arlington with my family to see my cousin buried. I hate that place with a passion. There is no glory in those graves. It is not a place to give one a warm feeling about patriotism. It is a place that chills your very bones and makes one wonder if the dead are going to appear and demand to know if their deaths meant something. War is nothing to be praised or demanded as worthy.
There are a couple quotes that I wanted to post up here as my final thoughts.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war.
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi

[Natasia_Vae]

To my mind, to kill in war is not a whit better than to commit ordinary murder.
-Albert Einstein

War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.
-Thomas Mann

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
-Mahatma Gandhi

One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one.
-Agatha Christie

He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
-Albert Einstein

[The Half-Blood Prince]

To my mind, to kill in war is not a whit better than to commit ordinary murder.
-Albert Einstein

War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.
-Thomas Mann

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
-Mahatma Gandhi

One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one.
-Agatha Christie

He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
-Albert Einstein
All those quotes you mentioned are insightful, but they all seem to be avoiding one crucial thing: war is sometimes an only and necessary option to keep a country safe. I'm talking about defense. There's no way a country can sit and allow themselves to be attacked by another. It's just not right. If the people of the country care enough for its well-being, they will fight to defend it no matter what. And in that case, those who fight for it are not big-headed and ignoble. If a country were to wage war against others for childish, unnecessary reasons, then those quotes nail the target. But you must take other aspects into consideration, not label it as one.

[Wendygirljp]

JS-

Please name a few realistic examples where war would be justified, then.

Yes, if all countries were ready for "pure defense", nobody would be on the offensive. Since the late 1940s, what countries have actually attacked your country?

Are you familiar with the art of Aikido? No, not the Steven Segall cinema act, but the real thing? What if all countries worked within the framework of the philosophy of Aikido? Very powerful stuff, love can be.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

France was justified in defending itself against the German invasion in 1940. Britain was justified not only in defending itself against the Luftwaffe and the threat of amphibious invasion. The Allies were justified enough in defending themselves against aggression as to justify invading mainland Europe and driving all the way to the heart of Germany to unseat the Nazi government. The U.S. was justified in island-hopping across the Pacific to remove the threat of Imperial Japan, and the nations they'd enslaved, such as the Philippines, were justified in fighting to throw off the Japanese yoke.

As Eowyn said so well, those who do not wield swords can still die on them.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Good analogy, POTW. If we didn't take up arms for ourselves, we would all be dead (in a sense) To sit back and do nothing and to not condemn those hurting us, we must be insane. Thankfully, we're (acutally the president is) taking steps to protect us and our freedoms and rights.

[Bushy]

JS-

Please name a few realistic examples where war would be justified, then.

Yes, if all countries were ready for "pure defense", nobody would be on the offensive. Since the late 1940s, what countries have actually attacked your country?

Are you familiar with the art of Aikido? No, not the Steven Segall cinema act, but the real thing? What if all countries worked within the framework of the philosophy of Aikido? Very powerful stuff, love can be.


I'm going to attempt to not sound too harsh here, but sometimes when people are so clueless I feel the need to pound reality into their thick skulls. First of all, there would be no wars if there was no reason. Correct? Now, there will always be countries that will be offensive because this is a world where human beings reign, and to make sure that you know, there will always be countries out there that will be offensive during war or may even begin one. Now, the thing you said that really gets me is "if all countries were ready for "pure defense", nobody would be on the offensive". THINK ABOUT THAT. The United States of America or any country for that matter cannot help if another is offensive. There will always be offensive countries in war for frivolous reasons, it can't be helped, ok? Now you're saying the world should follow this Aikido guy so we'll all be in peace. Wow. Well, everyone including me would be more than happy if the world reigned in peace, but it can't happen. As long as there are human beings on this Earth there will be conflict. I cannot believe this. So what you are saying is that during Pearl Harbor we should have let them do the damage and kill our men and women and let them barrage us with missiles? Every country during war that is attacked is forced to offense to fend of the enemy. Sitting ducks don't survive in this world. Do you understand that concept? As I said, there will always be evil people in the world that will betray peace and destroy entire nations if necessary. But in those times not going to war is out of the question. War is necessary under certain circumstances. Not all war is bad out of defense. If we did nothing after Pearl Harbor, would the people of America be patriotic to their country? There would be zero morale. I don't know about other countries, but the United States of America takes pride in its military. They save entire countries from war, they provide welfare for those that are rebuilding, even enemies. But, nonetheless, America is looked as a bad country. For no reason except jealousy and hatred of its success and its freedom and its pride. In a recent poll, America has provided more money to the world to help sustain itself and rebuild than all the countries in the world have combined. Peace would definitely be nice. But let's think realistically. I think I've made my point.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

I'm going to attempt to not sound too harsh here, but sometimes when people are so clueless I feel the need to pound reality into their thick skulls. First of all, there would be no wars if there was no reason. Correct? Now, there will always be countries that will be offensive because this is a world where human beings reign, and to make sure that you know, there will always be countries out there that will be offensive during war or may even begin one. Now, the thing you said that really gets me is "if all countries were ready for "pure defense", nobody would be on the offensive". THINK ABOUT THAT. The United States of America or any country for that matter cannot help if another is offensive. There will always be offensive countries in war for frivolous reasons, it can't be helped, ok? Now you're saying the world should follow this Aikido guy so we'll all be in peace. Wow. Well, everyone including me would be more than happy if the world reigned in peace, but it can't happen. As long as there are human beings on this Earth there will be conflict. I cannot believe this. So what you are saying is that during Pearl Harbor we should have let them do the damage and kill our men and women and let them barrage us with missiles? Every country during war that is attacked is forced to offense to fend of the enemy. Sitting ducks don't survive in this world. Do you understand that concept? As I said, there will always be evil people in the world that will betray peace and destroy entire nations if necessary. But in those times not going to war is out of the question. War is necessary under certain circumstances. Not all war is bad out of defense. If we did nothing after Pearl Harbor, would the people of America be patriotic to their country? There would be zero morale. I don't know about other countries, but the United States of America takes pride in its military. They save entire countries from war, they provide welfare for those that are rebuilding, even enemies. But, nonetheless, America is looked as a bad country. For no reason except jealousy and hatred of its success and its freedom and its pride. In a recent poll, America has provided more money to the world to help sustain itself and rebuild than all the countries in the world have combined. Peace would definitely be nice. But let's think realistically. I think I've made my point.
Wow, nicely put, Bushy. Don't think I have much more to add on to that.

[General Oreius]

You made an excellent point Bushy, and if it's okay I'd like to try to add to it.

In correlation with your Pearl Harbor point, there is also 9/11. If we didn't start cracking down on SOME of the terrorist cells we most likely would have been attacked again. And even then we were attacked agian with the whole anthrax thing. And unfortunately other countries don't like us probably because they are either: A. Jealous of our wealth and prosperity, B. Hate the idea of a free nation, C. Are fanatical terrorists who want the entire world under one religion (Not just necessarily Islam), or D. Some other choice I missed. It's your choice if there is one.

If you followed the whole thing that's been going on in Israel lately, you probably heard that America had started sending aid when a few days to a week later the UN started sending aid. Hmmmmm...

In closing I do have two quotes that I think describe war and describe the need to be prepared for war while maintaining peace. You've probably already heard them.

"War is h-e-double hockey stick."-General William Sherman
"Speak softly, and carry a big stick."-Teddy Roosevelt

[Ephinie]

I'm sorry that Arlington is such a bad place for you, onlymystory. Whenever I go there, I always feel this immense peace settle down on me. I feel the same way at places like Gettysburg and any other battlefields that I have visted. It has always been the strongest at Gettysburg, though.

[Wendygirljp]

POTW - The cases of France defending itself against Germany and some others, as you stated, are just that - "defending" - I guess the word "aggression" should have been used. When should one be aggressive toward another country?

[Wendygirljp]

Bushy,

"So what you are saying is that during Pearl Harbor we should have let them do the damage and kill our men and women and let them barrage us with missiles?"

Would not taking action against the Imperial Navy in such an act be one of defense? Missiles were not even used in Pearl Harbor, by the way. And, as much as I disagree with the actions by a few manipulative people of the military to convince the Emperor to go along with such a strange act, I can understand the frustration which may have pushed someone over the edge to attack the U.S. (Note I say "understand", not "condone".)

"If we did nothing after Pearl Harbor, would the people of America be patriotic to their country? There would be zero morale."

Beside defending itself from further attack? I do not think that one's morale would have been lowered, except false morale, called pride built from hatred.

Are you saying Sweden, for example, is not with morale? They are neutral and seem to be doing quite well.

"America is looked as a bad country. For no reason except jealousy and hatred of its success and its freedom and its pride."

Have you talked to those who dislike the U.S.? Have you asked them why they dislike America? It is not out of jealousy OR hatred of its success and freedom. Like the Hawaiians, who were taken over violently by the U.S.; they are not jealous or full of hatred from success, but because they invaded an area which was not theirs in the first place. Small wonder why there is a slow-moving but steady movement to secede from the U.S. to regain its sovereign state.

I agree that there are going to be the "maniacs" who will get militaries to go out and create war for their own personal goals. Yes, all countries must have a form of self defense. I just disagree with the concept of saying that the U.S. or ANY other country has the right to call its own "jihad" (extremist term, I know) against others without a reason more than to be the "world's policeman".

[onlymystory]

I agree with Wendygirljp in her question but I'll broaden it to include the others who have been defending war.
As I stated, I may hate war but I recognize it as a necessary evil. Note however that I say it is a necessary evil. War will never be a necessary good. I fully support those who defended themselves against Germany. Those people are to be commended for protecting their beliefs and their families. But what about the aggressors? I suppose my problem is that in every war ever fought, either both countries were equally at fault or one country was the agressor. And I personally am hard pressed to remember an aggressor who was viewed favorably. So what does that tell us about the US as a current aggressor?


Oh, and thanks Ephinie. I used to feel peaceful and have an overwhelming sense of pride when I'd visit those old cemeteries. That was before I started losing my friends and family. We have a group of us that used to get together every Christmas to catch up. We've canceled it this year. As of a month ago, we'd be down to three of us. The other five are gone. When I walk through the old war cemeteries there is still a great sense of pride in the sacrifice those men made. But the peace and the glory is gone. Something about looking at a cold white face in khaki that loses it. I guess when people say war can be justified, I want to know if they spoke to the mothers whose sons are buried under white crosses at Normandy, or to the widows whose husbands lie beneath jungles of Vietnam, or to the children who never knew their fathers. Because I have a hard time imagining those people telling you they support the idea of war.

[lions mane]

well, i havent read all the rest of the discussion cause its late here and i have a dmv test tomorrw! :eek: (wish me luck yall)

but i believe in war as long as it is necessary. the wars in the world right now i feel are totally unecessary. first of all america should not be in iraq. i dont care what anyone says, bush attacked them cause he had th power! :mad: what kind of world leader is that? seriously?!

and the war in the middle-east is so dumb! i swear all you hear now a days on the news is about the middle-east being at war with each other. now, i know this might be a little harsh and extreme but i couldnt care less if they all just blew each other off the map! im just so tire of all the unecessary fighting in the world!

[Elendil]

I guess you haven't lost any family or close friends to terriousim Gabe. :(

[lions mane]

no, but i dont remember iraq ever attacking us, i dont even remember them threatening us like the bush administration said............ if you ask me its a load of bull! :mad:

[General Oreius]

President Bush happened to mention this morning in a press conference I caught that he believes that Saddam Hussein was not directly involved with 9/11. He did say, however, that the conditions under Saddam might have caused some to become terrorists. He also stressed that we need to think about what it could be like now if Saddam was still in power, and in my opinion he's right. I don't doubt for a second that Saddam would have hesitated at the chance to attack Israel when they were spread out against Hamas and Hezbollah. Need I remind everyone that he fired Scuds at Israel during the first Persian Gulf War?

And then with this whole thing in Israel and Lebanon (Notice I did NOT mention Palestine). The Arabs have never accepted Israel's presence in the Middle East, and I doubt they will even after their armies are annihilated along with Russia's and possibly Germany's. (No offense to anyone from any of those countries, including the Middle East) It does sound like Left Behind, but I believe it's going to happen very soon.

[inkspot]

Basically this has come to a question of whether any nation is ever justified in being the aggressor in war -- in throwing the first punch, as it were. I don't have an answer, but I have a specific issue we can discuss which won't involve much finger-pointing. It is the history and nation of Sudan.

The civil war which is (hopefully) just ending there began in the 1980's when the northern (mainly Arabic/Muslim) government imposed Islamic Sharia law on the entire nation, including the Christian/animist mainly African south.

Were the African Christians and animists justified in taking up arms against this decree? They were more or less going to be forced to convert to Islam, because the Sharia law would rule their lives -- and infidels tried by Sharia law are in for trouble.

Once the rebel groups among the southern Sudanese had proclaimed civil war, was the northern government justified in the genocide they unleashed on the south? From 1983 and the start of hostilities until 2002 and the "beginning of the end" of the war, over 2 million black, Christian and animist African Sudanese were killed -- and many were non-combatants, women and children.

This was obviously ethnic/religious genocide. Would the US, or any other nation, have been justified in stepping in to STOP the northern government from slaughtering nearly 6% of Sudan's population over 20 years of warfare?

Sudan had done nothing to us ... but look what the Sudanese government was doing to its own people. Would our intervention have been justified?

[waterhogboy]

I think war's a tricky old thing. There are obviously cases of just wars which are seen in the Bible as have been mentioned. But I think war is wrong unless ordained by God. And I dont think we have the authority these days to say God is 'supporting' our war.

In the OT, the Israelites used war to control their Holy Land. The land promised to them by God, so God could allow war as they had to get rid of the people who were occupying the land.

However, Gods new commandment is to 'make disciples of all nations'. It is very uncommon that war can be a beneficial way of doing this. Perhaps in some extreme cases, for example, to remove an evil leader who is causing his peolpe to suffer. By going to war and relieving the suffering in the name of God some may come to Christ, but at the same time those against war will take offence at a war in the name of Christ and be turned against Christianity. So war is a very tricky subject and I think it should be lest as far alone as possible, I certainly dont agree with people that argue wars solve problems. They may do temporarily but they also incite new hatreds and problems that will crop up afterwards.

[Neevil]

Sudan had done nothing to us ... but look what the Sudanese government was doing to its own people. Would our intervention have been justified?

I am an American citizen, but I am also a citizen of the world, as are we all. As world citizens, I think it is our duty to intervene in situations like this. America has been greatly blessed. I think this is because it was founded on Christian principals, even if the founders themselves were not Christians. We need to be good sterwards of what has been given to us. America has been given a lot of wealth and power, and we need to use it wisely. Stepping into situation like Sudan as powerful world citizens would be morally right.

[General Oreius]

Sadly I don't think we stepped into Sudan because other things happened to be occupying us during the 80's and 90's. During the 80's President Reagan was occupied with the Soviet Union, and during the 90's we had the Persian Gulf War and then Clinton's come to power/office (Your choice). I think we would have been justified if we had stepped into Sudan along with other countries, but sadly we did not since we did not feel like we needed to protect freedom around the world like we do now.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

I am an American citizen, but I am also a citizen of the world, as are we all. As world citizens, I think it is our duty to intervene in situations like this. America has been greatly blessed. I think this is because it was founded on Christian principals, even if the founders themselves were not Christians. We need to be good sterwards of what has been given to us. America has been given a lot of wealth and power, and we need to use it wisely. Stepping into situation like Sudan as powerful world citizens would be morally right.
Yes, Neevil, that was an extremely excellent point. We are indeed citizens of America, but we are also part of the world. Thinking that we are bound to and should only care about this country, to me, isn't a moral way to think. As you said, we have been blessed, and because we have been given so much power and wealth, we should take advantage of it. And what better way to do it than make the world a better place in which to live?

[Wendygirljp]

There are citizens, not just from America, but from many countries, with different governments as well - what do you wish to say to them as well?

Personally, I think ALL forms of society should do what they can to make not only their own lives better, but also of their neighbors - knowing what their neighbor requires and desires, without imposing one's own "conditions", like political agenda - ways of living, running one's government, etc.

[Bushy]

There are citizens, not just from America, but from many countries, with different governments as well - what do you wish to say to them as well?

Personally, I think ALL forms of society should do what they can to make not only their own lives better, but also of their neighbors - knowing what their neighbor requires and desires, without imposing one's own "conditions", like political agenda - ways of living, running one's government, etc.
Wendygirl, we all know that you're in Japan, and probably have an intimate connection to it, but, to be quite frank, that does not make it more powerful than America. I would say to the people of other countries with different governments that, although they may wish to take part in a war (at least that's all I can make coherent sense out of with the comment you provided) they can't. Firstly because they do not have America's power. That is an undebatable fact, not an opinion. No one is telling the other countries that they shouldn't do what they can to make the world better, for it is they that choose whether or not to do so.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Personally, I think ALL forms of society should do what they can to make not only their own lives better, but also of their neighbors - knowing what their neighbor requires and desires, without imposing one's own "conditions", like political agenda - ways of living, running one's government, etc.Well, I think everyone can say that. But harking back to Inkspot's very cogent point about the conditions in the Sudan (or north Uganda, for that matter) - this illustrates some of the difficulty in the question of warfare. If some of your neighbors are brutally slaughtering some of their own citizens, do you have a right (or an obligation) to interfere to prevent the slaughter? What if they're just oppressing them? For instance, after years of savage brutality by the Pol Pot regime, the (communist) Vietnamese finally invaded Cambodia, effectively liberating the Khmer people from their oppressors. Strictly speaking, that was an act of aggressive warfare - or was it liberation?

Even the question of rendering aid without imposing conditions or requiring changes in ways of living is fraught with difficulty. One of the things the Imperial British did in the Indian subcontinent was to put a stop to the practice of suttee - burning a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. This was met with great resistance and resentment - after all, it was an intrusion in the ancient customs and ways of the Hind people. But the British stood their ground, and forbid it. Was that wrong? An imposed condition on them? Or was it protection of the weak?

These are all important questions to grapple with, but difficult ones. I certainly agree, as do all men and women of reason, that the judgment should always tend away from war - but what if humanity demands some sort of action, and war is the only one?

[Bushy]

Well, I think everyone can say that. But harking back to Inkspot's very cogent point about the conditions in the Sudan (or north Uganda, for that matter) - this illustrates some of the difficulty in the question of warfare. If some of your neighbors are brutally slaughtering some of their own citizens, do you have a right (or an obligation) to interfere to prevent the slaughter? What if they're just oppressing them? For instance, after years of savage brutality by the Pol Pot regime, the (communist) Vietnamese finally invaded Cambodia, effectively liberating the Khmer people from their oppressors. Strictly speaking, that was an act of aggressive warfare - or was it liberation?

Even the question of rendering aid without imposing conditions or requiring changes in ways of living is fraught with difficulty. One of the things the Imperial British did in the Indian subcontinent was to put a stop to the practice of suttee - burning a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. This was met with great resistance and resentment - after all, it was an intrusion in the ancient customs and ways of the Hind people. But the British stood their ground, and forbid it. Was that wrong? An imposed condition on them? Or was it protection of the weak?

These are all important questions to grapple with, but difficult ones. I certainly agree, as do all men and women of reason, that the judgment should always tend away from war - but what if humanity demands some sort of action, and war is the only one?
Wow, POTW, that was great. Very true. Sometimes war is the only way to deal away with things like that.

[General Oreius]

Same here. Just as an example: If I was married and my neighbor had beaten his wife and was walking through our front yard when he happened to see my wife and began to beat her also, I would definitely go out and defend her by attacking him with whatever was available. I would not try to kill him, but if I had a gun I would try to use it to get him away from her.
Also, if the woman wasn't even my wife, I would probably still feel compelled to defend her since she is innocent.

[Wendygirljp]

Bushy - you posted,
"Wendygirl, we all know that you're in Japan, and probably have an intimate connection to it, but, to be quite frank, that does not make it more powerful than America. I would say to the people of other countries with different governments that, although they may wish to take part in a war (at least that's all I can make coherent sense out of with the comment you provided) they can't. Firstly because they do not have America's power."

Nobody, even I am not claiming that Japan is "more powerful" than any other country. That is not relevant to the topic.

I also did not claim that any country WANTS to create a war. I think you are digging out ideas and concepts which are not there. Japan, for gosh sakes, wants NOTHING to do with any war.

Not being as powerful as the U.S. does not mean a particular government can NOT start a war, either. It is strange to me where you get your concepts. Am I missing your point here?

I AM NOT promoting any war whatsoever. I am all for defending one's self, yes. Pure defense, yes. Aggression, which sadly, does include the acts of the U.S. in numerous situations, I do not agree with it at all. Even the events where the Emperor of Japan was "convinced" to go along with military aggressors in his military, were a shame, to me. For some reason, some people think that, because the Prime Minister of Japan visits Yasukune Shrine on the end of World War 2 Day, that is promoting war. It is not. EVERY time he has appeared, he has spoken out AGAINST war. Yes, the shrine was built to hold the ashes of the nearly 2.5 million people who lost their lives in numerous wars. Apparently, the "big stink" is that there are the remains of 14 Class A war criminals' ashes enshrined there as well. Big, big misunderstanding, imho.

Now, if you are willing to clarify your statement, either publically or in a PM, I am most willing to listen, as objectively as I can be.

[LifeMaiden]

It's very interesting, a little off topic, to compare America, Japan, and West Germany as world powers. In World War II, those WERE the superpowers of the world, and it seems as though they still are in some ways, although Japan's economy has certainly taken a nosedive.

Now, I was going to ask you guys if you thought that the UN had any REAL power in the world. To me, it's a lot like Woodrow Wilson's old League of Nations...can they really DO anything to truly keep the peace? To me the UN has always been more symbolic than in effect truly powerful.


A country does not have to have the power or modernization/industrialization of America or Japan to start a war. Let's look at the countries that constitute some of the biggest threats today...look at NORTH KOREA. That's a place which is one of the last truly Communist dictatorships in the world...a place where a guy in platforms, a permed hairstyle, and a lot of anger has nuclear weapons. He can start a war anytime he wants. It's also a very poor country with many citizens starving and lacking food. Iran isn't exactly a super power, and neither was Iraq...none of those countries were. So to think that a country 'has to be powerful' like the US to start a war, to me, is not accurate.

[inkspot]

You are right, IM. A country can be poor as dirt, but if the government/military has nuclear capability, or even a supply of missiles, they can start a war. Almost any nation could, I suppose. obviously we're all agreed that just bombing a neighboring country because you want their resources or dislike their social mores is wrong. The tricky part is knowing:
* the point of no return for a "pre-emptive" strike ... was there a point during the illegal re-armament of German before WW II when a first strike by the other European nations could have prevented the war, or at least made it much shorter and less brutal, and if so, would that strike have been justified?
* when the welfare of people who are being oppressed or slaughtered in one country becomes the responsibility of another country ... should the US, the UN or somebody have stopped the genocide in Rwanda back in 1994? Or as PoTW said, in Cambodia before that? Would going to war in that case be justified?

Was it in this thread, or another, where Jack said if people can't get their point across or make their voice heard in any other way, then they have to lash out in terrorist acts? At what point is an act of terrorism justified if no one will listen take note that you have been downtrodden and oppressed?

These are very tough questions.

[LifeMaiden]

Very tough questions indeed, Inky, because war is a tough subject. I daresay that while we can compare certain things we witness in life to what the US should or should not do, war is far more complicated and can have much greater consequences than say, if we saw a woman being raped or beaten up, we would go and try to save her or at least call 911. It's complicated to get involved in countries ruled by extremist dictators like Pol Pot. You'll notice too that after World War II, many countries that had been colonized and dominated by Europe immediately wanted their independence. Europe was greatly weakened by the world war, and so many African countries and India, as well as French IndoChina, got their independence.


But that led way to civil wars and brutal dictatorship regimes in which selfish leaders cared little for their people and only wanted to instill their ruthless power over the people. I don't know sometimes what the US should do or not do in those cases...but we need to finish unfinished business. I wasn't necessarily for the soldiers going to Iraq in the first place, but hey, once they were there, get the job done, whatever that may be...try to restore the peace.

So much easier said than done, though.....

[General Oreius]

In my opinion the UN is usually as ineffective as the League of Nations was. The only reason they have been able to do SOMETHING throughout its history is because we (the U.S.) joined this time around. The only reason the UN is able to survive financially is because we pay a majority of the bills, and provide a location for nations to meet. Yet we have continually been overruled by other countries within the organization, we have been kicked off the Human Right's panel, we have been threatened on OUR OWN GROUND before (Khruschev in the 50's saying "We will break you."), and countless times going along with the UN has prevented us from getting a job that needed to be done, done.

I'm afraid today that all the UN can do is try to send aid to countries in Africa, and give the slap on the wrist whenever a country steps out of line. I saw an editorial cartoon that depicted the Iranian president standing over a nuclear missile threatening to fire it while an assistant ran up behind him yelling, "Stop! Don't! We might get a nasty e-mail from the UN!" Sadly that's what it has become with the UN.

And about all of the countries asking for their independence after World War II, they did get their independence mostly because the countries that had colonized them were too weak as you said, IceMaiden. But they paid the price by not asking for help to set up a government in the first place. I know that most probably would not have been able to receive help, but that's something the UN could and probably should have done when they were formed instead of focusing only on "halting" the spread of communism. As a result human nature took hold and civil wars ensued, unfortunately. Now I don't think there's anything we can do but pray for the unsaved, send financial aid through missionary and Christian charity organizations, and go as a missionary if called to do so.

[LifeMaiden]

I read with great interest what you had to say there, General Oreius, about how the former colonized countries demanded independence and wanted freedom without even asking for some guidelines and assistance from their colonizers, namely the British, French, Dutch and Germans and Belgians. Because initially those countries collapsed after their independence could not have been the complete fault of the colonizers. And it's also a mistake to think that Europe's nations did not help some of their colonies by instituting new laws preventing the barbaric treatment of women, for example.

When the colonies found their new countries torn by war, selfish dictators took power and more ensuing civil strife continues to this day. And I saw on the tv where an African guy was shouting, " We need the British to come back here to help!!!!"

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Bushy - you posted,
"Wendygirl, we all know that you're in Japan, and probably have an intimate connection to it, but, to be quite frank, that does not make it more powerful than America. I would say to the people of other countries with different governments that, although they may wish to take part in a war (at least that's all I can make coherent sense out of with the comment you provided) they can't. Firstly because they do not have America's power."

Nobody, even I am not claiming that Japan is "more powerful" than any other country. That is not relevant to the topic.

I also did not claim that any country WANTS to create a war. I think you are digging out ideas and concepts which are not there. Japan, for gosh sakes, wants NOTHING to do with any war.

Not being as powerful as the U.S. does not mean a particular government can NOT start a war, either. It is strange to me where you get your concepts. Am I missing your point here?

I AM NOT promoting any war whatsoever. I am all for defending one's self, yes. Pure defense, yes. Aggression, which sadly, does include the acts of the U.S. in numerous situations, I do not agree with it at all. Even the events where the Emperor of Japan was "convinced" to go along with military aggressors in his military, were a shame, to me. For some reason, some people think that, because the Prime Minister of Japan visits Yasukune Shrine on the end of World War 2 Day, that is promoting war. It is not. EVERY time he has appeared, he has spoken out AGAINST war. Yes, the shrine was built to hold the ashes of the nearly 2.5 million people who lost their lives in numerous wars. Apparently, the "big stink" is that there are the remains of 14 Class A war criminals' ashes enshrined there as well. Big, big misunderstanding, imho.

Now, if you are willing to clarify your statement, either publically or in a PM, I am most willing to listen, as objectively as I can be.
It's interesting that you constantly choose not to challenge people like PrinceOfTheWest and IceMaiden when they're debating you.

[LifeMaiden]

If we're talking about 'acts of aggression', I'd say Japan is one of the guiltiest countries in the world...just look at World War II and the events leading up to it. Japan wanted an empire just like Nazi Germany, and they were just as nationalistic. In fact, Hitler openly admired the Japanese military and their leaders.