Russian bombers intercepted off Alaska

[fccool]

John,

I feel that I did offend you in some ways, and I do apologize if I did. I do agree that it is a duty of the govenrment to protect me and my family from harm, but not if I have no desire for them to do so at the expense of my choices and freedoms. All of the tyrants of the past rose to power under guise of protection and justice. This has always been, and will always be the case, and will be the case with US in the last days. Bible never promoted nationalism, and never promoted national pride, because it is almost inevitably led to abandoning God... as was the case with Israelites.

As I said, I do respect people who fight for justice, but I don't respect the violent approach to solving things. Canada hardly had any wars and they enjoy the same freedoms as we do. So, please let's not forget that there are other ways of solving disagreements than pulling out a club.

I give a great deal to this country by being a part of it. So do each and every one of us. But I'm not willing to lose my individuality, and my life to defend a national identity... because that's what you are talking about here... you are not talking about people, but the identity and right to be called a word - American. American, African, Chinese, Russian... these are just words that we attach to ourselves because other people tell us that we are that. But what is American, and how is American diffrent from Mexican? NO DIFFERENCE ON THE HUMAN LEVEL! It's just ascribed and acquired identity. Is that identity more important to you than life of the people? I'll leave you with a little poem here. It is really profound.

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,

He fights with missiles and with spears.

He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,

Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,

A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.

And he knows he shouldn't kill,

And he knows he always will,

Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,

He's fighting for France,

He's fighting for the USA,

And he's fighting for the Russians,

And he's fighting for Japan,

And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,

He's fighting for the Reds,

He says it's for the peace of all.

He's the one who must decide,

Who's to live and who's to die,

And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,

How would Hitler have condemned him at Labau?

Without him Caesar would have stood alone,

He's the one who gives his body

As a weapon of the war,

And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,

His orders come from far away no more,

They come from here and there and you and me,

And brothers can't you see,

This is not the way we put the end to war.

[John317]

John,

Don't get me wrong. I just don't see things the way you do....

Yes, I understand that, and that's no problem, of course. We're just talking about differences of viewpoint and experiences. That can be a good thing to do.

Quote:

You see, countries are built on ideologies. Ideology here is freedom.

Freedom is much more than an ideology. Freedom is an idea but more more than an idea. Freedom is a gift from God that no government or man has a right to take away from anyone unless by due process. It is not something that an individual has to be taught in order to understand or have a desire for it. Liberty is an inalienable right. But it comes with a price. Nations and people have to be vigilant about defending their liberty or they will lose it. Freedom is worth dying for. Some have always had to pay the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that others and future generations would be free. I am not prepared to say that their sacrifices were in vain or foolish.

Quote:

So you have a saying ... "they died for our freedom" in during the revolution. I certainly respect what they did.

Have you taken US history in college or read many books about the American War of Independence?

Quote:

But Britain is NOT worth off today without anyone revolting.

Could you please explain what you mean?

Quote:

Amsterdam did not participate hardly in any wars and they are fine today,

How did the Netherlands become free? Who died fighting to free Amsterdam? It was the Americans, the British, and the Canadians. So why are the people of Amsterdam fine today? Why are they free today?

Please read:

"The first Allied troops entered the Netherlands on September 9, 1944, on a reconnaissance patrol; on September 12, 1944, a small part of Limburg was liberated by the US 30th Infantry Division. During Operation Market Garden, the Americans and British established a corridor to Nijmegen, but they failed to secure a Rhine crossing at Arnhem.

During the rest of 1944, the Canadian First Army liberated Zeeland in the Schelde Campaign, in order to free access to the harbour of Antwerp. By 1945, the entire southern part of the Netherlands (up to the Waal and Maas rivers) had been liberated.

After Operation Veritable, the Allied advance from the Dutch-German border into the Rhineland, and the crossing of the Rhine at Wesel and Rees in Operation Plunder, the Canadian First Army liberated the eastern and northern parts of the Netherlands. However, they did not attack the German forces in the western part (ironically, they stopped at about where the Grebbe Line was in 1940), for fear of massive civilian casualties: the western part of the Netherlands (also called the Randstad) is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The civilian population there, still suffering from the effects of the Hongerwinter ('Hungerwinter'), was now cut off from food that was available in the rest of the Netherlands. However, the Germans, having agreed to a truce, did allow the staging of an Allied relief effort,Operation Manna. The German forces in the Netherlands finally surrendered in Wageningen, on May 5, 1945."

The rest of the history of the war is very interesting and tragic. The Netherlands had its head stuck in the sand and therefore were not prepared for the German attack. That is why they were so easily taken over and experienced the tragic consequences of the German occupation. And that is why it required many American and English soldiers to bring them their freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Netherlands_during_World_War_II

How about World War II? There were millions in the USSR who died to keep Hitler from winning that war. You might say they died in order to keep the people of the Soviet Union free from Hitler's SS, etc.

That was also certainly a great sacrifice and I know you appreciate what all of those people did.

Quote:

so you have no idea how the things would have turned out without people dying for ideologies such as freedom.

But they didn't die for an "ideology". They died in order to be free from tyranny and from concentration camps. They died for a better life, one in which they wouldn't have to fear the SS every night, and one in which they could go to college even though they might be Jewish, and so on and so forth.

Please check out the link I sent about the history of Amsterdam in WWII and how it was liberated by US and British and Canadian forces and then let me know how those people's lives would have been different or maybe improved without people dying for their freedom. I don't think those soldiers who died to free Amsterdam were thinking about ideology at all. It didn't have much at all to do with ideology except insofar as Naziism is opposed to freedom.

[fccool]

John,

I understand what you are saying. I myself was saluting to the flag and singing national anthem while waking up and before going to bed. It was a custom. We woke up to it, and we slept. It's a process of nationalistic brainwashing that I don't really appreciate right now. I see exact thing happening in US that happened to me in Soviet Union. People (like Obama) are belittled because they don't go through all the right motions and rituals. It's a national religion in a way with its fair share of sacrifices (war)... and I'm not talking about US here. I've lived through some of that brainwashing soviet Union stage... and we believe that we were free, and that we needed to give up part of our liberty and freedom for overall freedom and safety of people. I don't agree with any view that puts state above the individual and where lives of some people (such as presidents) considered to be more important than its citizens. And I think you can not disagree with me that this is the case in US right now. The bum on the street considered to be less important than US president , and I know you will defend this view that president is more important person and the bum on the street is not. This is by far not a Biblical view. And this is just a minute example of a state system that I'm talking about.

When I'm talking about my ideal of personal freedom... let me give you the following question/example. I buy a farm land somewhere in Montana. I decalre that I'm capable of protecting and taking care of myself. There are no government built roads and electricity around. I am fully independent. I grow my own food and trade with people using barter. Since the land is mine and I refuse any governmental services... what do you think would happen to me as individual? Do you think US would respect my liberty as individual to just be on the land that I purchased. Of course not. Because it has no interest in me being independent. If everyone would be independent and self sufficient, then there would hardly be any need for the state system. That was the case with Israel until they asked God for a king. Freedom is a relative term that being thrown around without understanding what it really means.

[John317]

John,

I feel that I did offend you in some ways, and I do apologize if I did.

No, not at all, really. I am just trying to truly understand your viewpoint and where you are coming from.

Quote:

I do agree that it is a duty of the govenrment to protect me and my family from harm, but not if I have no desire for them to do so at the expense of my choices and freedoms.

The way we try to take care of this aspect is by changing leadership in this country, from state legislators to congressman to president. You can write letters to editors and to your representatives, and tell them you disagree with certain policies.

Maybe you could give an example of this. Do you mean, for instance, the government invading Iraq and thus going against your individual choice?

Quote:

All of the tyrants of the past rose to power under guise of protection and justice. This has always been, and will always be the case, and will be the case with US in the last days. Bible never promoted nationalism, and never promoted national pride, because it is almost inevitably led to abandoning God... as was the case with Israelites.

Do you believe that feeling "pride" in one's country, in one's race or in one's culture or in anything else is opposed to the Bible?

How do you define "nationalism"? A dictionary meaning is "patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts." Is this what you have in mind?

Quote:

As I said, I do respect people who fight for justice, but I don't respect the violent approach to solving things. Canada hardly had any wars and they enjoy the same freedoms as we do. So, please let's not forget that there are other ways of solving disagreements than pulling out a club.

Let's look at Canada a little and see why it is free and independent: Almost 100,000 Canadians were either killed or wounded in WWII. 1.1 million Canadians served in its military during that war.

"The military history of Canada during the Second World War began with a declaration of war on Germany on September 10, 1939 and encompassed major campaigns in Italy[1] and Northern Europe. Canada was active in defending the shipping lanes in the North Atlantic and the Canadian Merchant Navy completed over 25,000 voyages across the Atlantic. Canadians were also active in the Pacific throughout the war.

At the beginning of the war, Canada was the oldest Dominion in the British Commonwealth. As a nation, it was, for the most part, reluctant to return to war. Nonetheless, Canadians entered the Second World War united with the Mother Country, and from a population of only 11 to 12 million, eventually raised very substantial armed forces. After the long struggle of the Great Depression of the 1930s, the challenges of the Second World War accelerated Canada's ongoing transformation into a modern urban and industrialised nation.

Early in the war, Canada's commitment to the British-French forces in Europe was limited to one division. Canada's military deployment reached corps-level strength for the invasions in Italy in 1943, and Normandy in 1944. Over the course of the war, 1.1 million Canadians served in the army, navy, and air force. Of these more than 45,000 gave their lives and another 54,000 were wounded. Countless more of His Majesty's Canadian subjects shared in the suffering and the hardships of war at home and abroad.

The war's impact on Canadian history was considerable, though it was likely not as significant as World War I. The conscription crisis had a major effect on unity between French and English-speaking Canadians, though was not as politically damaging as that of WWI. The war effort strengthened the Canadian economy, led to diversification in manufacturing and enhanced national thanksgiving. Canada's status as a nation was strengthened after 1945."

Quote:

I give a great deal to this country by being a part of it. So do each and every one of us. But I'm not willing to lose my individuality, and my life to defend a national identity... because that's what you are talking about here...

What is our national identity? Is a people's national identity important?

But I am not talking so much about national identity as a nation's right to defend its way of life and to be free from unprovoked and unwarranted attack.

Quote:

you are not talking about people, but the identity and right to be called a word - American.

No, this is not what I am talking about. What have I said that gives you this impression?

Quote:

American, African, Chinese, Russian... these are just words that we attach to ourselves because other people tell us that we are that. But what is American, and how is American diffrent from Mexican? NO DIFFERENCE ON THE HUMAN LEVEL!

Well, yes, there is a difference. My wife is Mexican and all of her (large) family is Mexican. Let me tell you that there is a big difference between Mexican culture and language and ideals and values and viewpoint than American culture, language, values, ideals, and viewpoints. I see it and live it every day.

By the way, I love the difference. I love a mix of culture and ideas and ways of thinking. That is one reason, I suppose, I'm here talking to you.

Of course we all human. But yes, on the human level there are differences. There are differences between nations and peoples. There are also differences within nations and peoples.

Quote:

It's just ascribed and acquired identity.

Most of the differences, I agree, are acquired through experiences. That is why it is important for children to have certain kinds of good experiences and role models early in life. If they have these experiences too late in their lives, they won't have the same affect or influence on them, and they can then go through the rest of their lives without having developed those positive personality traits.

Quote:

Is that identity more important to you than life of the people?

All peoples on the face of the globe are important.

Quote:

I'll leave you with a little poem here. It is really profound.

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,

He fights with missiles and with spears.

He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,

Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,

A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.

And he knows he shouldn't kill,

And he knows he always will,

Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,

He's fighting for France,

He's fighting for the USA,

And he's fighting for the Russians,

And he's fighting for Japan,

And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,

He's fighting for the Reds,

He says it's for the peace of all.

He's the one who must decide,

Who's to live and who's to die,

And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,

How would Hitler have condemned him at Labau?

Without him Caesar would have stood alone,

He's the one who gives his body

As a weapon of the war,

And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,

His orders come from far away no more,

They come from here and there and you and me,

And brothers can't you see,

This is not the way we put the end to war.

Talk about ideology. Back in the 1960s, there was a song titled, "The Universal Soldier," and it had some of those words and taught the same ideology. I used to listen to it while I was in the army. I think it was by Donovon, one of my favorite recording artists of that day. It has a very simplistic view of life.

We need to be realistic. Try singing it to the Al-Qaeida. I didn't notice anything in it about Muslim extremists. Of course I need not tell you, I assume, what they would do if you tried singing it to them.

But I understand the attraction of that song. Of course. As I said I used to listen to it and others like it all the time. Ever hear of "The Eve Of Destruction" by Barry McGuire? (By the way, he became a Christian and lives not to far from here, near Yucca Valley.)

I used to listen to it by the hour at Ft. Bliss, about the same time as I listened to "The Universal Soldier." In fact, I typed the words out while listening to it over and over again, and sent the lyrics to my father, along with a letter telling him and my mother that I was leaving with two army buddies for Canada:

The eastern world, it is exploding

Violence flarin’, bullets loadin’

You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin’

You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’

And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin’

But you tell me

Over and over and over again, my friend

Ah, you don’t believe

We’re on the eve

of destruction.

Don’t you understand what I’m tryin’ to say

Can’t you feel the fears I’m feelin’ today?

If the button is pushed, there’s no runnin’ away

There’ll be no one to save, with the world in a grave

[Take a look around ya boy, it's bound to scare ya boy]

And you tell me

Over and over and over again, my friend

Ah, you don’t believe

We’re on the eve

of destruction.

Yeah, my blood’s so mad feels like coagulatin’

I’m sitting here just contemplatin’

I can’t twist the truth, it knows no regulation.

Handful of senators don’t pass legislation

And marches alone can’t bring integration

When human respect is disintegratin’

This whole crazy world is just too frustratin’

And you tell me

Over and over and over again, my friend

Ah, you don’t believe

We’re on the eve

of destruction.

Think of all the hate there is in Red China

Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama

You may leave here for 4 days in space

But when you return, it’s the same old place

The poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace

You can bury your dead, but don’t leave a trace

Hate your next-door neighbor, but don’t forget to say grace

And… tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend

You don’t believe

We’re on the eve

Of destruction

Mm, no no, you don’t believe

We’re on the eve

of destruction.

You like 'em? What'da' think? Real words, aren't they? But now let us get back to the real world, as it really is, not like it's su'pose to be.

Listen to it here. It still sends shivers up and down my back 'cause when I hear it and close my eyes, I'm back in the summer of '69 waiting to fly on the bird to 'Nam. (Later my orders were changed to a unit in training at White Sands, NM.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akoukq5DvAE

[fccool]

John,

If you want to talk realism.... realistically there is no difference between 9/11 and this

The latter one is much more brutal IMO. If you disagree, I'd like to see you explain that to the people pictured. They have every right to hold guns after these experiences.

PS. Read Luke 21:26. I don't think we want to be in this category. I certainly don't think I am... and I think it takes much more courage to be compassionate and resist not the evil person than to retaliate in vengeance just like Peter did. Do you think that principles that Jesus put forth are unrealistic expectations? How many disciples do you remember shooting back?

[John317]

John,

If you want to talk realism.... realistically there is no difference between 9/11 and this

The latter one is much more brutal IMO. If you disagree, I'd like to see you explain that to the people pictured.

War is brutal, of course. It's all brutal. None is more brutal than another. How do you compare being blown up one way and blown up a different way and then say one is more brutal than another.

But then you need to consider how the terrible things in those pictures happened. What happened to bring about those events?

To see the full picture we have to go back to at least 1990 and the invasion of Kuwait because of Saddam's decision. Do you remember that? I sure do.

[John317]

.....Read Luke 21:26. I don't think we want to be in this category. I certainly don't think I am... and I think it takes much more courage to be compassionate and resist not the evil person than to retaliate in vengeance just like Peter did. Do you think that principles that Jesus put forth are unrealistic expectations? How many disciples do you remember shooting back?

You're talking about individual Christians. I am talking about governments and what they have to do sometimes to protect their people in an evil, dangerous world.

How many of the disciples were policemen? Are you saying it is wrong for a policeman or a soldier to do his duty?

How about if you are in your house and some one comes in to kill you or rape your wife. Aren't you going to call the police? Would you have the police come without a gun? Please answer this question.

You talked about the people of Amsterdam and of how they didn't fight much and how they are doing so fine without fighting. Well, how did they get their freedom near the end of WWII? Somebody else of other nations had to do their fighting for them. That is how they got free. Other people died for them.

You talk about the disciples not having weapons or shooting back. Well, of course. But somebody has to protect you, while you are free not to have to carry a weapon or fight. You have to be protected, and you are willing to let them do that, of course.

[fccool]

John,

I am a Christian, and I can only speak from my viewpoint. Murder is against God's law. Theft (taking something that does not belong to you, sometimes by applying force) is against God's law also. War does not suspend God's law. Neither any of the human made constitutions/laws make any exceptions.

When someone comes into my house trying to kill me and raping my wife I will then find out what I will do (It's an individual choice and decision to protect my family, which is quite different from a soldier killing in my name). Nobody had yet. It's one of those hypothetical false dilemmas that people like to use to circumvent God's law. I don't look for justice in this world. There is none here. Nowhere does it give me right to kill another person in defense. Disciples did no. Jesus taught against it (even though he did let them know that they will need to protect themselves after his departure, but not at the expense of killing others). I expect nothing less from myself as His follower... and I can only speak for myself. Do I think it is wrong for policeman or soldier to do his duty? Yes, if it involves murder. Or do you think murder is not really murder in times of war or a foot chase? Are those civilian casualties something that we just think of "oh well", or "oops"?

You don't have to fight to be free, because our freedom is not of this world. We are to be slaves and servants to the people around us. Eventually Jesus will bring out sword of justice, but it is not for us to hold right here, and right now.

PS. if you think I'm some kind of oddball for believing this... read this carefully:

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat52.html

[John317]

John,

I am a Christian, and I can only speak from my viewpoint. Murder is against God's law.

Is there any difference in God's word between murder and manslaughter or self-defense? In other words, is all taking of human life the same in the scales of human law and God's law?

In your view, were all the soldiers in WW2 "murderers"? Do you believe that they should all have been considered "murderer" and as such punished? I assume you don't. But then if you don't, you must recognize that there is some significant difference between various acts of taking human life.

Quote:

Theft (taking something that does not belong to you, sometimes by applying force) is against God's law also. War does not suspend God's law.

When a nation goes to war, do all of its soldier who take human life commit acts of "murder"?

Were the Israelites "murdering" when they followed God's directions to conquer the land of Canaan?

How about when God ordered the Israelites to take by force land which previously had been inhabited by the indigenous people living in Jerusalem or in other parts of Palestine? Was the law of God then suspended?

Quote:

Neither any of the human made constitutions/laws make any exceptions.

Are you saying, then, that all taking of something by force is against the law? Is all taking of life against the law? Is it all one?

Does human law recognize the necessity of taking anything from someone else by force if necessary?

Quote:

When someone comes into my house trying to kill me and raping my wife I will then find out what I will do (It's an individual choice and decision to protect my family, which is quite different from a soldier killing in my name). Nobody had yet. It's one of those hypothetical false dilemmas that people like to use to circumvent God's law.

What is the difference between your having to defend yourself or your wife individually because your family is attacked or your home invaded, and the a country having to protect its people because the country is attacked and the nation is invaded?

By the way, no one is trying to circumvent God's law. We are just talking about what happens when it is no longer mere theory but reality. And the reality is that many homes are invaded every day. Many people have to make the decision every day as to what they are going to do in the situation just described.

The Bible itself makes a difference between self-defense and murder.

Was every incidence of David's taking a human life "murder"? Do believe God considered it so?

Quote:

I don't look for justice in this world. There is none here.

But surely you are not saying that the governments and the legal system should not attempt to gain justice for the citizens, are you. Of course there is not going to be perfect justice-- only God can bring complete and final justice-- but don't you have a right to expect some degree of justice in a nation such as the United States?

Quote:

Nowhere does it give me right to kill another person in defense. Disciples did no.

Do you see any difference between defending yourself against an insane man, or one who wants to kill you so he can rape your wife, and one who is coming to persecute you for your faith in Christ?

I see a big difference there.

Quote:

Jesus taught against it (even though he did let them know that they will need to protect themselves after his departure, but not at the expense of killing others). I expect nothing less from myself as His follower... and I can only speak for myself.

Please check out Luke 3: 14 and Acts 10. None of those passages mention anything about soldier's having to put down their weapons or stop being soldiers. Cornelius was not told he should cease being a soldier in the Roman army. John the Baptizer did not instruct soldiers who asked him what they should do, to cease being soldiers.

The Old Testament is full of soldier's, even long after it ceased to be a theocracy. Check out David's last words to his son Solomon, in 1 Kings 2: 5, 6. David killed many people, and some of those he killed with pleasure because they were the enemies of Israel. Some he killed needlessly. But the point is that many of those killings were done in God's name, and God never found fault with them.

As a matter of fact, there were times in the Bible when people would have been disobeying God's direct order if they had not killed, isn't that right? You can probably find some of those instances.

Of course, as we know, David also killed (murdered) an innocent man, but that was different, wasn't it? Notice that God only sent Nathan the prophet one time to condemn David for taking a human life. So God must have seen the other killings by David differently than He did the murder of Bathsheba's husband. Of course.

[John317]

Quote:

fccool: Do I think it is wrong for policeman or soldier to do his duty? Yes, if it involves murder.

I notice you use the word "murder." In your view, does all taking of human life by either the police or military constitute "murder"?

It sounds as if you do not recognize that there is ever a justifiable cause for a policeman or soldier or anyone else to take a human life, is that right? Not even in the case of a criminal who is in the process of killing people? What if the only way you can stop him from killing more people is to kill him? We have seen this happen in some instances, haven't we?

Quote:

fccool: Or do you think murder is not really murder in times of war or a foot chase? Are those civilian casualties something that we just think of "oh well", or "oops"?

The taking of human life in battle is not considered "murder" by any court of law anywhere in the world. Of course that does not include the deliberate killing of unarmed prisoners or innocent civilians uninvolved in the war. However, there are some circumstances in war in which the killing of civilians takes place and is not considered "murder," such as in bombing of certain targets or in order to bring a long and costly war to an end, as happened in Japan.

As for a foot chase, there are times when a policeman must chase a suspect of a violent crime or a theft, and if the policeman is fired on or an attempt is made on his life, he must defend his own life and the life of his partner. Don't you agree?

Quote:

fccool: You don't have to fight to be free, because our freedom is not of this world. We are to be slaves and servants to the people around us.

Don't you think being someone's slave and servant means doing anything to help protect them from great bodily harm if you are in a position to help them?

Do you think it was wrong and evil of the American soldiers to fight to free Amsterdam from the Nazis? How about to bring freedom to the Jews in the concentration camps?

Weren't the Americans who freed the poor people of the Netherlands from Nazi terror being good servants to those people? I bet they sure thought so at the time. I know Anne Frank's father thought so. I feel badly that Anne could not have been among the survivors. I've been in the Secret Annex myself before. I'm having my youngest daughter read Anne's Diary right now. Have you read it? If you have not, you just must do it some day.

Quote:

fccool: Eventually Jesus will bring out sword of justice, but it is not for us to hold right here, and right now.

PS. if you think I'm some kind of oddball for believing this... read this carefully:

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat52.html

Speaking to the issues raised by the link here, I agree with everything in that article. Notice that it does not say it is wrong of a nation to defend itself or that police or soldiers are necessarily committing murder when they do their duty for their city and peoples. Nor does it condemn the US for being in Iraq.

Is there a part of the article that you believe I either do not understand or that I do not believe and practice? Please let me know.

No, I don't think you are some kind of oddball. I guess you haven't been reading what I've written. One of my favorite heros of all time was a man by the name of Desmond Doss whom I met several times. (Please Google if you are unfamiliar with his experience in WWII.) I am a Seventh-day Adventist myself and refused to train with or carry a weapon in the military, and would not have carried a weapon if I had been sent to Vietnam. If I were in Iraq I would gladly serve as a medic, and I would be there to help save the lives of terrorists as much as I would an American or Iraqi soldier.

[Neil D]

What if 'they' gave a war, and nobody came?

[fccool]

John,

What you've had in a Nazi regime is a direct oppression and occupation, and aggression. Bible surely states that we should not sit idle and fight the injustice, but it DOES NOT say that we should fight injustice by way of war. There's a difference between defense and preemption. What thought of defense today is either retaliation and punishment of the entire country for the crimes they did not commit (9/11). Iraq did not attack US, neither did Afganistan. Quite the opposite. American revolutionary war was won by individuals defending their homes... organized military failed. It was bunch of people hiding behind the rocks (which British thought was unfair )

Secondly, I think you'd have to agree that Jesus clarified the law and the purpose of it. "Eye for an eye" is NOT a Biblical principle... and that's what is happening today. It is not defense. It is prevention of would have been based on FEAR. So this ideology of justice is to bomb anyone capable of committing the great wrong. I think we might as well include all of the humanity, because all of us have some sorts of prejudices that we need to unlearn. Capability does not necessitates action.... Watch minority report as it drives this point very clearly, and brilliantly. Spielberg in both of his latest films... Munich and Minority Report, demonstrates that retaliation will not bring about peace.

If the US today walked out and apologized for the civilian death during Gulf wars and pulled out the military bases our of the Middle East (including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kazakhstan)... that would drastically slash terrorism in that region. I doubt 9/11 would have happened without US presence in that part of the world. You can't fight what you can't see or locate, except through ideology or communication and positive and reaffirming actions. YOU CAN'T FIGHT TERRORISM. How can you protect any citizen from terror (ideology of scaring people)? You can't! If the terrorist had any desire to carry out another act... there would be one right now. Ask any Israeli Citizen how is is like living there, and if their anti-terror measures are solving things even with maximized security people are still going through and blow themselves up. You can never stop individuals from doing crazy things, especially if the individuals are a part of ideological movement. But it's like a sports game that we can't loose... We can't withdraw, because terrorists will win.

As I've pointed out before...the goal of the terrorist attacks on US was to turn the peaceful Muslims against US. They (terrorists) knew that the US will retaliate. Those people were no dummies. And currently their plan is working because they are playing right into the mentality of retaliation and sensationalizing fear, and macho idea of "eye for eye"... "we'll put a boot in your A, it's the American way". It is not working. It simply is not working. And, if you ask people on the streets, you will soon find out that not every American approves of these wars. In fact most don't. Many of the ones that do can't even find Iran on the map easily. And their views are what media decides to show and their views are also what media decided to ignore.

WWW II was a quite different animal, as it was people defending themselves IN their homes. That was the case with Ukraine as near 2 million civilians have died during the initial (and stupid on Hitler's part) attack. This was very close to Revolutionary war as people were defending AN AGGRESSION! That's what insurgency is doing right now in Iraq (as they see it). They defending and fighting an invasion. I know that we don't see it that way, but it is an invasion with GREAT deal of civilian deaths. You can't win hearts and minds of people by bombing them.

Do we ask what people want? Yes, it is maybe choosing between two evils... but as this man right here thinks that current occupation is a greater evil. It was a sad story to look at, and this is the reason why US will never win the war in Iraq... and will eventually withdraw. I think that the sooner, the better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqvC9Po9-8s

I try to scale down conflicts to a personal level, and see what would work for me as an individual. Let's say someone walks up to you and punches you in the face and says "that's for what your father did to mine!". You have some choices:

1) Beat some sense into that man and turn him over to a police, without saying a word.

2) Ask the man to talk and explain what he means on his terms and work things out, because you have no idea what he is talking about.

Which one is more effective in in preventing the future attacks is up to you to decide. Even terrorists are human beings that are not beyond negotiation.

[John317]

What if 'they' gave a war, and nobody came?

Straight out of the antiwar movement of the 60s and 70s. Good and interesting thought but that is all it is. Some day there will be no more wars, but as long as we're living in a dangerous world, we'll have need of a military and police. No utiopias until the real one.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Straight out of the antiwar movement of the 60s and 70s. Good and interesting thought but that is all it is

Really?...I wonder why Gandhi, an non-christian, never heard it that way.....

[fccool]

That's true... Ghandi, who was a commanding officer of British army in the past, had every opportunity to organize a revolt, but decided to go about it differently, and the results are apparent.

[John317]

There's a difference between defense and preemption. What thought of defense today is either retaliation and punishment of the entire country for the crimes they did not commit (9/11). Iraq did not attack US, neither did Afganistan.

You'll recall that Afghanistan was protecting bin Laden and others who planned and were instrumental in carrying out the 9/11 and other terrorists against the people of the United States. That attack was a direct attack on you and me, whether your realize it or not. Any one of us could have been on those planes or in those buildings. They did not care which Americans, or even if they were Americans, they killed. It was an attack on our whole country, your whole country. Some of those terrorists had planned to fly a plane into the White House. Here was the finding of the 9/11 commission:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the plot, planned to have nine of the planes crash into the FBI and CIA headquarters, the Pentagon and the White House, as well as nuclear plants and the tallest buildings in California and Washington state.

Mohammed was arrested in March 2003 in Pakistan and turned over to U.S. authorities.

The hijackers of the 10th plane, which Mohammed planned to pilot, would contact the media, kill all of the adult men onboard and then make a statement denouncing the United States before freeing the women and children.

The plot also called for hijacking and blowing up 12 airliners in Southeast Asia, but al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden scrapped that part of the plan because it was too difficult to coordinate operations on two continents.

Bin Laden scaled back the plot in the United States to the four planes that were eventually used in the attack.

They narrowed down the list of targets to the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and either the White House or the Capitol.

Bin Laden wanted to hit the White House, but Mohammed and Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 19 hijackers, favored the Capitol, because they felt it would be an easier target.

Quote:

Quite the opposite. American revolutionary war was won by individuals defending their homes... organized military failed. It was bunch of people hiding behind the rocks (which British thought was unfair )

I think you lack the full facts of the case.

Read the whole summaries of the whole story:

http://members.aol.com/TeacherNet/Revolutionarywar.html

http://www.multied.com/revolt/battles.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

Quote:

Secondly, I think you'd have to agree that Jesus clarified the law and the purpose of it. "Eye for an eye" is NOT a Biblical principle... and that's what is happening today.It is not defense. It is prevention of would have been based on FEAR

But that is for followers of Christ, and is not intended to be a plan for how governments should function.

Study the Old Testament and find out who came up with the rule of "eye for an eye." It was God. It was Jesus Christ Himself who gave that as the rule when Israel was coming out of Egypt after generations of slavery and ignorance. See Ex. 21: 24. Why did God give that rule? It was God's rule for a government that had to deal with a lot of unconverted people who respected only power and force. That is what the governments of the world have to deal with.

To require or expect the governments of the world to function on the principles of the sermon on the mount is to be do something that is contrary to the Bible itself. That is not only unrealistic but is taking the teachings of Christ out of context. The purpose of governments is to punish evil, according to the Bible. (Study Romans 13: 1-7.) That is not the purpose of the church or of Christ's followers.

The church and the state have two different roles or functions in the world. Don't require the state to be like the church. Christ's rules are for EVERYONE, but on an individual and voluntary basis due to conversion. Governments are not converted; individuals are. States and governments consist of, and represent, all people, including atheists. They have to suppress evil and evil people. The church does not. It's role is to preach the gospel, not govern people.

Sometimes when governing people, it is necessary to use fear. Fear of tickets; fear of fines; fear of punishment; fear of imprisonment. Obviously those fears are not right for the church to use, but they are for the government and the state.

Quote:

So this ideology of justice is to bomb anyone capable of committing the great wrong. I think we might as well include all of the humanity, because all of us have some sorts of prejudices that we need to unlearn.

I find it hard to believe you're serious here.

Quote:

Capability does not necessitates action.... Watch minority report as it drives this point very clearly, and brilliantly. Spielberg in both of his latest films... Munich and Minority Report, demonstrates that retaliation will not bring about peace.

I like films and some TV but I don't get my world-view from films or from a television program. That's entertainment.

Quote:

If the US today walked out and apologized for the civilian death during Gulf wars and pulled out the military bases our of the Middle East (including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kazakhstan)... that would drastically slash terrorism in that region. I doubt 9/11 would have happened without US presence in that part of the world.

Do you think that the United States government should apologize for kicking Iraq out of Kuwait?

The United States policy and activity should not be determined by individuals like bin Laden and by terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. To let such people and organizations do that would be only to invite and encourage more attacks.

That would be similar to the United States allowing Japan to have its way in the Pacific after it attacked us in Hawaii.

The United States shouldn't become isolationist, and I think that what you are suggesting would have the effect of making our government have an isolationist foreign policy. Such a policy would leave groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban stronger and in control of those places from which we withdraw.

Quote:

You can't fight what you can't see or locate, except through ideology or communication and positive and reaffirming actions. YOU CAN'T FIGHT TERRORISM. How can you protect any citizen from terror (ideology of scaring people)? You can't! If the terrorist had any desire to carry out another act... there would be one right now.

Do you believe that the reason we have not been attacked again since 9/11 is due to the terrorists not wanting to attack us here at home?

[John317]

That's true... Ghandi, who was a commanding officer of British army in the past, had every opportunity to organize a revolt, but decided to go about it differently, and the results are apparent.

How effective would Gandhi have been-- and how long do you think Gandhi would have lived-- if he had used passive resistance under a different power, such as Hitler or Stalin? Gandhi would not have been able to do it if he had been up against a ruthless power determined to keep its hold on India irrespective of world opinion or if that power did not value human life. That is the key.

So those kinds of peaceful tactics only work under limited circumstances. For instance, the Jews would clearly not have been successful using passive resistance during WWII.

[fccool]

John,

I agree that this would not have worked on someone like Hitler. By you have to also agree that someone like Hitler would have no breath of accomplishing what was accomplished in WWII. He would still probably be just a politician with extreme out there views.

We live in international interconnected communities. Hurting your neighbor in many cases means hurting yourself and is a likeness of a suicide. It would not have worked today, and it does not. Non-violence does work in form of diplomacy.

[John317]

John,

I agree that this would not have worked on someone like Hitler. By you have to also agree that someone like Hitler would have no breath of accomplishing what was accomplished in WWII. He would still probably be just a politician with extreme out there views.

We live in international interconnected communities. Hurting your neighbor in many cases means hurting yourself and is a likeness of a suicide. It would not have worked today, and it does not. Non-violence does work in form of diplomacy.

Of course. I hope you don't think my comment was meant as a compliment to Hitler. I was just pointing out that certain tactics such as peaceful non-resistance only work in certain circumstances. It helps to be dealing with relatively civilized people who value human life.

Let's say gays in Iran tried to use that tactic to get the revolutionary guards there to change their treatment of gays. Think that would work? Or Christians in Iran? No, they would just take them and put them in jail or hang them.

How about women? Think women in Afghanistan under the Taliban, or women under the Iranian leadership could change their treatment by doing in Iran what Gandhi did in India under the British? I seriously doubt it.

Martin Luther King's tactics worked (thank God!) in this country because we have values as a society that make us care about what other people think. The government is a republic and therefore public opinion is rather important. But in a dictatorship it's another thing. Stalin and Hitler cared for public opinion about as much as they could spit.

[fccool]

As you probably know already, Christians do receive some pretty harsh treatment in Middle East. In many countries it is illegal to preach the Gospel, and in some extreme cases, Christians are killed. I would not blame anyone for trying to preserve innocent life, yet at the same time... this kind of treatment of Christians exists in countries such as India, China, Countries with Tribal religions, and really virtually everywhere. Even in Belarus, which is not far from Ukraine, you can find persecution by secular Government.

The question of course is... what do you do? There are films such as "The Mission", and "The end of the Spear" (forgive me for resorting to alluding to films a lot... it's just what I do for life), that demonstrate non violent approach, to the point of non-resistance to death. I understand that we should not just be stupid and get killed, but at times you have no choice because of what you believe. That's why I say that in this world we should not seek justice and peace, because there are none in this world. Righteous will not be tolerated by evil regimes because they shed light on those. Christians were also heavily persecuted by Hitler, of course... the real ones who voiced out their disgust and hid the Jews.

So when I'm speaking about non-violence and non-resistance... I'm not speaking about winning in a sense of overcoming and receiving physical freedom. Physical freedom has very little to do with FREEDOM, although that's what everyone is fighting to get. You can be roaming around "free" and be a slave (you know... prison without bars), and you can be a "slave" and be free. You will not get physical freedom in this world in its pure form. People are still slaves to their jobs, debt, poverty, governments, passions(drug and alcohol addiction). In many cases these are worse than being confined in four walls with tons of free time to think. Some people feel more comfortable and free behind the bars in their own micro countries than they feel being "free". I hope you can see what I'm trying to say here.

Essentially, the FREEDOM comes from God and by knowing God and having the mind of God. Being Christian is in essence being God minded and human oriented. And if God did not retaliate for us killing his son (at least not right now), how much more does he expect of us? He could have easily ended it all then, shortly after the cross. But he gives every individual a chance to change, and individuals are not beyond change. Look at Paul who in a moment turned his life around from being persecutor to being persecuted. I have a feeling that he knew how to use physical force, but he chose not too, except for fleeing. I know it might sound cowardly, but there is nothing cowardly about avoiding a fight when it comes to it. I've had a fair share of fights in my life, and I've never made any friends by winning those fights. I've made plenty of friends by trying to work things out while avoiding the punches. That's what I mean by non-violent approach, and it works. No matter who you are.

I've noticed that in US people have very competitive nature. The one that states that for one to win other has to loose. I know that this is not something unique to just American people, but I do see it amplified when people transfer here from other countries. I don't know what it it about this environment of constant competition that eventually even changed me a bit. I have sit back and re-evaluate at times what's important and what is not. It is very common here to run over people and to separate business and personal things. What I miss about USSR is the business being people oriented and personal thing. I'm NOT saying that it is ALWAYS not here, but I found it to be in many cases when it comes to loosing money. People would rather ruin someone's life over personal comfort, than to just let go. You've mentioned Mexican who did not care about 9/11, but there are numerous Americans who admittedly first thought of 9/11 as money making opportunity first.

Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoQOXepaCjk

We've never had medical law suits. It was a foreign "cap" concept. To be a doctor you had to be very dedicated to you calling, because you would expect to serve, and in many cases serve without compensation. The same went for teachers, civil engineers, and even entertainers/artists. The respect of people was the reward that came with the occupation. It was hardly measured in money. I actually remember doctors driving to me when I was sick. There was a doctor assigned to every community and would regularly visit the patients. Prevention was emphasized because people did not seek profit from misery of others. I really and honestly have not seen any pornographic material until after the breakdown of the Soviet Union. I did not say it did not exist, but it was by far not the norm it is here.

Well, forgive me for getting off topic here a bit. I'm not trying to say that USSR was the paradise on earth, far from it. I just would like you to understand my "idealist" background and to show you that some thing s that we view as an impossible ideal can work here too. It's a mindset, and minds can be changed.

[Neil D]

Quote:

How effective would Gandhi have been-- and how long do you think Gandhi would have lived-- if he had used passive resistance under a different power, such as Hitler or Stalin?

Different cultures mean different types of resistance...I suspect that if a 'Gandhi type' leader came about during the time of Hitler rise [thus competing with Hitler for leadership of Germany] OR Stalin, that there would be a totaly different outcome....

Gandhi encouraged Indians to boycott British goods and buy Indian goods instead. This helped to revitalise local economies in India and it also hit home at the British by undermining their economy in the country. Gandhi preached passive resistance, believing that acts of violence against the British only provoked a negative reaction whereas passive resistance provoked the British into doing something which invariably pushed more people into supporting the Indian National Congress movement.

I suspect you both misunderstand the power of the pacifist and the use of non-violence. And yes, Gandi would have overcome Hitler and Stalin.

[John317]

Quote:

How effective would Gandhi have been-- and how long do you think Gandhi would have lived-- if he had used passive resistance under a different power, such as Hitler or Stalin?

Different cultures mean different types of resistance...I suspect that if a 'Gandhi type' leader came about during the time of Hitler rise [thus competing with Hitler for leadership of Germany] OR Stalin, that there would be a totaly different outcome....

Gandhi encouraged Indians to boycott British goods and buy Indian goods instead. This helped to revitalise local economies in India and it also hit home at the British by undermining their economy in the country. Gandhi preached passive resistance, believing that acts of violence against the British only provoked a negative reaction whereas passive resistance provoked the British into doing something which invariably pushed more people into supporting the Indian National Congress movement.

I suspect you both misunderstand the power of the pacifist and the use of non-violence. And yes, Gandi would have overcome Hitler and Stalin.

Yes, if by "overcome," you mean dying. Those tactics are OK even under a Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, but when you use them, you should have no illusions as to the certain results. And the results will definitely not be the results gained by Gandhi under British rule. And Gandhi recognized this fact, but he was willing to pay the ultimate price for it.

But in any case, it is not a question of misunderstanding the power of the use of non-violence; it's a question of understanding when it is wise and useful to practice it and when it would be wasted. For instance, would you have advised the Jews of Moses day to use it? Would you have said Americans should have used it in WW II? How about the Russians when Hitler invaded the USSR? How about the Jews and British in WWII? How about gays and women in Iran?

It's time to face reality when it comes to practicing and advising these tactics.

It is obvious that such tactics as peaceful resistance to Hitler or Stalin would not have worked. Those men would simply have killed him or anyone who tried those tactics. "Jehovah's Witnesses" and some SDA did use such tactics, and they ended up dead in the concentration camps and before firing squads. Ever hear of Isaac Babel? He was one of millions who were peaceful and dead under Stalin.

Were he a German Jew, Gandhi pronounced, he would challenge the Germans to shoot or imprison him rather than “submit to discriminating treatment.” Such “voluntary” suffering, practiced by all the Jews of Germany, would bring them, he promised, immeasurable “inner strength and joy.” Indeed, “if the Jewish mind could be prepared” for such suffering, even a massacre of all German Jews “could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy,” since “to the God-fearing, death has no terror.”

Gandhi knew the difference between trying such peaceful tactics against the British and doing the same under Hitler. It would merely have fallen into the plan of Hitler to commit "the final solution."

[John317]

I suspect you both misunderstand the power of the pacifist and the use of non-violence. And yes, Gandi would have overcome Hitler and Stalin.

Yes, under some unfavorable conditions, that power you speak of would be that one would be dead but yet have the moral high ground. Whether such tactics change anything other than the nature of your own mortality depends on who your opponent is.

Check this out, Neil D:

During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”

Do you agree with Gandhi in this? I do not. I don't believe this is what the Bible teaches. It does not call us to surrender our wives and children to slaughter.

He said, "There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for".

In applying these principles, Gandhi did not balk from taking them to their most logical extremes. In 1940, when invasion of the British Isles by the armed forces of Nazi Germany looked imminent, Gandhi offered the following advice to the British people:

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them". (Non-Violence in Peace and War)

There’s an old saying that had the Brits been Nazi’s, Gandhi would’ve been a lampshade. Macabre as the humor might be, it underscores a key reason for Gandhi’s success with passive, non-violent resistance - again, it depends on your opponent’s moral code as much as your own.

Why did Gandhi believe so strongly in passive, peaceful resistance?

[John317]

... If you want to talk realism.... realistically there is no difference between 9/11 and this

The latter one is much more brutal IMO. If you disagree, I'd like to see you explain that to the people pictured. They have every right to hold guns after these experiences...

I find it more than passing strange that some can understand and sympathize with the relatively few Iraqis who take up weapons to bomb and kill, but for some reason those same people do not do the same with regard to Americans when thousands of our fellow citizens are killed for no good reason other than the fact that they went to work one fine morning.

Of course all death is terrible, sad, and tragic, but as long as you are showing those kinds of pictures, you might as well know that they also show many people hurt and killed by insurgents and terrorists who deliberately bomb and kill innocent people. The US and Iraqi people and the government there are trying to work toward law and order, peace and stability, but a small but violent minority are wreaking havoc by the use of terror. Remember that the vast majority of Iraqi are taking part in the violence, and that tens of thousands of them are fighting against the insurgents and are being killed for it. (It also helps to remember that it took about 15 years from the time Americans declared ourselves independent from Britain to the time we actually had a working government.)

The insurgents and al-Qaeda WANT to kill as many innocent people as possible. It is no accident when they kill uninvolved civilians and children. When Americans kill innocent people, it is either an accident or something that is punished in a court of law. It is not something encouraged by American law or by American leaders. Remember My Lai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai/ It was a terrible thing that those Americans did in that village, no question about it. I was in the army not very long after those tragic events took place, and I read about it in the army's own publication, The Stars and Stripes. So it didn't happen because it was part of the US and military policy. (Soldier's are trained to do all they can to avoid bringing harm to innocent civilians.) Rather, the kind of thing that happened at My Lai was an anomaly, something that when discovered was punished, just like the terrible things done by American guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But let us not discount the fact that none of those prisoners at Abu Ghraib, terrible as those things were, came close to having things done to them that were done to thousands of Iraqis in that same prison when Saddam was in power. The prisoners there were not hanged or killed or mutilated by the Americans. And when the truth of what happened there came out, Americans in the military as well as American civilians were disgusted and still are rightly disgusted and outraged.

[John317]

...I think it's wrong to demonize people for questioning historical facts. It's stupid to begin with. Truth does not need to be enforced with a jail sentence.

I agree. I would not favor putting anyone into jail for what they teach or say, except for encouraging the violent overthrow of the US government or the assassination of the president.

In the case at hand, the fact that anyone would question it speaks itself very loudly about the person. Just like anyone who would say that slavery was not evil and a curse. Why would anyone say such a thing? Why would anyone deny that 5 to 7 millions Jews died at the hands of Nazis when the overwhelming evidence is staring them in the face?

The only reason I can imagine is that the denier of the facts has an ideological/political/military motive. He doesn't like the Jews to be viewed sympathetically as victims of genocide. He wants them, rather, to be viewed as occupiers and as oppressors who deserve to be forced out of the land formerly occupied by palestinians. It cannot be denied that this is his design and hope. Doesn't that fit with the facts in this case? Why else?