Bow Down Before Iran?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-21 14:26:21

Chavez can't run for president of the United States, and I don't know what he thinks George Bush has ever done to him or his country. Clearly, he is a hate politician. If we have to attack Iran to prevent it from aqcuiring nuclear weapons, its none of his business.

John Creighton · 2006-09-21 18:47:02

I also read some of those Canadian posts, seems they don't like us very much, I never thought that they would be suckers for such slick terrorist propaganda or murderers. America bashing is probably the reason the Iraq War has gone on for so long.

The internet not an unbiased sample of the pollution. For all you know it could be Americans making the Anti-American comments. Anyway, if you look closely at the forum it is mostly the same few people posting. They just post a lot. Also if you haven’t forgotten Canada is taking a larger role in Afghanistan so the US can focus more on Iraq. You really sound a bit paranoid. Also take criticism with a grain of salt. All criticism is not without warrant as no one is perfect. Try being a bit more humble.

Perhaps Chavez would like to call it "Bush bashing", fine, but he doesn't have a right to choose our President, we do, and he accused George Bush of Genocide and terrorism, I don't know who he thinks we exterminated, maybe his own people in the future?

Chavez tells his people the US is going to attack Venezuela and gives kids guns to supposedly defend the country. If Chavez gets attacked by the US it is his own doing. The US actually warned him about a Coup attempt against him and Chavez accused the US of planning it anyway. Chavez is either paranoid or trying to blame the US for his corruption.

We aren't trying to conquer the World, but if Bashing America becomes popular, then we are going to have to mistrust the countries where it occurs.

Why do you think there is Bush bashing in the first place. Do you think part of it may be due to a lack of respect to the rest of the world. America this, America that, the UN is useless. Talk about egocentric.

One result maybe fortifying the US/Canada border, the US/Mexico border for sure,

You’re going to build a fence between the US and Canada? We are going to have to retaliate by legalizing drugs and prostitution and all sorts of scary things for the religious right. MAHAHAHA

then there is the United States evicting the UN and quiting the Organization, the US withdrawing from NATO, and maybe setting up a few bilateral alliances with our good allies such as Poland, modeled after our alliance with Israel.

You really understand allies and diplomacy 8-)

It would matter if the criticism of our President were fair, but this mixes in with false entirely made up accusations of the US being involved in Genocide, it all sounds like Soviet era propaganda to me, and their doing a fair bit of Jew-bashing besides.

Address what is false and try to work on what is fair. The first casualty of war is the truth. Remember that dividing NATO is part of Alkida’s plan. The propaganda way which bush doesn’t seem very good at fighting.

All in all, I'd say that Adolf Hitler's spirit was alive and well in the Halls of that General Assembly building I don't know why we continue with that organization,

Yeah Hitler AKA the president of IRAN is certainly alive and understands diplomacy much better then Bush.

I guess George Bush is stubborn, he believes in engaging that world body,

Engaging? Interesting choice of words.

he believes that their is such a thing as a Muslim moderate despite all the evidence the Media shows to the contrary, but George Bush still believes democracy will work in Iraq, and it is up to the Iraqi people to prove him either right or wrong. If the Iraqi people prove him wrong, that says more about the Iraqi people than it does about George Bush. In the wake of a failed Iraq War, I wonder if we should let any Iraqi refugees become US citizens? I think perhaps not, if they are not ready for democracy in their own country, why should they be ready in ours? We're giving Iraq a more than fair chance, we're putting the might of our army in support of Iraqi freedom, but if the Iraqis would rather kill each other, then I think they do not belong in our country.

I heard the president of IRAQ speak recently. I was very impressed and was given much hope. Apparently the Suni’s in IRAQ are much more scared of IRAN then the united states. IRAQ may work out despite Bush.

John Creighton · 2006-09-21 18:49:11

If the US goes isolationist, then my fall back position would be to support a heavily armed isolationism, not the disarmed surrender that the Democrats seem to want. If the world is filled with enemies of the US, then we must be armed against them. I don't see any profound ideological difference between the United States and those who hate us, its more a case of them needing someone to hate in Europe for instance. I can understand the Cold War between the US and the USSR for instance, the goal then was to contain the USSR and prevent them from spreading their revolution with a balance of power. Now that the USSR is down and the Cold War has ended, all those people we have defended now want a new Cold War with us, their ideology is nothing but America bashing, and if it continues America will have to respond to it, we'll have to put our nuclear forces back on hair trigger alert, especially if Iran gets nukes with the rest of the World's help, and then millions of lives will be at stake once more, and it isn't even for a good cause, no freedoms are threatened, nobody's way of life is at stake, it is just that some people have a need for an enemy, someone to draw blame away from themselves and their own failings. I can imagine a future World where their are military bases along the US/Canada frontier much like their once were in Western Germany with the United States on one side and Canadian forces on the other with alot of help from the French, the Germans, the Russians, maybe even the British, and their all saying the President ___(fill in the blank)___ is an ogre, that he commits genocide and terrorism and that the US must be stopped and contained at all costs, and the ranks of the Armies will be led by generals that hate the United States, and calling for more short range nuclear weapons to be deployed on Canadian soil along the US border to prevent any sudden US invasions. I wonder how the local Canadians would feel about hosting French nuclear missile bases aimed at the United States, all with the professed aim of securing Canadian freedom against the Massive US military whom everybody automatically assumes is evil. This is the most pointless future Cold War I can possibly think of, and all because of the slick terrorist propaganda in the wake of 9/11. Sounds fantastic? well everything is always done in increments, never all at once. The Palestinians have successfully gotten many Europeans to hate Jews, first by presenting themselves as victims of the Israelis, and then saying their are two sides to the conflict and accusing the ISraelis of oppressing them, and now we've reached the point where the Arab terrorists can attack the Israelis and then immediately blame the Israelis for the War and the Europeans swallow the whole thing hook, line, and sinker, and this all is 60 years after the holocaust against the Jews. Sometimes I wonder if it was really us that won World War II, or was it the Germans.

Well, paranoia and imagination go well to gather.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-21 20:58:29

What is the logical outcome of America bashing? If a politician benefits from it, he's going to do more of it. Bash America enough and America is no longer going to be a friend and the some of our politicians will try some bashing right back. unlike the old Cold War there is nothing behind this other than politicians trying to advance themselves by attempting to look brave in the face of a big power. "Oh look, he defied the United States! Oh want a brave man! It must take a brave man to face down a superpower which could unleash thousands of nuclear warheads down on top of him." Then the brave politician says, "I refuse to hand over these terrorists we've caught trying to kill Americans because I defy you! Oh and you know that serial rapist that raped and murdered several young American girls, well I'm letting him go too, giving him a pardon in fact, and I don't care how many nuclear warheads you have America, you are not going to scare me into handing over this rapist, I defy you!"
Some politicians receve some benefit from defing the United States and being uncooperative. If someone wants to show some independence, he defies the United States, some people make the calculation that always doing the opposite of what the US government wants accomplished is the best way into public office. Hugo Chavez seems to be a creature of that sort.

Address what is false and try to work on what is fair. The first casualty of war is the truth. Remember that dividing NATO is part of Alkida’s plan. The propaganda way which bush doesn’t seem very good at fighting.

The idea of propaganda assumes that the people listening are stupid with moldable opinions that are easily memorised by a clever turn of phrase. Have you ever heard the term, "Actions speak louder than words"? George Bush believes in acting, not so much in talking. People who are swayed by a fine speech uttered by a terrorist who murders women and children with suicide bombers are still responsible for their own actions. I'm not going to accept the excuse from our supposed allies that the Iranians mesmorized them into hating Jews and Americans. Evil is evil, anyone who can be convinced that evil is good is a fool.

I keep the basic facts in my head and ignore the speeches, basically the Iranians, Lebanese and the Syrians started the War with Israel, and no amount of talking and propaganda is going to make me believe that the Israelis are responsible for that war. The Muslims have the Jews outnumbered by a considerable amount, hence the Israelis first priority is toward survival, with sparing the civilian lives of their attacking enemies being a distant second. The Israelis certainly cannot afford to lose one soldier for every terrorist they kill, it is simple mathmatics, hence they will want to use weapons that keep their enemy at a distance, these weapons unfortunately also kill some civilians, but Israel didn't start this war.

The United States was also attacked on 9/11 and we did not do anything prior to that attack which could provoke such action, and certainly none of the people who died in that attack deserved to die because of what they did. The liberals in my country always try to find the reason behind the attack, and they'll never accept answers such as the enemy was evil or that he hated us because we weren't muslims. Liberals always try to find reasons that justify the actions of the enemy.

Yeah Hitler AKA the president of IRAN is certainly alive and understands diplomacy much better then Bush.

Was Hitler smart or were the people who fell for his silver tongue stupid? I prefer to believe the later, I think Hitler was surrounded by a bunch of dumb people who he took advantage of. People tried to negotiate with Hitler when all he really needed was a bullet right between the eyes.

John Creighton · 2006-09-21 21:28:02

How many American lives do you think Bush’s refusal to fight the propaganda war cost. Speaking of the propaganda war he is not doing good on the torture front. Might not be in America’s best interest. Now think how many people thought the leaders of Iran and Venezuela gave good speeches. Bush has to learn to address the world and not just America.

noosfractal · 2006-09-22 00:46:12

I keep the basic facts in my head and ignore the speeches, basically the Iranians, Lebanese and the Syrians started the War with Israel, and no amount of talking and propaganda is going to make me believe that the Israelis are responsible for that war. The Muslims have the Jews outnumbered by a considerable amount, hence the Israelis first priority is toward survival, with sparing the civilian lives of their attacking enemies being a distant second. The Israelis certainly cannot afford to lose one soldier for every terrorist they kill, it is simple mathmatics, hence they will want to use weapons that keep their enemy at a distance, these weapons unfortunately also kill some civilians, but Israel didn't start this war.

The modern state of Israel has been at war with its neighbors literally since day one. To speak of who "started" the most recent action is ludicrous.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-22 07:22:15

How many American lives do you think Bush’s refusal to fight the propaganda war cost. Speaking of the propaganda war he is not doing good on the torture front. Might not be in America’s best interest. Now think how many people thought the leaders of Iran and Venezuela gave good speeches. Bush has to learn to address the world and not just America.

If the world judges the terrorists to be the good guys, then that's their problem because they'll have us for enemies! How does what the United Statesdoes with its prisoners compare to what the terrorists do with their hostages?

We don't force them to convert to Christianity.

We don't chop their heads off.

We don't beat them.

We don't summarily execute them etc.

Our interrogators have to be more creative because of these restrictions. Now in our arsenal of interrogation techniques, since we can't use direct physical force, we may use psycology instead, read humiliation.

I'll give you an example:
What if the interrogators have an uncooperative prisoner? They know he has some vital information about the next terrorist attack, but they can't get him to talk, so they tie him up and put him in a cargo airplane, they take him up still tied up, and then they ask him some questions once more. Once again he refuses, so the lead interrogator say, "Perhaps you could use some fresh air to help clear your mind." He opens the door of the cargo plane, the prisoner is helpless and four guards move toward him, and the prisoner goes, "Wait! I'll tell you what I know!" The interrogator closes the door to the air plane and the prisoner talks. Sometimes the enemy so demonizes the "Imperialist America Facists" etc that he'll believe the worst of us, and if that is the case, he might very well believe that those guards might shove him out the airplane door, that might cause him to break and reveal vital information that could save lives. Meanwhile the interrogation did the detainee no physical harm.

John Creighton · 2006-09-22 14:44:02

How many American lives do you think Bush’s refusal to fight the propaganda war cost. Speaking of the propaganda war he is not doing good on the torture front. Might not be in America’s best interest. Now think how many people thought the leaders of Iran and Venezuela gave good speeches. Bush has to learn to address the world and not just America.
If the world judges the terrorists to be the good guys, then that's their problem because they'll have us for enemies! How does what the United Statesdoes with its prisoners compare to what the terrorists do with their hostages?
We don't force them to convert to Christianity.
We don't chop their heads off.
We don't beat them.
We don't summarily execute them etc.
Our interrogators have to be more creative because of these restrictions. Now in our arsenal of interrogation techniques, since we can't use direct physical force, we may use psycology instead, read humiliation.
I'll give you an example:
What if the interrogators have an uncooperative prisoner? They know he has some vital information about the next terrorist attack, but they can't get him to talk, so they tie him up and put him in a cargo airplane, they take him up still tied up, and then they ask him some questions once more. Once again he refuses, so the lead interrogator say, "Perhaps you could use some fresh air to help clear your mind." He opens the door of the cargo plane, the prisoner is helpless and four guards move toward him, and the prisoner goes, "Wait! I'll tell you what I know!" The interrogator closes the door to the air plane and the prisoner talks. Sometimes the enemy so demonizes the "Imperialist America Facists" etc that he'll believe the worst of us, and if that is the case, he might very well believe that those guards might shove him out the airplane door, that might cause him to break and reveal vital information that could save lives. Meanwhile the interrogation did the detainee no physical harm.

I am not going to comment on weather Bush’s attempt to better define the interrogation rules is a positive or negative step for international law. Rather I am pointing out that he should clearly consider it’s impact in the propaganda war before moving forward with it. Some will use it as an example to say America is worse then Sadam and challenge the legitimacy of the war. It is fine to say it is others fault if they buy into the propaganda of the terrorists but assigning blame is called scapegoating and is not helpful in addressing the real problem.

Mars...Let's Go! · 2006-09-22 17:43:51

Iran and Syria both could cause a lot of problems if they get nuclear power. Of course, everyone knows this anyway.

Plus, I wanted to post my first post!

noosfractal · 2006-09-22 19:26:36

Welcome aboard Steve.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-23 01:18:10

I am not going to comment on weather Bush’s attempt to better define the interrogation rules is a positive or negative step for international law. Rather I am pointing out that he should clearly consider it’s impact in the propaganda war before moving forward with it. Some will use it as an example to say America is worse then Sadam and challenge the legitimacy of the war. It is fine to say it is others fault if they buy into the propaganda of the terrorists but assigning blame is called scapegoating and is not helpful in addressing the real problem.

I care little for propaganda when it involves influencing a biased audience, an audience which automatically gives all the evil dictators of this world a break because their evil, "so of course they torture American Hostages", but cuts the United States no slack when fighting them.

idiom · 2006-09-23 05:53:38

The idea is that The US is 'Good' and the dictators are 'Evil'. Thus doing evil things is expected of them. However the good guys can't be even slightly evil, because thats how this stuff works. You can't be mostly good. Mostly not breaking the law still lands you in jail.

The dictators being evil can be evil because they are going to get punished like crazy at some future point so nobody particuarly cares. It is assumed that they all need to be overthrown at some point.

The two sticking points are which order you right the wrongs in, (why on Earth is Iraq more important than Rwanda or Sudan???) and can you right the wrongs without commiting them or becoming evil yourself.

Thats why the US doesn't get cut any slack. Whats the point of taking out dictators if you become war criminals in the process?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-23 08:49:33

I still think the world expect the United States to fight with both hands tied behind its back and lose. I think some people are too sensitive to psychological interrogation techniques, and not sensitive enough to the brutal forms of coersion that evil dictators use, they give them a pass on ethnic cleansing and on rape camps too.

I think you can't expect us to be paragons of goodness and fairplay and still expect us to win. The United States certainly didn't win World War Two by being chivalrous knights. It is just as important who wins as to how the good guys fight. You take it for granted that the good guys will always win, just like in those old Saturday morning He-Man cartoons. In the He-Man cartoon, there was this reoccuring villain called Skeletor. Skeletor was always ploting to take over the world or some other bad thing, and then He-Man and his allies would always foil this plot, of course Skeletor would always get away and all the pieces of the game would be reset for the next exciting episode of He-Man, and then there would be a morality lesson at the end.

I do not believe that the real world is like a Saturday morning cartoon serial. I think its not a good idea to have Saddam Hussein as a reoccuring villian like Skeletor. During the Persian Gulf War on another exciting episode, Saddam's Army invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia and the United States and its allies had to stop him and Americans were killed and wives and children were widowed and orphaned because of this entertainment. Now the leftists wanted to reset the board so they could watch another exciting episode of Saddam and him minions killing American Soldiers, but George W. Bush cancelled the series.

John Creighton · 2006-09-23 11:39:10

I don’t know how you don’t get that it undermines the legitimacy if the US appears to be doing the same things as the people they fight again. It smells of hypocrisy. The intensions my be good but you must accept that the United States will win over a lot less harts and minds this way. To win the peace a large part of the harts and minds must be won.

dicktice · 2006-09-23 13:34:43

Torture is wrong, period. How would any of you like to be at the mercy of a torturer? Just imagine it for a minute, an hour, day and night, with no assurance of intervention ... that's hell on Earth! I'd sing, convert, admit to anything, if only to be out of the clutches of such a regime. And I'd devote my life to getting even with the individule or organization responsible for my suffering. But I'd never torture them--only liquidate them quickly and painlessly, and feel no remorse. I leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding those "we" torture.

John Creighton · 2006-09-23 13:58:55

Torture is wrong, period. How would any of you like to be at the mercy of a torturer? Just imagine it for a minute, an hour, day and night, with no assurance of intervention ... that's hell on Earth! I'd sing, convert, admit to anything, if only to be out of the clutches of such a regime. And I'd devote my life to getting even with the individule or organization responsible for my suffering. But I'd never torture them--only liquidate them quickly and painlessly, and feel no remorse. I leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding those "we" torture.

You could argue some people deserve it like Paul Bernardo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo

but in a war situation it is a vast abuse of power and only undermines the legitimacy of the war.

anyway there is plenty of sin to go around in Iraq:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5371394.stm
Seems to be common practice from all sides there.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-23 14:38:50

I don’t know how you don’t get that it undermines the legitimacy if the US appears to be doing the same things as the people they fight again. It smells of hypocrisy. The intensions my be good but you must accept that the United States will win over a lot less harts and minds this way. To win the peace a large part of the harts and minds must be won.

That's just the point, we aren't doing the same thing. putting underwear on someone's head and threatening someone with torture isn't the same thing as carrying it out. One can threaten to shove someone out of the airplane, and to tell you the truth if we actually did it, we wouldn't get anymore information out of him. The idea is to make that person afraid without actually harming him or inflicting physical pain. Mental anguish is a different story, but we need some tools to work with. if the prisoner thinks he is going to be tortured or executed, that is not the same thing as him actually being tortured or executed. There are many ways to make someone think he may be tortured if he does not give out information without actually torturing him. What if the prisoner has a cell mate that he does not actually know. What if that cell mate is not actually a prisoner at all but a spy/actor who pretends not to cooperate, and then is dragged into a separate room where all sorts of sound effects indicating that the person is being tortured is heard, the snap of a whip, a scream, a flickering of the lights as the prisoner "screams in agony" followed by the sound of a machinegun. the bloodied figure of the actor's body is dragged off, the actual prisoner doesn't get a good look at him, but gets the impression that he has just been executed for not cooperating. After the actor and guards are well out of earshot he gets up and after taking a day off or two for a job well done, he gets assigned a new prisoner for a cell mate and goes through that same act of being the uncooperative prisoner who is tortured and executed all over again. A nice touch would be to have a pet lion kept in one of the cells, no one is actually fed to the lion, but the prisoners don't know that. And every once in a while a prisoner is taken up in an airplane for an interogation session and perhaps a breath of fresh air if he is not cooperative. Under none of those exercises is the prisoner actually tortured or harmed. If you send enough prisoners through this some of them may well break and may well provide useful information that could save innocent lives, which is what this routine would be all about.

Rxke · 2006-09-24 03:26:37

Mental torture is also torture

idiom · 2006-09-24 07:20:52

Why would someone who is prepared to blow themselves up, and trained to resist torture, with absolute faith in repatriation for pain suffered, break at the thought of torture?

This is why the Administration is pushing to redefine war crimes (War Crimes = Stuff that happens to Americans) because 'pretend' torture doesn't work except on the most cowardly. Blowing oneself up may be ignoble but it is far from cowardly.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-24 09:25:13

You know there is a saying: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. To answer your first question, if you have alot of detainees, you have a greater probability of one of them breaking at the mere thought of torture. You see it is their own evil mind that complete's the picture along with their evil image of us. If they think we are the sort of people who might shove them out of a flying airplane, they might break and give us the information we need to know when we open up the door. Maybe some of them are prepared to die, but the chances are, the more you have, the more likely one of them is likely to break. And of course the Media is spreading the propaganda that the CIA tortures people, it may not be necessary to actually torture them, if they just have the thought of falling into the hands of the dread CIA, and the CIA officer might find it useful to do little to dispel this illusion in the minds of the detainees. After all they're the ones to spread this propaganda, how fitting would it be if some of them were to fall victim to the very same propaganda that their organization generated about us? When they are not in our clutches it is a source of hatred that motivates them to commit these attacks against Americans, but when they are captures, that hatred turns to fear, because they are in the Clutches of the Great Satan! Now if the Great Satan indicates or aludes that he will shove you out the door of this high flying airplane, are you going to believe him if you think he is evil incarnate? Alot of these terrorists have been brainwashed into thinking we are the devil himself, when in captivity that makes a useful lever in his interrogation, don't you think? Evil doesn't have to be done, merely alluded to. the prisoner will see the lion in one of the cells, perhaps surrounded by bones that might have been one of his past meals. In reality the lions are fed stakes fresh from the butchers,but the prisoner's don't know this.

Mental torture is also torture

And if we remind them of there past crimes they feel anguish from it, is that also a form of mental torture? What about the time we led those German Citizens through their own Death Camps let them see those huge piles of corpses that were generated by their own government, was that also mental torture? Some of those citizens committed suicide after seeing all that, so clearly it was. I do not feel guilty about reminding people of their past crimes, if it gives them a sense of mental anguish that's good, maybe others of their kind won't be so quick to follow their example then.

I don't think mental torture is torture, I think alot of it is just plain justice. If a person has an evil mind, hes also likely to have an evil imagination of what his captors might possibly do to him, because he would and may have done similar things to prisoners he had in his captivity, if he were to suffer mental anguish from it, good! If he is just an innocent bystander who was mistakenly captured, he'll just have to trust us not to execute or torture him and we won't, it is the people withthe most evil imaginations that are the most vulnerable to this sort of thing.

Calling mental anguish torture just ties our hands so we can get no useful information out of them at all, and innocent people will die because we were't willing to apply a little pressure on our captives. Remember, just because they are behind bars doesn't make them heroes or somehow noble or anything like that. If they were terrorists before they went into captivity, they still are terrorists after they are captured. I know it is the liberal tendency to feel sorry for anyone who ends up behind bars no matter what the reason. The purpose of the incarceration is to protect our soldiers, and to get information out of them if possible, and maybe foil future terrorist plots, and capture more terrorists.

Given the choice of whether we brutally beat the living crap out of them to get information or whether we use psychological tricks, which would you prefer? Which is more likely to cause injury or death the the captives, indicating that they may be fed to the lions or actually feeding them to the lions? I think the answer is obvious.

Mars...Let's Go! · 2006-09-24 21:10:17

Welcome aboard Steve.

Thanks! Good to be here!

I hope I can contribute.

Commodore · 2006-09-25 08:36:23

Mental torture is also torture

So does that mean we can only thier cells with things that give them happy thoughts? Like butterflys and singing birds and the entrails of a pigdog American infidel?

Its a prison. Get over it.

Mars...Let's Go! · 2006-09-25 11:22:30

Mental torture is also torture
So does that mean we can only thier cells with things that give them happy thoughts? Like butterflys and singing birds and the entrails of a pigdog American infidel?
Its a prison. Get over it.

Darn straight!!

noosfractal · 2006-09-28 23:18:35

There is no equivalent to fundamentalist Islam in Christianity

They cry, pray to Bush and wash out the devil - welcome to Jesus Camp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1883730,00.html

...
At one point Pastor Fischer equates the preparation she is giving children with the training of terrorists in the Middle East. "I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam," she tells the camera. "I want to see them radically laying down their lives for the gospel, as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine."
...

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-29 08:22:20

There is no equivalent to fundamentalist Islam in Christianity
They cry, pray to Bush and wash out the devil - welcome to Jesus Camp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1883730,00.html
...
At one point Pastor Fischer equates the preparation she is giving children with the training of terrorists in the Middle East. "I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam," she tells the camera. "I want to see them radically laying down their lives for the gospel, as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine."
...
<sarcasm> Yay. </sarcasm>

You say that Pastor Fischer equates the preparation she is giving children with the training of terrorists in the Middle East, but the quote you cite indicates nothing of the kind. "I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam," is the cause of Islam terrorism, this sentence doesn't explicitly say so. "I want to see them radically laying down their lives for the gospel, as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine." He is not explicitly saying Christians should murder people, which is what the Middle East Terrorists do, he is saying people are laying down their live, it could mean they are laying down their lives as Jesus Christ did on the cross. Perhaps he means the other Muslims besides the terrorists, who are simply murderers, suicidal murderers in some cases, but I would't call someone who commits murder and suicide to be laying down his life for his religion.

I read the story by the Guardian and the pastor himself didn't make this comparison to terrorists, only the person who wrote the artical. What people are laying down their lives for Islam? Is it the terrorists, or is it their innocent victims? I say the terrorists are not so innocent, so it isn't they who are laying down their lives, rather it is they who are making human sacrifices of other people for a religion that does not demand the blood of the innocent. I see no comparison between that and Christianity. By maryr in Christiandom we mean somebody who is willing to lay down his life for Jesus Christ, that is if someone threatens him with Death if he refuses to change his religion, then he would freely accept death, rather than convert to some other religion while under the threat of death to do so, or someone who dies as a result of following the tenants of his religion, like that of a German Priest who sacrificed his life to save a Jew from the Holocaust. People who blow themselves up to kill other people are acting in an unchristian manner, so he cannot be said to be laying down his life for Christ when he is violating his principles.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-09-21 14:26:21

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#52 2006-09-21 18:47:02

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#53 2006-09-21 18:49:11

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#54 2006-09-21 20:58:29

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#55 2006-09-21 21:28:02

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#56 2006-09-22 00:46:12

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#57 2006-09-22 07:22:15

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#58 2006-09-22 14:44:02

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#59 2006-09-22 17:43:51

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#60 2006-09-22 19:26:36

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#61 2006-09-23 01:18:10

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#62 2006-09-23 05:53:38

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#63 2006-09-23 08:49:33

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#64 2006-09-23 11:39:10

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#65 2006-09-23 13:34:43

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#66 2006-09-23 13:58:55

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#67 2006-09-23 14:38:50

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#68 2006-09-24 03:26:37

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#69 2006-09-24 07:20:52

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#70 2006-09-24 09:25:13

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#71 2006-09-24 21:10:17

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#72 2006-09-25 08:36:23

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#73 2006-09-25 11:22:30

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#74 2006-09-28 23:18:35

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#75 2006-09-29 08:22:20

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Board footer