quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I must admit I have felt that my pacifism is wearing a bit thin - I don't know why more so with this than with the militia wandering round Congo doing similar things. [...]

---

quote:

---

The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I completely empathise. Ferguson has had this effect on me too, actually - it seems to me that not everyone has the privilege to be able to be a pacifist. Resisting an oppressive force does seem to require violence at least sometimes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Theologically the alternative is peace. Only, always, ever peace. Peace conquered the Roman Empire. Peace gave India independence. Peace gave southern blacks their civil rights.

It's easy to give up. To never grasp. To loosen one's grip. I did in the face of the IS two weeks ago.

Coming in half way in to the movies of Hitler and Rwanda and saying that peace has failed when it hasn't been tried in the slightest by the massive nominal Christian majorities in those situations and therefore we must resort to war is ... theologically absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
You can't negotiate with zealots like ISIS. There's a straight choice: fight, or surrender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
In an ideal world, I'd be a pacifist. And theologically I feel I should be. But I guess I sort of accept Just War theory when confronted with either Nazism or indeed the so-called Islamic State. And to be blunt, at this moment, the truth is I'd be quite happy for the SAS (UK special forces) and their US counterparts to just go in and take them all out. Or would I?

Militarily, is it even doable or would it be another Vietnam/Afghanistan?

And theologically, does violence ALWAYS beget more violence? But what's the alternative?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
It was OK for Ghandi- he was up against the British Empire, not Hitler, Stalin, etc.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
What sets ISIS apart is their genocidal ideology, which the decapitations illustrate to bloody effect.

Collateral killings are tragic, but there's a crucial difference in the intent of the people responsible.

You can't negotiate with zealots like ISIS. There's a straight choice: fight, or surrender.

---

quote:

---

In an ideal world, I'd be a pacifist.

---

quote:

---

And theologically, does violence ALWAYS beget more violence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:


I guess the well-meaning western liberal version of the sign is "______ has made me a hawk."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
But I also believe, as the Wicked Witch of the West said (and, I think rightly), "These things have to be done delicately."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
But I also believe, as the Wicked Witch of the West said (and, I think rightly), "These things have to be done delicately."

---

Name one war which has been conducted delicately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The British Empire that invented the concentration camp, you mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The British Empire that invented the concentration camp, you mean?

---

In the British concentration camps, people were not tortured, starved, or killed. They were simply confined.

Moo

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Jade Constable:
I completely empathise. Ferguson has had this effect on me too, actually - it seems to me that not everyone has the privilege to be able to be a pacifist. Resisting an oppressive force does seem to require violence at least sometimes.

---

Yeah, many Americans are horrified at all the beheadings in Missouri. What are we, French? Decapitations are so un-American.

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
Theologically the alternative is peace. Only, always, ever peace. Peace conquered the Roman Empire. Peace gave India independence. Peace gave southern blacks their civil rights.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
And I know Lamb Chopped and Beeswax Altar for two will be depressed by my saying that.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Jade Constable:
The British Empire that invented the concentration camp, you mean?

---

I know, right. Tragic how the British Empire systematically killed millions of Boers. Hard to believe they managed to maintain power in South Africa for nearly a 100 years after the Boer Wars.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A neat and intelligent and delicate military operation? How about the eradication of Osama bin Laden? That was about as tight as one could hope for.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Let's turn it around: if we stand by and do nothing, being possessed of the means to prevent or at least mitigate atrocities, to what extent are we joined in culpability for the deaths at the hands of IS, Congolese militias, etc?
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A neat and intelligent and delicate military operation? How about the eradication of Osama bin Laden? That was about as tight as one could hope for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Let's turn it around: if we stand by and do nothing, being possessed of the means to prevent or at least mitigate atrocities, to what extent are we joined in culpability for the deaths at the hands of IS, Congolese militias, etc?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
You can't negotiate with zealots like ISIS. There's a straight choice: fight, or surrender.

---

You're forgetting 'leave'. Thousands haven't, and are starting new lives in other countries.

We need to welcome them, no matter how many of them there are. They're the ones who have rejected the IS, and are peaceable people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on what you mean by 'do something'. If Western forces were to invade Iraq and Syria, in order to remove IS, I think that could produce blowback. In fact, it could be a disaster.

As far as I can see, Obama is finding a middle ground, by helping those who want to fight IS on the ground, e.g. Iraqui army units, Kurdish fighters, Shia militia, and so on.

If these forces are inadequate, think again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Let's turn it around: if we stand by and do nothing, being possessed of the means to prevent or at least mitigate atrocities , to what extent are we joined in culpability for the deaths at the hands of IS, Congolese militias, etc?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Let's turn it around: if we stand by and do nothing, being possessed of the means to prevent or at least mitigate atrocities, to what extent are we joined in culpability for the deaths at the hands of IS, Congolese militias, etc?

---

Let's consider that seriously. Taking a longer term view, beyond each individual case (ie fighting the war not the battle of the week), what good would intervention do? I'm sure some could be justified but there's a lot being done that is akin to poking a bear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, I mentioned on the other thread, that while you can't negotiate with IS, you can with those tribes which are supporting them at the moment, and I would be amazed if this is not happening right now, offering inducements and whatnot to tribal leaders to ditch IS, and help build Iraq - that is code for 'we will offer you millions of dollars, you will have your own oil-wells, and Maliki is yesterday's poison'. Whether or not this will succeed, who knows? But who would have believed that Sunni tribal leaders would fight AQ - but some of them did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Jade Constable:
I completely empathise. Ferguson has had this effect on me too, actually - it seems to me that not everyone has the privilege to be able to be a pacifist. Resisting an oppressive force does seem to require violence at least sometimes.

---

Yeah, many Americans are horrified at all the beheadings in Missouri. What are we, French? Decapitations are so un-American.

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
Theologically the alternative is peace. Only, always, ever peace. Peace conquered the Roman Empire. Peace gave India independence. Peace gave southern blacks their civil rights.

---

Actually, Germanic tribes conquered the Western Empire and the Turks conquered the Byzantine Empire. Neither used nonviolent means. Did you mean Christianity conquered the Roman Empire through pacifism? Well, persecution only stopped when Christianity became the religion of the empire and the Roman Empire became Christendom. Normally, you rant against Christendom but apparently here it is a good thing. I suppose that's only a problem if you are troubled by incoherence.

Peace led to civil rights for African-Americans? Let me give you a brief history lesson, Martin. In 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and the doctrine of separate but equal paving the way for the integration of previously segregated schools. The first attempt at integration took place in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. Here is a picture of that peaceful event.

Peace liberated India? Peace and the UK deciding after two world wars that it neither could nor wanted to maintain an empire liberated India. Peace will defeat ISIS when ISIS becomes tired of fighting wars. Unfortunately, the only way ISIS can grow tired of fighting wars is if they have to fight wars.

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
And I know Lamb Chopped and Beeswax Altar for two will be depressed by my saying that.

---

LC maybe. Baseless assertions continually repeated don't depress me. At worst, said assertions annoy me.

quote:

---

originally posted by Jade Constable:
The British Empire that invented the concentration camp, you mean?

---

I know, right. Tragic how the British Empire systematically killed millions of Boers. Hard to believe they managed to maintain power in South Africa for nearly a 100 years after the Boer Wars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Ferguson making me less pacifist is just a fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

I know, right. Tragic how the British Empire systematically killed millions of Boers. Hard to believe they managed to maintain power in South Africa for nearly a 100 years after the Boer Wars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, I meant I don't know how the Boers managed to maintain power in South Africa for nearly a hundred years after the British killed millions of them in a concentration camps. They must have. The post I was responding to implied a moral equivalence between the Nazi concentration camp and British tactics in the Boer War.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah, many Americans are horrified at all the beheadings in Missouri. What are we, French? Decapitations are so un-American.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Let's turn it around: if we stand by and do nothing, being possessed of the means to prevent or at least mitigate atrocities, to what extent are we joined in culpability for the deaths at the hands of IS, Congolese militias, etc?

---

Let's consider that seriously. Taking a longer term view, beyond each individual case (ie fighting the war not the battle of the week), what good would intervention do? I'm sure some could be justified but there's a lot being done that is akin to poking a bear.

---

It didn't stop us in Kosovo when ethnic Albanians were being massacred. Is the case for intervention not different when defenceless civilians are being massacred wholesale?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Are you under the impression that US school children are taught that George Custer was martyred at Little Big Horn or something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Ferguson making me less pacifist is just a fact.

---

But why did Ferguson make you less pacifist?

A civilian police force using military weapons and pointing guns at unarmed citizens who were exercising their constitutional rights to assemble and speak shows that hawkish responses create more trouble than they resolve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
The term "concentration camp" may originate in the Boer War, but internment long precedes it.

Given the shift in meaning, this casts far more heat than light.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
OK - British concentration camps were different to others. The British Empire was still a violent oppressive force though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Ferguson making me less pacifist is just a fact.

---

But why did Ferguson make you less pacifist?

A civilian police force using military weapons and pointing guns at unarmed citizens who were exercising their constitutional rights to assemble and speak shows that hawkish responses create more trouble than they resolve.

---

Actually it's not the police force's violence I'm thinking of in the case of Ferguson - sorry for making that unclear. I'm thinking of the black population of Ferguson using resistance against their oppressors (in this case the police) which was sometimes violent. Given the events of Ferguson, I believe this violence was totally justified, hence making me less pacifist.

---

OK let me get this straight. The Ferguson police used tear gas and rubber bullets and didn't kill anybody. The protesters managed to shoot at least three other protesters and loot a liquor store because Brown robbed it. And that's the violence you see as justified? The violence didn't accomplish anything. Wouldn't accomplish anything. And that's the violence you consider justified. Violence against say Boko Harem isn't justified? Violence against the Central American cartels isn't justified? Hell, violence against anybody else actually killing hundreds if not thousands of people with impunity isn't justified? Really? Feguson, Missouri is the one place in the world that got you thinking maybe violence was justified.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lawrence:
It is a good discussion. I support aiding those on the ground who will fight ISIS. Let's not fool ourselves though that success will bring anything but more war and suffering. Beat down ISIS in Syria? Welcome back Assad into the vacuum. Help the Kurds? Of they win, perhaps they will want to include parts of Turkey and Syria and Iran in their new Kurdish state? [...]

---

quote:

---

[...] Being Christian is not about trying to be pure. It is trying to figure out how to live in the muck with a shred of integrity.

---

Well said.

[code]

[ 04. September 2014, 19:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Are you under the impression that US school children are taught that George Custer was martyred at Little Big Horn or something?

---

No. I didn't mention children or martyrdom. Merely responding to an understanding of another us and them, non-Pogo type of post. Unless I've misunderstood you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Ferguson police used tear gas and rubber bullets and didn't kill anybody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Success may bring more war and suffering, but we can be near-certain that the outcome will be better than the suffering inflicted by ISIS' genocidal wannabe-caliphate. Better by several orders of magnitude.

---

And we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators!

Glad to see you're so enthusiastic about recylcing.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Twenty six thousand Boer women and children died in British camps after two years.

The Americans, meanwhile, were killing one hundred times as many people in the Philippines.

Do the 'math'. That's three MILLION. That's AFTER winning the war against Spain. The same number Churchill killed in East Bengal 40 years later.

Delicately done. Especially the way we ignore it.

And IS is worse? Justifies Christians justifying war against them. Our creation like Osama Bin Laden and Hamas.

And on and on and on and on until we eventually are actually Christian, we actually try Christianity, proclaiming and following Christ and His good news of the Kingdom, in another couple or three thousand years.

I'm fully aware of Little Rock and vastly impressed at Eisenhower, a superb warrior who, like many soldier Christians, struggled magnificently to square that circle. Interfering in the Middle East and South East Asia after ending the Korean War with non-empty threat of nuclear holocaust on China. You see Beeswax, we're EVOLVING. As St. Martin said, the arc is long.

I'm a great believer in the we're halfway there theory of evolution. So maybe we've only got 1700 years until we give peace a chance.

Till Shiloh come.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Success may bring more war and suffering, but we can be near-certain that the outcome will be better than the suffering inflicted by ISIS' genocidal wannabe-caliphate. Better by several orders of magnitude.

---

And we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators!

Glad to see you're so enthusiastic about recylcing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Twenty six thousand Boer women and children died in British camps after two years.

The Americans, meanwhile, were killing one hundred times as many people in the Philippines.

Do the 'math'. That's three MILLION. That's AFTER winning the war against Spain. The same number Churchill killed in East Bengal 40 years later.

Delicately done. Especially the way we ignore it. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Byron: Yes. It is. Torture. Summary executions. Killing children. etc [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Byron: Yes. It is. Torture. Summary executions. Killing children. etc

Martin: It's not 1700 years. Probably closer to a million for humans and perhaps 4 billion for life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But a large part of the cause is Western military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. This has been a major source of fuel in the growth of ISIS. Doing nothing will, at this point, serve to strengthen them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You have to combine military action - particularly, helping the Kurds, and other groups fighting IS - with political pressure. In particular, those tribal leaders currently giving free passage to IS should be negotiated with, to see if they will accept a role in Iraq which is different.

At the moment, many of the Sunni tribes feel seriously disaffected, as (they claim) Maliki imprisoned thousands of them. This was their reward after fighting Al Quaeda (some of them).

I don't know whether some political agreement like this can be found in Iraq; otherwise, partition beckons.

---

Back in the 1970's and 1980's no minister would have advocated negotiations with the Provisional IRA. Of course, we know now that HMG was negotiating, as well as carrying out security operations and infiltrating the PIRA to such an extent that the UK government had a better idea of what the PIRA was doing than the PIRA's own high command did.

It has to be a twin track approach, and it will be the negotiations that lead to the settlement, while the security operation keep the pressure on IS, or anyone else, to negotiate. Going out there to destroy IS, without countering the reasons for its very existence, solves nothing and won't bring peace.
 

---

Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on :
 
The argument that "war doesn't solve anything" seems to me comparable to saying that "weeding your garden doesn't solve anything - the weeds just grow back".

Well, yes, but if you never weed at all, the garden will be completely overrun.

We will never wipe out evil. There will be no war to end all wars.

Fighting wars is like gardening. You can do a little bit regularly and keep the borders in order, or you can sit back, do nothing, wait till the weeds threaten to completely engulf your house, and then engage in a massive bout of pruning and weeding.

Most people think the first approach is preferable where gardenining is concerned, however, we tend to think the second is preferable where war-fighting is concerned.

ISIS is a particularly aggressively spreading weed and will englulf the whole garden pretty quickly. We need to stamp on it - and hard.

This is why it's different to the nastiness that goes on in Africa. Yes, horrible things happen, but usually by half-witted, ill equipped groups of thugs. They aren't going to take over the world...just make their particular corner of it rather horrible.

ISIS on the other hand is smart, well equipped and ambitious. That's why we must face it with significant use of force.

There is however a problem: Much of ISIS includes British nationals, and american nationals.

We are going to be severely hampered in this fight by the threat of a) terrorist attacks at home and b) the political blowback in Islamic communities in the west.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Hence the lurid trending stories on social media and elsewhere today about the unfortunate woman in Edmonton (North London, not Alberta ) who was beheaded yesterday by an 'Islamic fanatic' - an example of blowback in the making.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Your weeding analogy is a good one.

It is easy to wipe out all the weeds in a garden. You can torch any green living thing or spray paraquat (or similar) and there will be no weeds. It will kill everything else besides.

The problem in the Middle East right now is IS/ISIL, not all the life in the region, or on the planet for that matter. One way or another IS/ISIL needs to be brought under control and that needs to be done with precision and care to avoid pissing off everyone else in the region. They are after all in a better position to oppose IS/ISIL as it matters more to them, and they have the local knowledge.

In short, yes, we can put our foot down hard, but we have to put it down in the right places.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
We have to help others put their foot down hard. If the West just go in mob-handed, there will be blowback. It's a recruiting sergeant for the militants.

But if the Kurds and other Iraqui forces push IS back, that is very different, and of course, we can help them, and we are. Plus, of course, negotiating with various groups, esp. tribal leaders, who at the moment, are saying, fuck the West, fuck Maliki, we are giving IS free passage through our territory.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
As an example, the West no doubt could assassinate many of these tribal leaders, in order to decapitate the Sunni tribes. However, this would be insanity, and would probably lead to a massive increase in IS recruitment.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Yesterday the police were being very insistent that the killing of the 82 year old woman in North London was nothing to do with terrorism. The perpetrator had previously been attacking cats and dogs, and has now been sectioned. i.e. kept in secure mental hospital provision. In the context an unfortunate expression.

[ 05. September 2014, 11:57: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 

---

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Penny S said:

quote:

---

Yesterday the police were being very insistent that the killing of the 82 year old woman in North London was nothing to do with terrorism. The perpetrator had previously been attacking cats and dogs, and has now been sectioned. i.e. kept in secure mental hospital provision. In the context an unfortunate expression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beatmenace:
More will come out but I just have a bad feeling about the role of the media here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Byron: Yes. It is. Torture. Summary executions. Killing children. etc

Martin: It's not 1700 years. Probably closer to a million for humans and perhaps 4 billion for life.

---

No. It isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beatmenace:
Penny S said:

quote:

---

Yesterday the police were being very insistent that the killing of the 82 year old woman in North London was nothing to do with terrorism. The perpetrator had previously been attacking cats and dogs, and has now been sectioned. i.e. kept in secure mental hospital provision. In the context an unfortunate expression.

---

From my time working in mental health, it was noticable that some of the residents sometimes became fixated with certain news stories, which in some cases fed into the psychosis. It may turn out that the 24/7 media coverage of IS atrocities may have played a part here.

More will come out but I just have a bad feeling about the role of the media here.

---

excellent beatmenace, informed experience of triggering.

Sorry but I want to comment about other mails swimming up stream. It's the Talisker Storm.

Stejjie. Spot on too, it sells ink and TV licenses and Mars Bars. Network (1976) is fulfilled.

Johnny English and 3M Matt. Weeding. The Israelis have just been mowing the grass, as they call it, in Gaza. You do not speak with Jesus' voice. For the kingdom of peace. You speak on your own recognizance. Which is fine. As long as you don't dress it up as Christian. Christians though you are. And yes, you're on the same spectrum. Get above it. And q. And rolyn.

Or keep using the world's wisdom.

Barnabas62. Right on 'enemisation'. Wrong on everything else There is NOTHING psychopathic about IS any more than there was about Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. Just ordinary people JUST like us, but for fortune, not brain lesions.

IS are rational.

And saving the worst till last

Arminian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
I'm not sure that Jesus was a pacifist. Surely the whole point of Jesus is that he is like God the father in nature - hence his comments to Philip 'if you've seen me you've seen the father'.

I'm sure God would prefer that people repented and turned away from violence - but sometimes a culture arises that is so violent that God after many warnings wipes them out. The Mosaic law wasn't exactly that tolerant of murderers either.

My brother in law, an ex serviceman pointed out that in his experience some people get on such an adrenalin high from killing they just keep going and can't be reasoned with. Isis appear to be acting in this way. How can you negotiate with them ? Andrew White has said that they can't be negotiated with (and he has negotiated with many in Iraq).

I see only 2 options. Do nothing and hope they go away (which didn't work with Hitler). Or take them out now before they can spread to even more Arab states. We have a duty to help those on the receiving end of Isis because we helped create the instability that allowed them to move in. Doing nothing will cause deaths. We need a broad coalition of states fighting Isis with Muslim nations part of that coalition IMO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Barnabas62. Right on 'enemisation'. Wrong on everything else There is NOTHING psychopathic about IS any more than there was about Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. Just ordinary people JUST like us, but for fortune, not brain lesions.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm capable of many minor cruelties and acts of indifference. This still doesn't put me on the same level as a Mengele. Or a young man callously laughing as he and his mates behead one of their victims. I don't believe I am capable of torturing another human being. Torture, the deliberate infliction of extreme pain, seems far more morally worse to me than killing in self-defence.

I pray for the souls of those young IS men. This doesn't mean I wouldn't support the use of force to stop their deeds.

quote:

---

I see a third way. The express image of the SON in the Father. That is not the way even of negotiation. It is the way of Islam. Submission to God. S-L-M. Peace.

---

quote:

---

I wonder if we'll EVER try it? As He and His followers did once upon a time, long, long ago. How do we evolve back to that eh? Back to IS turning us into harmless doves.

---

quote:

---

Blaming IS for OUR righteous, innocent, feckless, murderous hearts is childish projection.

---

quote:

---

Keeping Jesus from returning. [/QB]

---

I don't believe that He is helplessly at our beck and call, or that His returning is all contingent on us.

The emergent, postmodern, postmillenial crowd might well be right and the human race might well evolve into something better before Christ returns, but I honestly doubt it. The evidence is against it. The evidence is all around us. And the idealistic view of the emergent crowd is nothing new - over 100 years ago, as noble things like feminism and social reform began to succeed, people thought exactly the same thing: a brave new world was coming, a more fair, just, peaceful world. That's what they thought, in 1900. They were wrong.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
It doesn't matter how we interpret His words used in battle against the culture that spawned them, in its own language. Interpret His ACTIONS which speak infinitely louder than any interpretation of His words.

---

Oh...Jesus words don't matter. Just his actions matter. And I'm guessing we are supposed to ignore the cleansing of the temple. If you ever become convinced that the Jesus of scripture isn't compatible with your political beliefs, will you drop him like a bad habit?
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I was surprised by your reaction, Martin. Do you have a problem with the notion that psychopathy is a diseased state of mind?

Of course psychopaths can be rational about many things. The analysis of the causes of political and economic oppression, for example, and the understanding of the effect that has on others. But that's not the point.

The point is the deliberate and systematic killing of the human capacity for mercy, which is closely related to our capacity for empathy.

Psychopaths are inherently merciless. To feel sorrow that any human being is so reduced, to desire change in them for their own sake, is a decent reaction. But what if they will not change because they no longer can change? What is to be done to protect the vulnerable, the innocent, the peaceable?

There is an ongoing debate about the exhortations to love enemies, to turn the other cheek, to seek in so far as we can, to live at peace with all. These are a powerful part of my individual moral code and I see them as a part of the wider exhortation to show mercy because it is an inherent good and I know what it is to have been shown mercy. The question is how do they apply to governmental responsibilities to maintain law and order for the common good? What are the limits?

There's a paradox there of course, but it is not resolved by denying the need for some form of governmental control of the violent and the implacable and their threats to the common good.

[ 06. September 2014, 07:04: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily up the stream:

Barnabas. Why do you ask? If you're using psychopathy in a broad, colloquial sense, fine. But there is NO evidence that Jihad John is a clinical psychopath apart from two instances of extreme, staged violence. Not exactly a full DSM diagnostic.

And yeah, as Brian said, we've got to work it out for ourselves. Along the arc. Is Jesus implied. While SHOWING us the way.

BeeDubbyAy. That's right mate. His words out of context of His actions, His life, DO NOT MATTER. Are meaningless. And is that alllllll you got? Oh I forget, you got 'sacraments' too. Ethics don't matter. That's ALL anyone justifying violence in Jesus' name EVER has. He beat up a few tables. Knocked down some money. Viciously, murderously, psychopathically flogged a few cows with a cat-o-nine-tails in rage to within an inch of their lives. Badmouthed a fig tree TO DEATH!!

I'm already convinced. The Son of Man was more than enough for His time and any time. In His incompatibility then - in the helplessness of His cultural accretion which he nonetheless astoundingly transcended - with my journey now I bow the knee to His full transcendent purpose then. It's the same. The arc is the same. You haven't picked that up yet, let alone dropped it.

Laurelin. God bless you. I take it that they were all rhetorical questions?

[ 06. September 2014, 10:20: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 

---

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not
There is NOTHING psychopathic about IS any more than there was about Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. Just ordinary people JUST like us, but for fortune, not brain lesions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
if we stand by and do nothing, being possessed of the means to prevent or at least mitigate atrocities, to what extent are we joined in culpability for the deaths ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that Matt Black asked the right question:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
if we stand by and do nothing, being possessed of the means to prevent or at least mitigate atrocities, to what extent are we joined in culpability for the deaths ?

---

Does having the power to prevent some portion of an evil create a moral responsibility to do so ?

---

quote:

---

And if so, faced with a choice between acquiring the military power to intervene abroad, or spending the money on something else, should we be choosing guns before butter ?

Best wishes,

Russ

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
BeeDubbyAy. That's right mate. His words out of context of His actions, His life, DO NOT MATTER. Are meaningless. And is that alllllll you got? Oh I forget, you got 'sacraments' too. Ethics don't matter. That's ALL anyone justifying violence in Jesus' name EVER has. He beat up a few tables. Knocked down some money. Viciously, murderously, psychopathically flogged a few cows with a cat-o-nine-tails in rage to within an inch of their lives. Badmouthed a fig tree TO DEATH!!

---

I assume that's me. Don't know why that's me. But...whatever. Saying the words of Jesus don't matter is simply asinine and grasping at straws. You already dismiss the OT. You already dismiss the rest of the NT. Now, you want to dismiss the words of Jesus that don't fit your political belief and focus on the fact that Jesus didn't regularly use violence.

Guess what Martin! If you look at the vast majority of my actions and disregard my actual words, I'm a pacifist! Looking at the life of most people would lead you to believe they are pacifists. Just because Jesus didn't use violence to establish His kingdom in first century Palestine doesn't mean use of force under any circumstances. Reading the actual words of Jesus explains why that is. No wonder you want to ignore them.

Fact is if Jesus wanted to make the political points you want him to have made he had plenty of opportunity to do it but didn't. Why is he walking around with his disciples carrying swords? Why doesn't he call on soldiers to put down their weapons and leave the army? Why does he never address the Roman Empire directly but does the Jewish religious establishment? Why does he walk around with men who carry swords? Why does he use violence imagery when he talks about judgment and establishing the Kingdom of God?
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Because you haven't picked it, Him up yet.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Martin,

Remember that you are trying to be understood. Also, absolutely do not mess around with shipmates' names.

Gwai,
Purg Host
 

---

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :
 
I tend to think Christ advocated passive resistance, and it can be enormously powerful, but I struggle in most situations to know what that would look like. This one especially. I don't think it is doing nothing, or providing aid and doing nothin else, but actually what it is is difficult to know.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As I recall from Alice Miller's 'For Your Own Good' Hitler's family doctor had never seen such a picture of human grief as Hitler grieving for his mother.

We're all well read Moo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Very cool B. What you don't get is the trajectory of the ball given an Almighty kick 2000 years ago.

I'm 50 years familiar with the words of Jesus. More, I used to have to go to Sunday school so my parents could have some afternoon delight.

If we can be grown ups for a minute, what don't I understand from Jesus's words? For 45 years at least I understood that He was going to come back and kick ass. And I was impatient for that. I couldn't wait. So ... I've got to revert to that? Turn the light off? And revert to an insignificant Jesus? A Jesus who makes no difference at all now. A Jesus JUST like us writ large? Like Dexter? A serial killer of serial killers. A Jesus who isn't interested in justice, equality, equity, peace NOW. A Jesus who just conforms to our monkey politics? And doesn't drive politics?

Show me a REAL Jesus superior to the Prince of Peace, the suffering servant, the conqueror of power and privilege with powerlessness and humility and I'll drop that one mate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Two, Jesus wasn't an earthly ruler. So, none of his action or lack of actions say anything about how earthly rulers should handle a threat like ISIS.

---

quote:

---

Beeswax
Scripture, tradition, and reason support legitimate rulers fighting just wars for the protection of those they govern. Not every war is just. However, a war against ISIS would be a just war.

---

quote:

---

Beeswax
WWJD if Jesus were POTUS? Jesus wouldn't be POTUS or hold any similar office. That's the whole freaking point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Does having the power to prevent some portion of an evil create a moral responsibility to do so ?

---

The problem that arises is that, even if we have the means to rescue a hostage or two, does that make things worse as a whole? Where's your moral responsibility now?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by no prophet:
No, he wasn't interested in anything earthly or earthy was he now. Some things are just business, or only war, and he had no interest in any earthly at all. Never had, never will. Thus, anything we do on earth to each other is okay. It's all for the best, when we get to heaven we'll be blessed.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by no prophet:
It means what we mean Jesus, God and all the good guys and gals in God's service, to mean.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by no prophet:
suspect he's smoke some pot with us or at least watch our hallucinating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Soldiers get carried away. That's what we train them for. Have you ever met a para? Members of the SAS? SBS? I have had the inestimable privilege of many friends in those units. You wouldn't want them as enemies. You wouldn't have them as such for very long. A heartbeat or two.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Who's talking about getting carried away deano? Soldiers are saints as far as I'm concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
What Beeswax Altar said.

We should never try to separate Jesus from His Jewishness and His culture. We will never understand His humanity if we do that.

The idea of Jesus following my politics is plain bizarre and misguided. We should not try to co-opt Him for our own political biases. We can't control Jesus like that, or impose our own 21st century political paradigms and prejudices onto Him.

I'm not saying that being a Christian is irrelevant to my politics. Of course not. My political beliefs include a strong belief in the welfare state as a safety net, for example. But I've never suffered the delusion that Jesus would have voted either Labour or Tory. It's a truly daft notion. Meaningless regarding Jesus in His historical context, and laughable to think that Christ the cosmic Saviour is bound by our biases.

Back to war. War is sinful. War is horrible. Killing people is sinful and horrible. IS delights in killing people, innocent people who've done them no harm; IS is sinful and horrible. If killing an IS thug is also sinful and horrible, I can't believe it's unforgivable either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Schweitzer, really, Schweitzer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I really wish people wouldn't use "just war" arguments. They really are a series of terrible rationalisations. All war is an evil, even when we believe it to be the only option left (and sometimes it is) but I wish we wouldn't pretend it's "just" or "moral".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Schweitzer, really, Schweitzer?

---

Sanders and Allison for the updated version.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Laurelin, I am so glad you started posting again. It's like you can say what I think without me having to bother putting it into words.

JtW

---

Thank you!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If Jesus is inextricable from His ancient Jewish context, then we're lost. I can't accept that proposition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But for you - both? - any attempt to do so leaves nothing coherent behind? The baby goes with the bathwater?

---

It depends on what you think the baby is ...

I can't co-opt Jesus for any of our frightful war-mongering. Nor would I attempt to do so. I'm with Ad Orientem on this (his posts on this subject are excellent) - arguments for so-called 'just wars' rarely work for me either.

As you often point out, Christianity has had 1700 years of being a state religion and a world power and the results are ... yeah, often


And yet I'm still left with this quandary: I don't believe that Jesus sanctions killing, but I do believe in using the power of Caesar sometimes if it means defeating an enemy like IS. And they ARE an enemy. They want to be our enemies, they enjoy it.

It's impossible to be completely pure on issues of war and peace. And yet Christ demands purity of us.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that Matt Black asked the right question:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
if we stand by and do nothing, being possessed of the means to prevent or at least mitigate atrocities, to what extent are we joined in culpability for the deaths ?

---

Does having the power to prevent some portion of an evil create a moral responsibility to do so ?

---

The problem that arises is that, even if we have the means to rescue a hostage or two, does that make things worse as a whole? Where's your moral responsibility now?

quote:

---

And if so, faced with a choice between acquiring the military power to intervene abroad, or spending the money on something else, should we be choosing guns before butter ?

Best wishes,

Russ

---

Pretty much as before, we have to look at the whole situation, which amongst other things means facing down powerful lobby groups (who exhibit no moral responsibility whatsoever). Do dairymen contribute more to the GNP and campaign funds than arms manufacturers?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
If Jesus is inextricable from His ancient Jewish context, then we're lost. I can't accept that proposition. But for you - both? - any attempt to do so leaves nothing coherent behind? The baby goes with the bathwater?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
Beeswax Altar, I see the consistency of your approach in your refusal to ask WWJD in politics. A position I have held. That implies I think I've got a 'superior' one now. Well, I do and I don't. Like pacifism being further along the arc of the moral universe in ALL situations. As a proposition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
For me, scripture and tradition do not teach pacifism. Pacifism doesn't seem reasonable to me. So, I reject it for both political and religious reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Of course we should take the 1st Century Jewish cultural/religious context into account when we look at Jesus. It is through this context that He lived, acted and spoke.

---

quote:

---

But I also happen to believe that He is the Son of God, and that what he did and said has something to say to me. I try (with all my failings) to take this into account in the way I live my life, and this includes my political positions. Not in a "What would Jesus vote?" kind of way, but more like "How can what Jesus said and did inspire me in my present-day context?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
But I also believe, as the Wicked Witch of the West said (and, I think rightly), "These things have to be done delicately."

---

Name one war which has been conducted delicately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Of course we should take the 1st Century Jewish cultural / religious context into account when we look at Jesus. It is through this context that He lived, acted and spoke.

But I also happen to believe that He is the Son of God, and that what he did and said has something to say to me. I try (with all my failings) to take this into account in the way I live my life, and this includes my political positions. Not in a "What would Jesus vote?" kind of way, but more like "How can what Jesus said and did inspire me in my present-day context?"

---

Amen, amen, and amen.
 

---

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I was thinking of the two man teams who went in to Bosnia at take out war criminals. And other black ops, by men in black, with which I am horse's mouth familiar (I had company in my arm chair), where lethal force was used surgically. Not up against large numbers. At a time ... usually ... it's amazing how many can be killed serially in one op. Especially when they are unarmed ...

I believe two squads of SAS were all that was necessary to change the hearts and minds of Soviet backed insurgents in Muscat and Oman in the '70s. While the US lost in Vietnam with half a million men. No wonder they wanted us after Malaya. Two in Sierra Leone - 15 men, one went down - who left only the radio operator of the enemy alive out of 200 fully armed men in broad daylight, so he could tell his mates.

As for Operation Claret, Northern Ireland, The Falklands, Iraq, Tora Bora ... the official accounts are kids stuff.

These guys are AWESOMELY deadly. And very, very discrete about it. The point is made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
But I also believe, as the Wicked Witch of the West said (and, I think rightly), "These things have to be done delicately."

---

Name one war which has been conducted delicately.

---

It hasn't, but my point was actually that the US can't do it the way it did last time around. I still genuinely, truly believe that Cheney should stand for his actions before the Hague.

---

I don't think they are doing it like last time. Obama has been derided for not having a strategy, but there seems to be a pretty good one emerging to me. Help those forces fighting IS (e.g. Kurdish fighters), encourage a unity government in Iraq, which will not imprison thousands of Sunni tribesmen, and put out feelers to those tribal leaders, who are now going off IS. Some of these guys fought against AQ, so they are possibly ripe for turning.

Maybe this all emerged accidentally in one sense, never mind.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Aye betjemaniac. All acknowledged. But ...
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
One, I make ethical judgments based on all of scripture coupled with tradition and reason not based on some of Jesus actions divorced from all the rest.

---

quote:

---

Two, Jesus wasn't an earthly ruler. So, none of his action or lack of actions say anything about how earthly rulers should handle a threat like ISIS.

---

quote:

---

Now, we do have his words comparing the kingdom of heaven to rulers who use violence. We have the descriptions of judgement that will happen when Jesus comes as a ruler. I know you don't like those. I don't care.

---

quote:

---

Scripture, tradition, and reason support legitimate rulers fighting just wars for the protection of those they govern. Not every war is just. However, a war against ISIS would be a just war.

---

quote:

---

WWJD if Jesus were POTUS? Jesus wouldn't be POTUS or hold any similar office. That's the whole freaking point.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
Me too and I don't divorce the proposition of pacifism from any of Jesus' actions

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
They do if they claim to be His followers. Or is it not possible to be an earthly ruler and a Christian?

---

quote:

---

originally posed by Martin:
I loved them literal and now that's not how I can understand them. If I could, I would love them literal again. Happy to go round the Heraclitean loop if someone can lead me. But the pacifism of God is a new synthesis for me and a superior antithesis is required to overturn that.

---

quote:

---

Let's try this. You refer to the God of the OT as God the Killer. This God killed thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children all by Himself. He orders the deaths of even more men, women, and children. On multiple occasions, this God orders genocide. If we judge God by human standards, this God is like Hitler and Stalin.

Up thread, you acknowledge that Jesus believed in God the Killer. We can go further than believed in Jesus the Killer. Jesus worshiped God the Killer. Jesus claimed God the Killer was his father.

Are you telling me that if a guy walked around your town calling Hitler or Stalin his father that you would look at him as a shining ethical example? I don't think you or many others would. I don't think it would matter how nonviolent he was or how many good deeds he did. What if that guy talked frequently about establishing his father's kingdom or reich?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
Predicated on a literal interpretation of Jesus' words struggling in the yet more ancient mud of the myth of redemptive violence, among the oldest literary archetypes of imperial culture. Which is fine. That's as far as you and Laurelin and IngoB and many others here can honourably go. There is no way I can overcome your conservative, literal syntheses.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
So a Christian cannot hold such office? Caesar cannot be Christian. But Christians can wholeheartedly support Caesar in his imperial violence against violence that he begat in the first place?

Since when? When did Christians start that tradition?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
A civilian police force using military weapons and pointing guns at unarmed citizens who were exercising their constitutional rights to assemble and speak shows that hawkish responses create more trouble than they resolve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I see absolutely nothing in scripture that suggests Jesus supported multilateralism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Beeswax Altar. Aye, they don't matter in themselves, alone. And I do no less than you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What does that have to do with multilateralism?

---

Really? Exceptionalism being a characteristic of the opposite end of the continuum.
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
I'm a bit sick and tired of people claiming God is a genocidal killer. If you look at the context of the removal of Sodom or the tribes Israel took out they were described as entirely wicked and received many warnings to repent. In the case of the Canaanites they were warned for over 400 years which they chose to ignore. That is not the same as deciding to wipe out people in the way IS is doing, which is without any justification other than they like killing people and taking their property.

Most of the atheists who keep moaning about God being a genocidal killer would be the first to complain about God doing nothing in the face of evil if THEY were on the receiving end of Hitler's SS, IS, or any number of other state killing machines. You can't have it both ways.

God has made it very clear that those nations that try to destroy Israel will come off worse. That includes IS or any other Islamic state that picks a fight with them. So far this has proven true over recent history. Israel should not have won the six day war - but I believe God saved them, and there are plenty of anecdotal stories to that effect.

The killing of so many Christians is not going to go unnoticed by God and any nations or individuals helping IS are heading to their own destruction either in this life or the next one. I guess the message from Jesus in the NT would be to pray for these killers that they come to their senses and repent. It is not that they can continue as they like killing and destroying without anyone trying to stop them.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Exceptionalism is not the antonym of multilateralism, and neither have to do with excluding people from the Kingdom of Heaven.

(I absolutely think that the approach to IS should be multilateralist, and I consider the doctrine of American exceptionalism to be dangerously close to idolatry, but I thought I should point that out.)

Heck, one could be exceptionalist and not believe in war at all--whether multilateral or otherwise.

And one could be non-exceptionalist but think that taking on the burden of fighting an enemy should not involve one's allies, too.
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Arminian wrote:

quote:

---

In the case of the Canaanites they were warned for over 400 years which they chose to ignore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What does that have to do with multilateralism?

---

Really? Exceptionalism being a characteristic of the opposite end of the continuum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The US is all about multilateralism. I can't remember the last time the US used military force unilaterally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The US is all about multilateralism. I can't remember the last time the US used military force unilaterally.

---

Without thinking about this for more than about 3 seconds: Panama and Grenada. With the note that there is much pretence of multilateralism so as to appear that way, with token forces of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The US is all about multilateralism. I can't remember the last time the US used military force unilaterally.

---

Without thinking about this for more than about 3 seconds: Panama and Grenada. With the note that there is much pretence of multilateralism so as to appear that way, with token forces of others.

With limited additional thought, probably the most important attacks on mulilateralism is the USA's ongoing desire to limit the application of international law, the ICC (international criminal court), the Ottawa Treaty (bans on landmines).

I have no idea why anyone would suggest Jesus could be a country's president (or king), a topic I didn't introduce. I also don't see any possibility of arguing that Jesus approved of violence. Or that Jesus is exclusively the property of any human organization, nation or country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
Theologically the alternative is peace. Only, always, ever peace. Peace conquered the Roman Empire. ...

---

Actually, Germanic tribes conquered the Western Empire and the Turks conquered the Byzantine Empire. Neither used nonviolent means. Did you mean Christianity conquered the Roman Empire through pacifism? Well, persecution only stopped when Christianity became the religion of the empire and the Roman Empire became Christendom. Normally, you rant against Christendom but apparently here it is a good thing. I suppose that's only a problem if you are troubled by incoherence.

---

I'm only troubled by yours.

Tell me that this isn't deliberate Talk about incoherence. Can you join up the dots for me please? Can you REASON how Christianity's subversion of the Roman empire by actually being Christian - pacifist - for three hundred years justifies Christendom's subsequent failure to be pacifist in the thinking you - hopefully deliberately - illogically impute to me?

The incoherence is entirely yours. And that MUST be a chosen rhetorical device. Is that chosen - lazy? - absence of any actual dialectical logic: just three broken legs of rhetoric that you could be bothered with? Or is it unfortunately worse than that.

And if this looks passive aggressive, that's because it is my brother.

Perhaps you've mellowed and I shouldn't have gone from the top down rather than bottom up, opening old wounds?

Or you really believe what you say? In which case God bless you.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And I congratulate you on being able to admit that peace liberated India but make it look like you didn't.

And congratulate you on exposing the pacifist civil rights movement as a failure because Caesar decided to use troops to protect them. Presumably the apostle Paul's pacifist missions were also failures because he invoked his rights as a Roman citizen to the point of getting a military escort?

Pacifist Christians are hypocrites if they call the cops?
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Tell me that this isn't deliberate [Smile] Talk about incoherence. Can you join up the dots for me please? Can you REASON how Christianity's subversion of the Roman empire by actually being Christian - pacifist - for three hundred years justifies Christendom's subsequent failure to be pacifist in the thinking you - hopefully deliberately - illogically impute to me?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
The incoherence is entirely yours. And that MUST be a chosen rhetorical device. Is that chosen - lazy? - absence of any actual dialectical logic: just three broken legs of rhetoric that you could be bothered with? Or is it unfortunately worse than that.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
And I congratulate you on being able to admit that peace liberated India but make it look like you didn't.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
And congratulate you on exposing the pacifist civil rights movement as a failure because Caesar decided to use troops to protect them. Presumably the apostle Paul's pacifist missions were also failures because he invoked his rights as a Roman citizen to the point of getting a military escort?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
Pacifist Christians are hypocrites if they call the cops?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This something that people have been calling for, for some time now - that The Muslims should speak up against terrorist activity. Will this request actually make any difference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
(Or) will the fundies of Islam continue to copy the fundies of Christianity, and pull us all into outright war? Is this their
"war of the reformation" that will go on for another Thrity Years?

---

Every religion or philosophy has had its zealots that use the faith they adhere to as a crutch for hatred, exploitation and cruelty. The fault is as ever with man himself, and any attempt to shift the responsibility to a Supreme Being, an earthly founder or something they may or may not have written distracts from the natural state of man, which, at best, is selfish and greedy, with a side order of stupidity.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I dare. Got three squad cars last time. Of UNARMED British police. Thank God we don't have the insanity of a second amendment despite our revolution. And so should Iraqi Christians. Invoke any help they can get. However any Caesar chooses to respond to help them, God be with Caesar in that. God bless Caesar. No matter how complicit Caesar is in creating the society around Christians who are part of it and trying to come out of it in its imperialist, Babylonian ways. Victims and beneficiaries of those ways. Interesting isn't it? Ways which they MUST NOT emulate. That's what Iraqi Christians MUST not do. Make war. Be de facto pacifists as they are being just like you. If Christians go to war, they are not following Christ in that regard. It's quite simple really, quite coherent. Uncomfortable certainly. Christianity is at the sharp end.

I'll HAPPILY add my voice to say 'SAVE THEM!', 'DO SOMETHING!', whilst condemning war. I watched the obscenity of an American mechanized unit watching Sunnis butcher Christians in Iraq in 2003 whilst the Christians - women - were begging the Americans to intervene. In English.

Watching Syrian Christians using automatic weapons as Sunni insurgents tried to take their village was certainly uncomfortable. All very understandable. But not Christ-like.

That's NOT what Jesus would have done. Or His disciples. I know that you can't know that. Due to the impossibility of squaring your literalism with His circular reasoning. I can. Know it. I don't have the problem of literalism to overcome any more. It's been given to me. The knowing. Not you. Yet.

How's that for passive aggression mate ?

You will get it. But it may take dying first.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Oh, and Moo.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And rolyn, on September 5th you 'wondered what the world would look like now if the West had simply done nothing after 9/11' - apart from beef up security. It would look Scandinavian. Which is geopolitically reasonable. Taking out The Base and the Students in Afghanistan was realpolitikisch reasonable too. Invading Iraq was not. And as a liberal interventionist who couldn't see the pacifism starting me in Jesus' face at the time I was ALL for it.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
If Jesus is inextricable from His ancient Jewish context, then we're lost. I can't accept that proposition. But for you - both? - any attempt to do so leaves nothing coherent behind? The baby goes with the bathwater?

---

Separating Jesus from his culture is impossible.

---

quote:

---

For you, the bits about Jesus that you call the baby are those bits which support a rather broadly political ideology.

---

quote:

---

Thus, you are using what you consider the best ideas of your own culture to judge Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Not only do I think this is a bad way of doing theology. I think it is a potentially dangerous way of doing theology.

---

quote:

---

Let's try this. You refer to the God of the OT as God the Killer. This God killed thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children all by Himself. He orders the deaths of even more men, women, and children. On multiple occasions, this God orders genocide. If we judge God by human standards, this God is like Hitler and Stalin.

---

quote:

---

Up thread, you acknowledge that Jesus believed in God the Killer. We can go further than believed in Jesus the Killer. Jesus worshiped God the Killer. Jesus claimed God the Killer was his father.

---

quote:

---

Are you telling me that if a guy walked around your town calling Hitler or Stalin his father that you would look at him as a shining ethical example? I don't think you or many others would. I don't think it would matter how nonviolent he was or how many good deeds he did. What if that guy talked frequently about establishing his father's kingdom or reich?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
Beeswax Altar, I see the consistency of your approach in your refusal to ask WWJD in politics. A position I have held. That implies I think I've got a 'superior' one now. Well, I do and I don't. Like pacifism being further along the arc of the moral universe in ALL situations. As a proposition.

---

For me, scripture and tradition do not teach pacifism. Pacifism doesn't seem reasonable to me. So, I reject it for both political and religious reasons.

---

quote:

---

Look, if you want to hold political positions because you think Jesus would support those positions, go right ahead. Good luck trying to convince those who don't already agree with those positions that they should hold those positions that they should change their mind because Jesus said so especially since you are willing to ignore stuff Jesus said that you don't like. Personally, I think you are fooling yourself. Other people disagree with your political positions and claim they do so because of what they believe Jesus would support. I think they are fooling themselves too.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin:
That's NOT what Jesus would have done. Or His disciples. I know that you can't know that. Due to the impossibility of squaring your literalism with His circular reasoning. I can. Know it. I don't have the problem of literalism to overcome any more. It's been given to me. The knowing. Not you. Yet.

---

quote:

---

originally posted Martin:
For you, yes. Not for me. And as the Ed Koch quote, on is it Evensong's sig, says, I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you. It's a postmodern imperative and it's happening as Jack Lewis saw. Literalists, such as I was for four decades, can't possibly internalize it. It takes head space you don't, can't yet have. But it will happen. Whatever you do, do NOT become an Oxford man and pray 'Dominus illuminatio mea'

---

Oh but God has illumined me. God has confirmed to me that I am right and you are wrong. Praise be to God. Unfortunately, you can't know that yet. You'll just have to take His word for it.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I'm glad you confess it mate. It is the same for all of us: God meets us where we are.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Yeah but some of us (and I mean me) are further along on the progressive arc than others.
 

---

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This something that people have been calling for, for some time now - that The Muslims should speak up against terrorist activity. Will this request actually make any difference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Well said Byron, on the previous thread. We are massively complicit in this but I'm glad of Brenda's link as that shows an enlightened Arab view as well.

As an armchair pacifist I'm having it all ways of course, blessing Caesar for his F22s, 18s, 16s, Rafaeles and Tornadoes whilst longing for another radical, inclusive, sacrificial, forgiving, merciful way.

We'll carry on bombling (not a spelling mistake) which it least isn't as insane as mounting full scale invasions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The problem is however that bombing will only do part of the job. It may hit the high-value IS assets and their current command & control centres, but the latter can be recreated simply and quickly (get on line, buy mobile phones, place contract with ISP) which leaves tens of thousands of ISIL soldiers on the ground, and it would be hard to eradicate 50% of them without massive collateral damage, if we are to rely on air power alone.

Far better in the long term to discourage people from joining and supporting ISIL. Many believe that the current air strikes will do that but it is a false hope born of an unwillingness to commit ground troops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

If terrorism becomes not a bloody gap-year, but a lifetime stranded in the desert/locked in a supermax penitentiary, it may just concentrate a few minds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
An excellent start would be to strip citizenship from anyone who fights for ISIS.

There's treaties against rendering anyone stateless, but legal sleight-of-hand can do an endrun around those: ISIS claims to be a state, well fine, they can be the ones to issue their "citizens" with passports (that every nation on earth will ignore).

Some jurisdictions, like the U.S., require a treason conviction, but automatic prosecution ought to have the same effect.

If terrorism becomes not a bloody gap-year, but a lifetime stranded in the desert/locked in a supermax penitentiary, it may just concentrate a few minds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
An excellent start would be to strip citizenship from anyone who fights for ISIS.

There's treaties against rendering anyone stateless, but legal sleight-of-hand can do an endrun around those: ISIS claims to be a state, well fine, they can be the ones to issue their "citizens" with passports (that every nation on earth will ignore).

Some jurisdictions, like the U.S., require a treason conviction, but automatic prosecution ought to have the same effect.

If terrorism becomes not a bloody gap-year, but a lifetime stranded in the desert/locked in a supermax penitentiary, it may just concentrate a few minds.

---

But what about those who get out there and discover that it is nothing like they have been told and want to come home now? I would be wary about doing anything that makes it hard for them to come back and discourage others from going.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Let's get REALLY creative, radical, Christlike and welcome back all such prodigals by running to embrace them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Let's get REALLY creative, radical, Christlike and welcome back all such prodigals by running to embrace them.

---

Is that before they 'come to their senses' or after?

---

quote:

---

That said, the number of western members of ISIL is relatively small percentage wise, so it's only a very small part of the solution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
But what about those who get out there and discover that it is nothing like they have been told and want to come home now? I would be wary about doing anything that makes it hard for them to come back and discourage others from going.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Personally, I think this whole "young western jihadis" meme is pretty much just a gimmick promoted by ISIS itself("Look, we've got your sons, bwahaha!!"), and hyped up by western media and governments for their own interests.

According to the New York Times, the number of Americans fighting in Syria is 100, at most. Since America is the most populous of the western countries, we can likely assume that the UK, Australia, are contributing even less than that.

So, as a maximum estimate, we're probably talking about a couple of thousand westerners fighting in Syria(the NYT gives the total number of foreign fighters in Syria as 12 000, but that would include other Muslim and arab countries). ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
...Personally, I think this whole "young western jihadis" meme is pretty much just a gimmick promoted by ISIS itself("Look, we've got your sons, bwahaha!!"), and hyped up by western media and governments for their own interests.

According to the New York Times, the number of Americans fighting in Syria is 100, at most. Since America is the most populous of the western countries, we can likely assume that the UK, Australia, are contributing even less than that...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
According to the New York Times, the number of Americans fighting in Syria is 100, at most. Since America is the most populous of the western countries, we can likely assume that the UK, Australia, are contributing even less than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Maybe the West should bite the bullet and take on Syria like is has Afghanistan and Iraq, regime change the lot. It easily has the resources but understandably lacks the will. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Maybe the West should bite the bullet and take on Syria like is has Afghanistan and Iraq, regime change the lot...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Maybe the West should bite the bullet and take on Syria like is has Afghanistan and Iraq, regime change the lot. It easily has the resources but understandably lacks the will. There's the risk of a messy outcome, heightening tension with Russia, rattling China, etc. etc. War only ever seems to bring more war yet avoiding it often seems nigh on impossible.

As for the matter of Utopia-seekers, naive revolutionaries and gap-yearers joining IS jihadist butchers, I don't see much sympathy being expended for them when they are caught up in the Allied assault.

---

quote:

---

I view your President Obama and General Dempsey with great respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am an American, and have two kids in the US Army. I can tell you that there is no appetite at all in the US for overseas adventurism. No Congress will vote for war, and they will certainly never pay for it. You'll find a couple of right-wing chicken hawks yelling for blood. We ignore them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am an American, and have two kids in the US Army. I can tell you that there is no appetite at all in the US for overseas adventurism. No Congress will vote for war, and they will certainly never pay for it. You'll find a couple of right-wing chicken hawks yelling for blood. We ignore them.

---

What changed? The Iraq and Afghan wars seemed quite popular. I thought they were considered won.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And they are not voting any money. It is money that is where the heart and balls of Congress is; their words mean less than nothing. Unless and until they put dollars behind something, it is hot air. Remember what Deep Throat said? Follow the money.

---

quote:

---

Nobody had the time of day for Iraq.

---

quote:

---

I think the general sense is, their circus, their monkeys. Solve your problems, folks. You're grown-ups; if your country is a toilet bowl then do something about it. We're done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
I'm not American. I'm Canadian. Not that I'm particualarly sensitive about national identity(Koreans assume I'm Amercian all the time), but at least two posters have made the error since I wrote that post, so I though I'd clear that up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Their circuses, their monkeys, and no ringmaster. I could say something about clowns and those who put their heads in lion's mouths, but that would be to stretch metaphors.

As for the war in Iraq being won I have to ask if that refers to the same Iraq of which ISIL controls a third. The West pulled out of Afghanistan so recently it's hard to say whether the structures in place will last.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It doesn't matter. There is still no appetite in the US to do more. So what are you going to do about it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Maybe the West should bite the bullet and take on Syria like is has Afghanistan and Iraq, regime change the lot. ... There's the risk of a messy outcome

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It doesn't matter. There is still no appetite in the US to do more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It doesn't matter. There is still no appetite in the US to do more.

---

Not so. The US is bombing now in Iraq and Syria, and 60% of Americans approve.

---

quote:

---

“When I went into Kuwait I had thirty-nine tanks," one captured Iraqi battalion commander said. "After six weeks of air bombardment, I had thirty-two left. After twenty minutes in action against the M1s, I had none.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Hamburg. The Falaise Gap. Dresden. Tokyo. And your favourites: Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The complete balls up after the erroneous (based on false intelligence) invasion of Iraq by the (well meaning) Bremner et al is not a direct cause of the rise of the Islamic State but a contributing factor IMO. An important one nonetheless. Someone like "the Caliph" was bound, eventually, to rise as a counterweight to the secularism of the Ba'ath Party and the fact the Sunnis were heavily outnumbered by Shia. Al Quaida was a contributing factor as was the various forms of nutcase "Muslim" ideology which has floated around the Middle East for a few years now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Someone like "the Caliph" was bound, eventually, to rise as a counterweight to the secularism of the Ba'ath Party and the fact the Sunnis were heavily outnumbered by Shia. Al Quaida was a contributing factor as was the various forms of nutcase "Muslim" ideology which has floated around the Middle East for a few years now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Maybe the West should bite the bullet and take on Syria like is has Afghanistan and Iraq, regime change the lot. ... There's the risk of a messy outcome

---

No shit .. I can only think you must be joking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

No one will ever know where we'd be now if the US had done the Christian thing of turning the other cheek over 9/11. 'Ouch Bin! Oh look, there's some more skyscrapers to fly jets into if you want'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

So maybe, rather like Marxism, the only way to drain Islamism of its virulence, would be to have a moderate Islamist state, and see how it fared. But then it would probably become non-moderate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

So maybe, rather like Marxism, the only way to drain Islamism of its virulence, would be to have a moderate Islamist state, and see how it fared. But then it would probably become non-moderate.

---

But surely there are already lots of self-styled Islamic states of varying degrees of moderateness, from Malaysia and Morocco (reasonably moderate) to Iran and Saudi Arabia (only moderate if you compare with IS)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I take the points of quetzalcoatl and chris stiles. The Arab World has a long history of being under colonial rule (including that of the Ottoman Turks which was no less colonial for having a Caliph in Istanbul). There is much debate as to what would have happened if the Western powers had not betrayed the Arabs with Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration which led to the creation of Israel. The Arab World was/is rife with conspiracy theories and memories of various "betrayals" (sometimes ones of centuries ago). Iraq and much response to the Arab Spring was inept as was the West's non-action on the first real recent armed insurrection against Assad. The roots of the current Sunni militancy, in Wahhabism and the Deobandi madrasas of South Asia (which have a long history of contact and cross-fertilisation), have been around for a long time. A veritable witch's brew, with various toxic ingredients, had been fermenting for a long, long time. The Islamic State is its nightmarish result.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolynI daresay there are, I'm no expert. Still it comes back to bombs bombs bombs. Bush did the hatchet-job, then Obama was supposed to be able to sweet talk islamic nuts -- no chance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The roots of the current Sunni militancy, in Wahhabism and the Deobandi madrasas of South Asia (which have a long history of contact and cross-fertilisation), have been around for a long time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, there are plenty of Islamic states, but are there any of them Islamist? I suppose the obvious one is Iran, but that is also Shia, so will be discounted by the Sunni Islamists.

---

It all depends on your definition of Islamist.
Certainly, the AKP government in Turkey describes itself as Islamist.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

chris stiles: ISIS funds itself in part by selling oil - a lot of which ends Turkey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

chris stiles: ISIS funds itself in part by selling oil - a lot of which ends Turkey.

---

This part I don't understand. Is this oil sold through legal channels? Or on the black market? Surely, Turkey has an interest in stopping this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
Certainly, the AKP government in Turkey describes itself as Islamist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Once oil is in Turkey how does one identify it as having come in legitimately?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Once oil is in Turkey how does one identify it as having come in legitimately?

---

You can identify crude fairly easily via chemical composition.

Additionally they'll usually be labelled in some way for ease of refining.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
How exact is "fairly easily". Does it identify one well from another a mile down the road?

---

quote:

---

ISIS won't worry about ease of refining - they are selling cheap gear, so some false labelling can look after the second issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
Certainly, the AKP government in Turkey describes itself as Islamist.

---

Really? They're much more like the Islamic version of Christian Democracy. I know some pretty non-religious Turks who vote for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think at some point the MB renounced violence, and Sadat released many from jail. Of course, recently, they formed a short-lived government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Does anyone have an idea how this oil selling by ISIS works? It's quite a large amount of oil, so I find it difficult to believe that this can happen without it being detected.

---

quote:

---

chris stiles: Because the Turks chose to turn a blind eye.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, who is buying it? Turks who support ISIS? Unscrupulous merchants who don't care who's selling?

---

quote:

---

prophet: Unscrupulous = merchants. It's the reason for the past, current and future wars, conflicts and at the root of everything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Possibly telling remarks from Netanyahu.

Interesting that this comes at a time when it's pretty much become the conventional wisdom that the west should form at least a default alliance with Iran against ISIS.

Netanyahu's comments would indicate to me that Israel is not singing from quite the same hymnal as the US on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The Turks are in.

---

Note that the Turks have plenty of trouble with Kurds within its own borders, so co-operation between Kurdish 'armies' in Northern Iraq (within which the Kurds have some measure of self-government) will be limited by the Turk's (and the Syrian's, and Iranian's) fear of an independent Kurdistan.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Oh aye.

And Alan Henning and his poor family.

You'll have to wipe his feet with your tears Jihad John.

After he's wiped yours with his.

[ 03. October 2014, 23:35: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:


Beheadings Not Limited To Islamic State

Kinda encapsulates what I regard as the somewhat overwrought response to the decapitations carried out by ISIS.

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Good article. Shame about the meretricious porn. Ah well, something else to lay at the foot of the cross. My meretricious reflexes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Credible analysis, Sioni.

Anyway...

Beheadings Not Limited To Islamic State

Kinda encapsulates what I regard as the somewhat overwrought response to the decapitations carried out by ISIS.

In addition to the article's point that decapitations have been carried out by pretty respectable players withing living memory(eg. Americans during the Gulf War), I'd also point out that ISIS itself has likely done some things that at least equal beheading in their brutality, but don't get anywhere near the attention.

---

quote:

---

It's false equivalence, as the Saudis aren't an expansionist power tear-assing around the Middle East, and attempting to retake the territory of the caliphate. Nor are they engaged in systematic genocide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Yes, but it seems to me that public revulsion against ISIS has very much focussed on the nature of their brutality("OMG, these guys are beheading people!!"), rather than simply their overall expansionist agenda.

I mean, how many people have you heard saying "Holy cow, these guys might get Jordan next"? I haven't really noticed that as a major theme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it also that they're beheading Westerners? They've been beheading Syrians for a long time, but that didn't cause such as a ruffle.

I'm not being critical either, since I can see that it really brings it home when it's a guy from Manchester or wherever, who's being beheaded, rather than a guy from Aleppo.

BBC now warning that Kobane is probably going to fall to IS, despite air-strikes; the black flags are beginning to fly in parts of the town. The Turks are sitting there in their tanks, watching it happening. What next?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Various voices are now being raised, saying that air-strikes are not enough. This follows the well-known pattern of mission creep - you start off with A, but then A is described as inadequate, so you move to B, but then, strangely enough, B isn't quite right, but look, we have the perfect solution, C.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
For those with faith in air power, below is a quote taken from Tom Clancy's "Armoured Cav" book, a non-fiction book that examines the branch of the military that uses tanks like the Abrams M1 main battle tank..

quote:

---

“When I went into Kuwait I had thirty-nine tanks," one captured Iraqi battalion commander said. "After six weeks of air bombardment, I had thirty-two left. After twenty minutes in action against the M1s, I had none.”

---

Six weeks of aerial bombing left the Iraqi's largely unscathed. Boots on the ground finished the job in twenty minutes.

Air power is what you do when you have to be seen to be doing something as opposed to actually doing something.

---

It isn't mission creep unless you are deluded enough to believe air power alone can achieve things. It can't.

It gets used as a sop to those "latte liberals" who whinge that "something must be done", and "won't someone think of the children?".

Mission creep? No. Sorry, it's just the START of the mission. If you think that it's the whole mission then wakey-wakey!

Do any of you want to fix this? If so are you willing to countenance huge numbers of western soldiers invading from Turkey and fighting on the ground?

If you are not willing to countenance that then it will not be fixed.

WARS CANNOT BE WON BY AIR POWER.

I want all of you to write that down and try to remember it please.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

It gets used as a sop to those "latte liberals" who whinge that "something must be done", and "won't someone think of the children?".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

It gets used as a sop to those "latte liberals" who whinge that "something must be done", and "won't someone think of the children?".

---

This is a fairly big misrepresentation. Plenty of 'latte liberals' have been commenting on the foolishness of bombing ISIS - intervention has been pushed by the same lot who got us into Iraq in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
We can argue all day about the scale of it. I say it's accurate and you say it ain't. C'est la vie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Probably also something to do with the Kurds, since they would be helping them, and Turkey has a great fear of Kurdish advancement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Probably also something to do with the Kurds, since they would be helping them, and Turkey has a great fear of Kurdish advancement.

---

Or more perversely, this way ISIS take care of a group of Kurds without Turkey having to lift a finger.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think Turkey may be in some kind of conundrum. Who does it prefer close to its borders? The Kurds? Assad? ISIS?

---

quote:

---

Byron: Turkey is well within its rights to tell 'em to take a long jump.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: For example, it's possible that IS would take that as license to move into Turkish villages also.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: For example, it's possible that IS would
take that as license to move into Turkish villages also.

---

quote:

---

In this case, NATO's Article 5 becomes interesting.

---

quote:

---

chris stiles: Article 5 is usually observed most often in its breach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: This can go on for a decade easily. Three. Four. Till climate change and the tipping point come.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
How is it to end over there? Is it going to take a new Empire? Carving the whole middle east, Afghanistan, Pakistan and others up between the West, Russia, India and China? Is that what it will take? Another agreement between gentlemen to divide the oil up and to make sure that the natives stay under control?

Because if it is let's stop messing about and get on with it. It doesn't matter how long it will take as they will be our little fiefdoms to deal with.

If that is the end game and we are putting off the inevitable by pandering to fundamentalist islam then lets stop that and get on with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Let's get REALLY creative, radical, Christlike and welcome back all such prodigals by running to embrace them.

---

Is that before they 'come to their senses' or after?

---

It's to encourage them to come to their senses. And Christ.

Where's your evangelism? On holiday?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why would you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
How is it to end over there? Is it going to take a new Empire? Carving the whole middle east, Afghanistan, Pakistan and others up between the West, Russia, India and China? Is that what it will take? Another agreement between gentlemen to divide the oil up and to make sure that the natives stay under control?

Because if it is let's stop messing about and get on with it. It doesn't matter how long it will take as they will be our little fiefdoms to deal with.

If that is the end game and we are putting off the inevitable by pandering to fundamentalist islam then lets stop that and get on with it.

---

This is just a ridiculous idea, and I cannot think you're serious. At all. Unless you're trying to spread Nixonian, Reagonian, Bushonion versions of democracy which believes that colonial violence is the way to do it. Just read "profit" for "democracy" and you're in business. Literally.

---

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Have you ever tried to speak to a young and passionate Muslim about your faith in Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Have you ever tried to speak to a young and passionate Muslim about your faith in Jesus?

---

I have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Have you ever tried to speak to a young and passionate Muslim about your faith in Jesus?

---

I have.

---

Then you'll know how firm they are in their convictions about the truth of Islam and the 'error' that lies in the Bible as we have it today. They are immoveable.

Radicalise them as well and that's it!
It's not a question of graciously seeking them out and talking to them; it really is a matter of waiting until they come to their senses because you will never convince them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Have you ever tried to speak to a young and passionate Muslim about your faith in Jesus?

---

I have.

---

Then you'll know how firm they are in their convictions about the truth of Islam and the 'error' that lies in the Bible as we have it today. They are immoveable.

Radicalise them as well and that's it!
It's not a question of graciously seeking them out and talking to them; it really is a matter of waiting until they come to their senses because you will never convince them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
American democracy is a euphemism for profit. It can't be anything else given the crazy levels of private funding that support every election campaign. Not that the UK is immune to lobbyists with wads of cash, but it's not so blatant and it's relatively under wraps to the extent that things that aren't for profit also have a chance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Have you ever tried to speak to a young and passionate Muslim about your faith in Jesus?

---

I have.

---

Then you'll know how firm they are in their convictions about the truth of Islam and the 'error' that lies in the Bible as we have it today. They are immoveable.

Radicalise them as well and that's it!
It's not a question of graciously seeking them out and talking to them; it really is a matter of waiting until they come to their senses because you will never convince them.

---

firstly, thanks for the reply -

Now, which error is that in the Bible? The one that man does not possess the strength to overcome his sin and only God can do that? That to me is the core message. It isn't for me to move them, it's for me (us even) to present this to them and yea, even unto atheists who I find far more intractable, though I admit never having had to deal with anyone pointing an AK47 at me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Have you ever tried to speak to a young and passionate Muslim about your faith in Jesus?

---

I have.

---

Then you'll know how firm they are in their convictions about the truth of Islam and the 'error' that lies in the Bible as we have it today. They are immoveable.

Radicalise them as well and that's it!
It's not a question of graciously seeking them out and talking to them; it really is a matter of waiting until they come to their senses because you will never convince them.

---

My local Baptist church is doing good work with Muslims in the community. This has led to some Muslims attending church, and Muslim teens getting involved in the openly Christian-led youth activities. (The minister is himself a convert with a Muslim father, although I don't think his upbringing was very strict.)

I think most people, Muslims included, are attracted to Christianity as a result of community and genuine warmth rather than by arguments. With Islam in particular the costs of conversion are high, and individuals presumably need to know they will be received into a new family of faith, rather than kept at arm's length with polite smiles.

Whether this is relevant to Islamic State is an interesing question. Some of the young people flying out to join in were apparently born and/or raised in the UK, in multicultural areas where there are probably several churches. What have these churches done to engage young people from Muslim families, rather than waiting for them to get 'radicalised', and then worrying about it?

---

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Then you'll know how firm they are in their convictions about the truth of Islam and the 'error' that lies in the Bible as we have it today. They are immoveable.

Radicalise them as well and that's it!
It's not a question of graciously seeking them out and talking to them; it really is a matter of waiting until they come to their senses because you will never convince them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Then you'll know how firm they are in their convictions about the truth of Islam and the 'error' that lies in the Bible as we have it today. They are immoveable.

Radicalise them as well and that's it!
It's not a question of graciously seeking them out and talking to them; it really is a matter of waiting until they come to their senses because you will never convince them.

---

I wasn't trying to move them or convince them of anything.

---

quote:

---

Mudfrog: What? Not even that their view of the world and of Islam was skewed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mudfrog: What? Not even that their view of the world and of Islam was skewed?

---

No. I talked about my faith in Jesus. They talked about their faith in Islam. It was very good.


(PS Why do you think that someone who is a 'young and passionate Muslim' automatically has a skewed view of Islam?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Let's get REALLY creative, radical, Christlike and welcome back all such prodigals by running to embrace them.

(Me:) Is that before they 'come to their senses' or after?

---

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Go back to my initial contributions. we were talking about the returning radical muslims:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Go back to my initial contributions. we were talking about the returning radical muslims:

---

Ah, I'm not really sure if I've ever talked with them. I have talked a number of times with Muslims who were quite extreme in their faith and who had fought in the Middle East. But not with ISIS, this was long before ISIS.

I'm still not sure: if I were talking to someone who had come back from fighting with ISIS, would it be my job to try to convince him of anything?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Go back to my initial contributions. we were talking about the returning radical muslims:

---

Ah, I'm not really sure if I've ever talked with them. I have talked a number of times with Muslims who were quite extreme in their faith and who had fought in the Middle East. But not with ISIS, this was long before ISIS.

I'm still not sure: if I were talking to someone who had come back from fighting with ISIS, would it be my job to try to convince him of anything?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just listening to a news report about a 15 year old GIRL from Bristol who has travelled to Syria to fight.

W T F ???

She was radicalised by sites on the internet and her poor family are traumatised by it all.
The poor people.

What can we do?
Seriously?

---

quote:

---

APA.org

-Feel angry, alienated or disenfranchised.

-Believe that their current political involvement does not give them the power to effect real change.

-Identify with perceived victims of the social injustice they are fighting.

-Feel the need to take action rather than just talking about the problem.

-Believe that engaging in violence against the state is not immoral.

-Have friends or family sympathetic to the cause.

-Believe that joining a movement offers social and psychological rewards such as adventure, camaraderie and a heightened sense of identity.

---

quote:

---

Mudfrog: And that was exactly my original point. If these boys are prodigals, shouldn't we actually be better to either wait for them to come to their senses or just charge them with treason?

---

quote:

---

It's well known that Islam teaches that the Bible has been corrupted and incorrectly translated.
From the near sacrifice of Ishmael instead of Isaac right through to the non-crucifixion of Jesus, Islam teaches a different narrative to the Old and New Testaments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
originally posted by Mudfrog

quote:

---

It's well known that Islam teaches that the Bible has been corrupted and incorrectly translated.
From the near sacrifice of Ishmael instead of Isaac right through to the non-crucifixion of Jesus, Islam teaches a different narrative to the Old and New Testaments.

---

I take the Bible origin stories to be codified, made up fables to explain why the tribe making it up has become the superior tribe. So, just as the Hebrew fable that ultimately comes down to defending territory (the 12 tribes) so the Islamic revision does the same for the same territory; and so we have the Middle East mess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


I wonder if anyone can tell me of basis common theological and doctrinal ground upon which Muslims, Jews and Christians can agree? Because it sure as anything looks to me as though the Muslims, having conveniently changed the two basic tenets of Judaism and Christianity (i.e. the old and the new covenants), ain't going to change a thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


I wonder if anyone can tell me of basis common theological and doctrinal ground upon which Muslims, Jews and Christians can agree? Because it sure as anything looks to me as though the Muslims, having conveniently changed the two basic tenets of Judaism and Christianity (i.e. the old and the new covenants), ain't going to change a thing.

---

I suppose 'Abraham' is too simple?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
A covenant of what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Sorry Gwai, Spike, does that suffice?

And back to Mudfrog if I may, so why ISN'T Abraham sufficient to emphasize as a starting point of commonality for the Peoples of the Book.

Leading to a common end point?

Chesed. Blessing. Barak.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. I thought that in Abraham all nations are blessed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. I thought that in Abraham all nations are blessed?

---

Yes, Abraham, through to Isaac (not Ishmael), Jacob (Israel) - through the Law and the Prophets to the coming (and return)of the Messiah.

Salvation (for the world) is of the Jews, not the Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. I thought that in Abraham all nations are blessed?

---

Yes, Abraham, through to Isaac (not Ishmael), Jacob (Israel) - through the Law and the Prophets to the coming (and return)of the Messiah.

Salvation (for the world) is of the Jews, not the Muslims.

---

It is my understanding that the Jews rejected the Messiah. Where is their salvation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
There is only ONE covenant. All are in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

The Jews are blinded at the moment but they will see the Messiah when he returns and they will be included in the redemption that Christ brings with him, being saved according to the covenants made in the OT and fulfilled perfectly in Christ.

---

What is to prevent Muslims from 'seeing the Messiah' when He returns? Why indeed should they, as all will have to see Him as Saviour, not merely Messiah, to be included in the redemption Christ brings.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
On the basis of keeping it simple, on the basis of monism: there is only ONE story.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same one God Who made Heaven and Earth. We do believe that He revealed Himself to Abraham. After that things perhaps start going in different directions.

And of course some of us Jews are Christians, like the whole very early Church; but of course most self-identified Jews now are not.

I have no idea what you mean by "monism" here, Martin.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Their salvation will be in the covenants made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and in the covenant made with Moses. They are God's elect nation and the gifts and callings of God are without revocation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
These covenants - including the Torah - have not been set aside, cancelled or rescinded. The Jews - 'all Israel' according to Paul - will be saved by Christ who at his return with fulfil the entire Covenant with Israel and the ingrafted Church.

The Jews are blinded at the moment but they will see the Messiah when he returns and they will be included in the redemption that Christ brings with him, being saved according to the covenants made in the OT and fulfilled perfectly in Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Their salvation will be in the covenants made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and in the covenant made with Moses. They are God's elect nation and the gifts and callings of God are without revocation.

---

Dispensationalist nonsense! The Church is the true Israel of God. National is quite irrelevant in the context of the new covenant. The old covenant is dead.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
These covenants - including the Torah - have not been set aside, cancelled or rescinded. The Jews - 'all Israel' according to Paul - will be saved by Christ who at his return with fulfil the entire Covenant with Israel and the ingrafted Church.

The Jews are blinded at the moment but they will see the Messiah when he returns and they will be included in the redemption that Christ brings with him, being saved according to the covenants made in the OT and fulfilled perfectly in Christ.

---

When our Lord returns it will be too late. Jews are saved exactly the same way as Gentiles: through the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Too late for what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So what happens to the 80% of humanity that nominally haven't as opposed to the placist minority that nominally have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So what happens to the 80% of humanity that nominally haven't as opposed to the placist minority that nominally have?

---

Are you suggesting that all those who have repented and been baptised have only nominally done so? If not, what's your point?

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that all who do are automatically saved, only that this is the ordinary means by which we are able to be saved. This is what we confess, after all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hell.

---

Well isn't that just merciful and loving?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hell.

---

Well isn't that just merciful and loving?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hell.

---

Well isn't that just merciful and loving?

---

It's simply traditional Christian belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some of the stuff going on now is bewildering. Turkey and the US are negotiating whether to support rebel group X or rebel group Y, but of course, not Kurdish group Z, which the Turks regard as too militant, and endangering Turkey itself.

Meanwhile the UK is supplying heavy machine guns to Kurdish group AA, and even sending soldiers to instruct them in their use. The CIA is sending weapons to Syrian rebels, under the name of the Supreme Military Council.

I wonder if anyone is coordinating all these efforts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hell.

---

Well isn't that just merciful and loving?

---

It's simply traditional Christian belief.

---

You mean it's YOUR traditional Christian belief!

My traditional Christian belief says nothing of the sort.

I'm sure someone else will be along with THEIR traditional Christian belief soon to point out their traditional Christian belief doesn't agree with you. Or me.

Define "traditional". Define "Christian". Define "belief".

Then we can all disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some of the stuff going on now is bewildering. Turkey and the US are negotiating whether to support rebel group X or rebel group Y, but of course, not Kurdish group Z, which the Turks regard as too militant, and endangering Turkey itself.

Meanwhile the UK is supplying heavy machine guns to Kurdish group AA, and even sending soldiers to instruct them in their use. The CIA is sending weapons to Syrian rebels, under the name of the Supreme Military Council.

I wonder if anyone is coordinating all these efforts?

---

The Legion of Doom have got it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Personally, I don't believe in "just war". There's just war, and it's bloody and dirty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
the west daren't go into Africa because of charges of colonialism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
the west daren't go into Africa because of charges of colonialism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Nothing about the Congo fulfils even 'just' war criteria: it is NOT remotely in the tax payer's interest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In my previous appointment there were a lot of asylum seekers. One of them told me that she thought the west should recolonise Africa...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In my previous appointment there were a lot of asylum seekers. One of them told me that she thought the west should recolonise Africa...

---

How many was that? One. One person desperate to get out of Africa.

That's hardly a reliable source.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In my previous appointment there were a lot of asylum seekers. One of them told me that she thought the west should recolonise Africa...

---

How many was that? One. One person desperate to get out of Africa.

That's hardly a reliable source.

---

Well, accepting that it was only one person, I look at the fact that she is an asylum seeker due to her party political activity in the country she came from, and wonder who's opinion you would accept? The ruling dictatorship that violently forced her out of her country?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:

I understand foreign low paid workers are far more likely to get sentenced to death in Saudi, than Saudi citizens. Rather like the black white difference in the US.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0