Okay let me do what I can to shed some light on the comments I made.

 

 

From a moral standpoint in a time of peace, which is something that in my opinion is suspect to speak of where conflict concerned, killing someone (taking the life of another) is oft considered the height of immorality. Ergo the worst thing that someone can do is to take the life of another. War consists, at its most basic level, as a semi-organized (at best) state of being in which life is being taken relatively often. Thus war is the height of immorality as well. All sides in a conflict engage in such activity during said conflict and as such there are no "good guys" in that regard. That is my point.

This is why I am amused at the concept of moral high ground when discussing war. We like to cloak it in a veil of morality to try and make it look like we are doing something other than what we are doing.

In reference to the WWII veterans and those men storming the beaches, fighting the Japanese and spending hours in sub-zero temperatures to destroy enemy industries; I admire and respect them for what they did. Yes they killed the enemy (and killing is not a good thing, even though it is sometimes necessary, no matter how you cloak it) and I am forever grateful for the sacrifices they made on behalf of their country and their fellow citizens. If not for them and what they did, then the world would likely have been worse of than it was. At the same time those who died on the opposing side felt they were fighting for as "just" a cause as we did. The majority of the German soldiers were not fighting for Hitler, they were fighting for Germany. They were fighting for their families and for their homes. The majority were no more evil than our own G.I.’s over there.

 

Although when looking at our “noble” and “moral” actions in Europe we can’t forget the leveling of the cities of Würzburg, Dresden and the monastery of Monte Cassino. Also the fact that we allied ourselves with a man who was as bad as Hitler should also say something for the “moral” high ground we took. That said while I agree with those who say the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were necessary, I think to call them “moral” is somewhat off base. From a simple numbers perspective it was a wise move and the correct course of action. More would have died on both sides had we invaded Japan than died on account of those bombs. It was a choice that had to be made to end the conflict as quickly as possible. I have no problem with that choice.

I have spent nearly 20 years of my life studying weapons, war, conflict, its causes, effects and the overall impact on the development of the world. In all the time I have studied these are my conclusions. That said I am not anti-war and am far from a pacifist. I just dislike it when we try to take a "moral" stand when we are perpetuating death. The American obsession and idealism of the “good guys” and “bad guys” is irritating to me. The guys on the other side say the same thing, both can’t be right obviously, but can both be wrong? Of course from our own perspective we are right but at the same time they look at themselves the way we look at ourselves. Don’t try and disguise what it is, be honest about it.

 

 

Don’t take it for more than what it is. I am merely stating that the idea of calling someone the “good guys” in a war is suspect at best.

 

 

Do my comments make any more sense now?

Change the phrase "good guys" to "nice guys" and most of what you say makes perfect sense. We can be the "good guys", at least from our perspective, but you don't win wars being "nice guys".

 

Do I feel guilty about WWII? Hell no. We did what we had to do. You can spout morality all you want, but we did nothing "nice" when we killed 30,000 men, women, and children during the bombing of Hamburg, or over 100,000 in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Whether we invaded Japan or not, non-combatants were going to die. You can't be nice when you're attempting to force somebody into submission. What we did after the war is a different story, but to win it, we were not "nice guys".

 

As my father (US Army Cmd. Sgt. Major Ret., WWII, Korea, Vietnam) has said on many occasions regarding Iraq (he gets really hot about it), "We are trying to be nice guys over there and it's getting our boys killed for no good reason. We need to get the media out of there and let our guys do what they need to. It's ugly. It's war and it has to be done. Nobody here needs to see it, because most can't stomach it. If they're not going to do that, then bring them home."

I don't know, BF, soldiers lives vs. babies lives. I would say that most soldiers become soldiers to protect their families and the innocent. Most would probably rather be killed themselves than to have the horror of the atomic bomb befall their children, wives, etc.

 

I don't honestly know how God would view it, if either life is more important. I have no doubt, however, that the use of nuclear weapons on civilians is immoral. If we want to make the decision to use them, fine, but let's not mix it up and call it moral.

 

The last major battle of WWII was the battle of Okinawa. In that battle approximately 12000 US military, 66000 Japanese military, and 140000 Okinawan civilians were killed. If the US had been forced to invade Japan there was every expectation that the number of civilian casualties would have exceeded the number of military casualties just as they had at Okinawa. You implication that droping the bomb involved a choice favoring the lives of those in the military over the lives of civilians just can't be supported. Dropping the bomb reduced the number of lives lost in both categories.

 

Also, it's important to make a distiction between what makes an act a moral act and what makes it an evil act. I freely admit that dropping the bomb is a an act of great evil because it results in the deaths of thousands. However, as BF mentioned you can not divource the morality of the act from it's necessity. When one is required to choose between evil acts (dropping the bomb or invading Japan) the moral course of action is to choose the lesser evil. Therefore, while dropping the bomb represents a great evil, it was nonetheless moral.

Change the phrase "good guys" to "nice guys" and most of what you say makes perfect sense. We can be the "good guys", at least from our perspective, but you don't win wars being "nice guys".

 

Do I feel guilty about WWII? Hell no. We did what we had to do. You can spout morality all you want, but we did nothing "nice" when we killed 30,000 men, women, and children during the bombing of Hamburg, or over 100,000 in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Whether we invaded Japan or not, non-combatants were going to die. You can't be nice when you're attempting to force somebody into submission. What we did after the war is a different story, but to win it, we were not "nice guys".

 

As my father (US Army Cmd. Sgt. Major Ret., WWII, Korea, Vietnam) has said on many occasions regarding Iraq (he gets really hot about it), "We are trying to be nice guys over there and it's getting our boys killed for no good reason. We need to get the media out of there and let our guys do what they need to. It's ugly. It's war and it has to be done. Nobody here needs to see it, because most can't stomach it. If they're not going to do that, then bring them home."

 

 

Well put and for the most part I agree. :thumb:

 

I agree with your father 100% as well.

So much to say, so little time -

 

In response to the post regarding radical Christians and Radical Muslims:

 

To suggest that there are not people who misuse the scripture for violence, oppression and injustice is simply put, NAIVE.

If you actually read my post you will find that I made no such suggestions… either directly or implied.

 

As far as being naïve is concerned, the preponderance of naiveté IMO rests with those who insist upon trying to convince us that the teaching of the Koran as practiced by truly orthodox Muslims is not significantly different than the teaching of the Bible by genuine Christians. Whether you are suggesting so or not, I have heard it said that our holy books teach essentially the same morals and spiritual ethics. This is absolutely absurd.

 

To suggest that the Bible encourages violence in any way shape or form comparable to way the accurate teaching of the Koran supports violence and terrorism toward non-Muslims goes beyond naiveté.

 

We have used scripture to promote slavery, racism, and theological superiority.

I’m not sure where you get this “we” business. I can only be responsible for my own actions, and what I teach my children. I can assure you that none of those things are in any of us.

 

I am tired of being brow beaten by those who insist that I go on some kind of guilt trip for all the stupidity and evil of generations past. I refuse to go there.

 

I do not own slaves, and would not even if it were legal to do so. As far as I know, my family was too poor to own slaves back in the day. There is not one racist bone in my body, but I will admit to being terribly prejudiced against willful ignorance and stupidity. I am also angered by those who insist upon amplifying our differences as a tool to keep us apart. I have never attempted to force my understanding of Jesus and the Bible down anyone’s throat. I do however, happen to think I have a reasonable grasp of these concepts… or I wouldn’t adhere to them myself.

The crusades are only one example of a war FOR God.

 

The Westboro Baptist people carry signs that say "God hates Fags" and Christians blow up abortion clinics. In our own State Capitol Building (Frankfort) Christians spit on protesters who were there to convince the legislature to not pass a law discriminating against Gays and Lesbians.

 

Falwell and Robertson preached sermon of hate when they claimed that the 9-11 attacks were a result of the "secular" lifestyle promoted by the US and that Katrina was also punishment.

 

Part of the NAZI belief was that the Jews killed Jesus and should therefore be eliminated. The KKK holds itself up as a Christian organization - tell me they are not terrorists.

Wow… I’m not sure why you felt this list was warranted, but if it makes you feel better have at it I say… :thumb:

 

For the record, IMO Phelps is a deluded, twisted old kook who has corrupted his entire family. His message is so out of line with what Jesus taught, I fear for his soul. My Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill.” so I have to believe that bombing an abortion clinic is just as evil as killing innocent unborn children. I’ve never spit on anyone. I do not discriminate against homosexuals, but I also don’t think they deserve a separate set of laws to legitimize and protect their lifestyle, and essentially granting them rights none of the rest of us are entitled to as non-homosexuals. Falwell and Robertson were/are decent men trying their best to discern the truth. I don’t agree with everything they have done, but I thought freedom of speech was supposed to be a good thing… or is that only when someone is saying what you want to hear? The Nazis and the KKK are evil... simply put.

 

Just as in Islam it is the radicals that get heard and the moderates have no voice. Most moderate Muslims do not adhere to a religion of violence against non-believers, and I would suggest that you have strongly distorted the religion.

I have read the Koran cover-to-cover… and numerous passages many times over. It is evident from your statements that you have not read the Koran in its entirety… in context. If you did, you apparently comprehended it as well as you did my previous post.

 

Also, have you not read the old testament, where God told the Israelites to commite Genocide - to kill every man, woman, and child in a community? The psalmist talks about the need to bash the heads of the enemies children against the stones? Personally I don't take these stories literally b/c they cannot be reconciled with the God of Jesus in the New Testament - but to suggest that scripture is not there to support violence against non-believers is, well it is simply not true.

Tell me how any of this has anything to do with the true teachings of Jesus Christ or the Apostle Paul, or any other teacher recorded in the New Testament? From the time of Christ to this day, there is no active instruction to the followers of Jesus to be violent for any reason. This is simply not true of the Koran.

I am tired of being brow beaten by those who insist that I go on some kind of guilt trip for all the stupidity and evil of generations past. I refuse to go there.

 

I do not own slaves, and would not even if it were legal to do so. As far as I know, my family was too poor to own slaves back in the day. There is not one racist bone in my body, but I will admit to being terribly prejudiced against willful ignorance and stupidity. I am also angered by those who insist upon amplifying our differences as a tool to keep us apart. I have never attempted to force my understanding of Jesus and the Bible down anyone’s throat. I do however, happen to think I have a reasonable grasp of these concepts… or I wouldn’t adhere to them myself.

 

 

This section has to be my favorite part of this post. :thumb:

If you actually read my post you will find that I made no such suggestions… either directly or implied.

 

As far as being naïve is concerned, the preponderance of naiveté IMO rests with those who insist upon trying to convince us that the teaching of the Koran as practiced by truly orthodox Muslims is not significantly different than the teaching of the Bible by genuine Christians. Whether you are suggesting so or not, I have heard it said that our holy books teach essentially the same morals and spiritual ethics. This is absolutely absurd.

 

To suggest that the Bible encourages violence in any way shape or form comparable to way the accurate teaching of the Koran supports violence and terrorism toward non-Muslims goes beyond naiveté.

 

I’m not sure where you get this “we” business. I can only be responsible for my own actions, and what I teach my children. I can assure you that none of those things are in any of us.

 

I am tired of being brow beaten by those who insist that I go on some kind of guilt trip for all the stupidity and evil of generations past. I refuse to go there.

 

I do not own slaves, and would not even if it were legal to do so. As far as I know, my family was too poor to own slaves back in the day. There is not one racist bone in my body, but I will admit to being terribly prejudiced against willful ignorance and stupidity. I am also angered by those who insist upon amplifying our differences as a tool to keep us apart. I have never attempted to force my understanding of Jesus and the Bible down anyone’s throat. I do however, happen to think I have a reasonable grasp of these concepts… or I wouldn’t adhere to them myself.

Wow… I’m not sure why you felt this list was warranted, but if it makes you feel better have at it I say… :thumb:

 

For the record, IMO Phelps is a deluded, twisted old kook who has corrupted his entire family. His message is so out of line with what Jesus taught, I fear for his soul. My Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill.” so I have to believe that bombing an abortion clinic is just as evil as killing innocent unborn children. I’ve never spit on anyone. I do not discriminate against homosexuals, but I also don’t think they deserve a separate set of laws to legitimize and protect their lifestyle, and essentially granting them rights none of the rest of us are entitled to as non-homosexuals. Falwell and Robertson were/are decent men trying their best to discern the truth. I don’t agree with everything they have done, but I thought freedom of speech was supposed to be a good thing… or is that only when someone is saying what you want to hear? The Nazis and the KKK are evil... simply put.

 

I have read the Koran cover-to-cover… and numerous passages many times over. It is evident from your statements that you have not read the Koran in its entirety… in context. If you did, you apparently comprehended it as well as you did my previous post.

 

Tell me how any of this has anything to do with the true teachings of Jesus Christ or the Apostle Paul, or any other teacher recorded in the New Testament? From the time of Christ to this day, there is no active instruction to the followers of Jesus to be violent for any reason. This is simply not true of the Koran.

 

I am proud of you and your morals and your take on racism, etc. But you suggested that radical christians were not capable of doing the things that radical muslims do - I gave you all kinds of examples where that is absolutely not true and you say, I can only be responsible for my actions and what I teach my children. FINE, that does not deny those who teach otherwise.

 

I also can understand your point of view of the old testament, but if you follow this board and its postings much, your views of the old testament is in a minority - in literal terms the old testament is about wrath and vengence on unbeleivers.

 

Moderate Muslims say "I do not believe in the violence that is practiced and preached by the radicals of my religion".

 

You say "I can only be responsible for what I believe and what I teach my children".

 

I can only trust what each person says b/c I cannot know their heart, but to suggest that my muslim friends want to kill me is preposterous.

I am proud of you and your morals and your take on racism, etc. But you suggested that radical christians were not capable of doing the things that radical muslims do - I gave you all kinds of examples where that is absolutely not true and you say, I can only be responsible for my actions and what I teach my children. FINE, that does not deny those who teach otherwise.

 

I also can understand your point of view of the old testament, but if you follow this board and its postings much, your views of the old testament is in a minority - in literal terms the old testament is about wrath and vengence on unbeleivers.

 

Moderate Muslims say "I do not believe in the violence that is practiced and preached by the radicals of my religion".

 

You say "I can only be responsible for what I believe and what I teach my children".

 

I can only trust what each person says b/c I cannot know their heart, but to suggest that my muslim friends want to kill me is preposterous.

Wow…

 

I now openly admit that you have boggled my mind.

 

It is impossible to debate or have a discussion with someone who does not read and understand (or simply ignores) your words, and then pulls extreme examples to counter points that were never made in the first place. This is the second post in this thread in which you have done this to me.

 

You cannot find any statement, or even a sequential string of words in nearly 7,000 posts I have made on BGP in which I have stated:

 

A) “that radical christians were not capable of doing the things that radical muslims do.”

 

B) “(your) muslim friends want to kill (you).”

 

 

 

I’m going to keep this really simple.

 

 

One of our problems is a matter of semantics. The word “radical” has two diametrically opposed meanings. According to Webster, it can mean either: “2: of or relating to the origin : fundamental

 

Or

 

3 a: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme “

 

I will utilize “radical” as an adjective as in “Radical Christian” or “Radical Muslim” as they relate to maintaining the origins or fundamentals of their faiths.

 

A person or group who professes to be Christian may indeed do any of the horrible acts you outlined, but I assert that such actions are not in any way endorsed by the words or example of Jesus Christ… or in the entire New Testament for that matter. You simply cannot make that case. Citing examples of actions recorded in the Old Testament of people who were not Christians is completely irrelevant. The fact that Jesus was not the warrior king Jews were expecting their Messiah to be is why many Jews have not accepted Jesus to this day.

 

To label a violent extremist as a “radical Christian” is misleading at best and incredibly deceptive at worst. A person espousing marginal Christian belief may indeed be a “radical” and do all manner of heinous acts, but such acts of violence and terror certainly are not “Christian.” A radical Christian by my definition is someone more along the lines of Mother Teresa not Theodore Kaczynski. By this same standard, a moderate Christian is one who is lukewarm, and less inclined to follow the teachings of Jesus to the letter, preferring to live in debt in a larger home with a widescreen TV driving a luxury car, not wishing to be bothered with the pain and suffering of others... but certainly not seeking to inflict pain and terror in the name of Christ.

 

On the other hand, a Muslim killing non-believers is 100% endorsed and exemplified by Muhammad and the Koran. But don’t just take my word for it. Why don’t you actually read the Koran, as have I? Read his history and biography. Muhammad personally led violent attacks upon those he identified as unbelievers. His teachings in the Koran support this. In this sense, it may be said that a radical Muslim perpetrating violence under the banner of jihad is entirely in line with the teaching of the Prophet and his revealed holy word.

 

Spin it any way you wish, but to be both honest and accurate it must be recognized that genuine Christianity and genuine Islam are at their cores two very different faiths. The fact that twisted souls have and will attempt to utilize them to support their evil deeds has no bearing whatsoever upon what each teaches as truth and good in the eyes of God or Allah.

I can only trust what each person says b/c I cannot know their heart, but to suggest that my muslim friends want to kill me is preposterous.

This is another example of something I have not said… ever.

 

From my perspective, your Muslim friends should not wish to kill you. Killing is wrong in all but the most extreme circumstances of defense or preservation. It is best left to God who is able to give as well as take life.

 

I will state clearly however, that if your Muslim friend did wish to kill you as an unbeliever in obedience to jihad, he/she would not be out of line with the teachings of Muhammad in the Koran. He could do so and be considered a good Muslim by a significant percentage of orthodox Muslims around the world.

 

Your Christian neighbor, on the other hand has no grounds for doing so in light of the words of Jesus and the entire New Testament. To do so would not be considered “good” in the minds of any truly orthodox Christian anywhere.

This is another example of something I have not said… ever.

 

From my perspective, your Muslim friends should not wish to kill you. Killing is wrong in all but the most extreme circumstances of defense or preservation. It is best left to God who is able to give as well as take life.

 

I will state clearly however, that if your Muslim friend did wish to kill you as an unbeliever in obedience to jihad, he/she would not be out of line with the teachings of Muhammad in the Koran. He could do so and be considered a good Muslim by a significant percentage of orthodox Muslims around the world.

 

Your Christian neighbor, on the other hand has no grounds for doing so in light of the words of Jesus and the entire New Testament. To do so would not be considered “good” in the minds of any truly orthodox Christian anywhere.

 

I am simply suggesting that moderate muslims do not endorse the killing of unbelievers.

To tie all this to the topic of this thread, it is this total misunderstanding of the true and factual teachings of the Koran that may legitimately be applied to jihad and the increasing recruiting efforts of the more radical factions within Islam that are swelling the ranks of Islamic terrorists around the world.

 

This is very much at the root of our misunderstanding of the significance of our fight in Iraq.

I am simply suggesting that moderate muslims do not endorse the killing of unbelievers.

That's fine, but please don't put words in my mouth (or posts.)

 

I would submit that based upon their actions, moderate Christians do not endorse the selling of all that they own, giving it to the poor and totally following Jesus either.

I am simply suggesting that moderate muslims do not endorse the killing of unbelievers.

 

Can you find one example in this thread of anyone who has claimed, or even implied, that 'moderate muslims endorse the killing of unbelievers.'?

A question has been echoing through me for days now...

 

 

Does anyone, of any bent or nationality, truely understand Iraq at this point in history?

 

I mean, don't we all have questions?

A question has been echoing through me for days now...

 

 

Does anyone, of any bent or nationality, truely understand Iraq at this point in history?

 

I mean, don't we all have questions?

Of course we all have questions, but that is no excuse to stick our heads in the sand to ignore obvious facts. :thumb:

 

Radical Islam does not hate America because we knocked Saddam out of power, or because we're buying most of their oil.

 

There are many reasons they hate us, (i.e.-the fact that we support the Jewish people, that we actually believe the Holocaust happened, that we are preventing a true and complete Holocaust from taking place today, the fact that our culture spews forths pornography and blasphemy as corrupting entertainment in the form of the internet, movies, television, record albums, etc.) The list is long, but the primary reason they hate us is because we are not Muslims.

 

They will not cease until we convert or die... or we convert them or kill them.

 

Gray is not an option. :thumb:

Of course we all have questions, but that is no excuse to stick our heads in the sand to ignore obvious facts. :thumb:

 

Radical Islam does not hate America because we knocked Saddam out of power, or because we're buying most of their oil.

 

There are many reasons they hate us, (i.e.-the fact that we support the Jewish people, that we actually believe the Holocaust happened, that we are preventing a true and complete Holocaust from taking place today, the fact that our culture spews forths pornography and blasphemy as corrupting entertainment in the form of the internet, movies, television, record albums, etc.) The list is long, but the primary reason they hate us is because we are not Muslims.

 

They will not cease until we convert or die... or we convert them or kill them.

 

Gray is not an option. :thumb:

 

To the bolded, while "hate" may be out of line, I could see why we wouldn't have their respect.

 

Oh, and gray may not be an option, but there is definitely more color than black and white in this issue.