Karzai Twists the Knife - Would Support Pakistan over US

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

welcome to the Muslim mind

Now, jmfcst, dear, what have we told you about generalising 1.6 billion people?

I would like to see those 1.6B polled on the following question:  "Who would you support in a war between the US and Pakistan?"

I'd guess at least 80% would choose Pakistan

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

welcome to the Muslim mind

Now, jmfcst, dear, what have we told you about generalising 1.6 billion people?

I would like to see those 1.6B polled on the following question:  "Who would you support in a war between the US and Pakistan?"

I'd guess at least 80% would choose Pakistan

Many of them have reasons for feeling that way other than the fact that they're Muslim, though.

Such as…the US’s harsh treatment of women and intolerance of religious diversity, as compared to rest of the world?

---

If one polled the 2.3 billion Christians and 80% said that they would support the US in that situation, which I would not be surprised by at all, would you say that this tells you something deep and important about 'the Christian mind'?

Yeah:  Many Christians understand Islam is the enemy of individual freedom and that the US is the champion of individual freedom.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Such as the US's harsh treatment of that part of the world, as compared to the rest of the world. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates do in fact produce religious fanatics who hate us for fairly crappy reasons, but people in places like North or East Africa--or, for that matter, Pakistan--have somewhat more dialectically standard fish to fry.

I thought the Allies freed North Africa during WWII, no? 

---

How is it 'championing individual freedom' to judge and at times wage war on people on the basis of their religion.

Judge?  As in their souls? No, I’ll leave that up to Christ.  But their actions I judge as Satanic.  But, the US hasn’t waged war on anyone due to their religion, unless they’ve declared war on us first (e.g. Osama, Taliban, etc)

See, if I were on a jury, it wouldn’t matter to me if a Christian was accusing a Muslim or a Muslim was accusing a Christian, I’m going to decide based on the actions of the individuals…but the vast majority of Muslims are going to side with the Muslim regardless if the Muslim broke into the Christian’s house raped and pillaged his whole family. 

The vast majority of Muslims stick with Muslims no matter what the facts are, because that is the mindset of Islam.  Christianity, on the other hand, forbids favoritism.

---

Related question: Have you ever actually met a practising Muslim?

I am in IT you know

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Stop demonizing one fifth of the world's population, jmfcst.

people are people and demons are demons - therefore, it's not the people who are demonic, it's their religion that is demonic

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

getting tired of this crap.  the Judeo-Christian USA has military presence in 130 countries.  has orchestrated the only large scale invasions of sovereign states in the past decade, both, of course, of predominantly Muslim countries.  your eschatological prejudice can't hold up to objective fact, doesn't try to, and, worst of all, is widespread and destructive.

Saddam had violated the cease-fire agreement on what, 14 counts?  (fyi...in the future if your don't agree with the terms of cease-fire agreements, then stick with the war plan)  And the Taliban was protecting someone who openly attacked us.  Now, I think what Bush was attempting to accomplish in both countries was exceedingly naive, considering that 1) they were both intolerant Muslim countries, and 2) had no experience with democracy and tolerance...but we still had every right to wipe them off the map.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If one were to highlight every instance of Jmfcst illustrating that he has no idea what decency entails, one would no doubt grow depressed really, really fast.

CountryA starts war with CountryB, yet CountryA is the one that has the right to be treated with decency?!  Hate to shake you up, but wars involve killing people, not treating them decently.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Iraq started war with America? Have you completely lost it now?

 

no, they started a war with Kuwait, and then when given 5 months to withdraw didn't, and so the US joined the battle...then Iraq made a ceasefire agreement to end hostilities, then violated that ceasefire in 14(?) areas...and violations of ceasefire agreements amount to an act of war.  Just because the US and its allies were too soft to do anything about it, doesn't mean the US and its allies weren't justified in resuming hostilities...if you don't like the terms of the ceasefire agreement, then don't make it in the first place.

as for Bush43, he should have just played hit and run throughout the middle east, wiping out the armed forces of Iraq/Iran/Syria/Afghanistan and then brought the troops home in time for the start of 1993 World Series...it was naive to occupy and attempt to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Wasn't talking about the first war of course. Anyways, your plan is so f'ed up that I had to laugh. Why would we attack Iraq, Iran or Syria for 9/11?

Afghanistan - because they hosted and protected Osama

Iran/Syria - because they are terrorist nations

Iraq - because Saddam violated cease fire, and mostly because it provides an excuse to bring 100's thousands of US troops into the region to go after the real target - Iran.

and then come home

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, has it ever occurred to you that it's intrinsically wrong to kill people, not just incidentally wrong to kill people from cultures and under governments of which you approve?

there is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing those who are trying to kill you...it's called self-defense.  Iran has been at war with the US since 1979, and every move they make is an attempt to destroy us, mainly because we are Israel's protector. 

And your attitude demonstrates why Iran believes the US is already defeated:

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's better than your attitude, which, at least on foreign policy, is more aggressively ignorant, myopic, and compassionless than I would have liked to think possible.

my attitude is much better than the all the last six (6) US administrations, and would have led to less US and foreign lives lost. 

For example, I never would have occupied Iraq or Afghanistan if I were Bush43, and if I were Obama, I would have pulled troops out of those two countries by May 2009. 

And if I were president during 9/11, I would have used Iraq as a stepping stone to position US forces and would have taken out the airforce and navy of Iran, and the airforce of Syria...then all of our troops would come home...and I wouldn't have hampered the request of US special forces in Afghanistan and therefore Torra Bora would have had a completely different outcome…and our troops would have been home from the ME by Oct 2003.

And my attitude is far better then the current US administration’s handling of the Arab Spring, which is only guaranteeing the creation of several more Iran’s, this time of the Sunni flavor.  I mean, how ignorant do you have to be not to have known Egypt would turn into a radical Sunni state?

US foreign policy has failed, and is continuing to fail, simply because it deals with Muslim nations in the same way it deals with the Soviets or the Chinese.   But the motivations and desires of the religious, especially Muslims, are different than the motivations and desires of the secular.  And if I attempted to engineer a religious armageddon, it would be hard pressed to come up with a more efficient plan than the policy the US has pursued and currently pursues, because these people will simply continue to come after us, and as their capabilities grow, their ability to generate a world war grows.

Your attitude is going to need new excuses just about every month for the next 5 to 10 years.  And as the naiveté of your attitude is demonstrated over and over again, you and people like you will continue to shift the blame on the US and Israel, until the West no longer exists.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So pretty much violence is only wrong when it's done by muslims?

Because obviously liberty loving Jesus freaks don't kill.  They LIBERATE.

whose talking about liberating?  I'm talking about in 2003, after invading Iraq and destroying its Airforce and heaving infantry, using Iraq as a base to go after Iran and Syria.  Once enough US forces are in Iraq, we take our US carriers out of the Persian Gulf and launch a strike that takes out Iran silkworm missiles, its Navy, its Airforce, and its ground to ground missiles...once the seas and air are secure, then you go in with tanks for a month or two to mop up and then we leave, with the expressed notice that we will be back whenever we choose if Iran doesn't stop its antiWest activities.  Civilian casualties would be very low.

We're already at war with Iran and have been since 1979.  We've simply been fighting the war on their terms, not ours.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And my attitude is far better then the current US administration’s handling of the Arab Spring, which is only guaranteeing the creation of several more Iran’s, this time of the Sunni flavor.  I mean, how ignorant do you have to be not to have known Egypt would turn into a radical Sunni state?

jmfcst, you think any Sunni state is radical. Besides, the Middle East exists for people who live there, not for the benefit of the West. The Middle East doesn't dislike the West just because we're here; they dislike us in part because we're there. If we had pursued your policy towards Iran and Syria the entire Third World would have turned much more radically against us than it has anyway.

Yeah, those rapidly depleted Christian minorities in the ME are sure loved by the citizens of their own countries, aren’t they?  They're simply loved to death by the Muslims.

---

And whether or not killing people is effective or leads to desired results has no bearing on whether or not it's wrong. It's wrong to kill enemy combatants. It may be excusable given circumstances, but it's still wrong

So, do you also think it is wrong for SWAT teams to take-out armed murderers threatening to kill more people?  Where did you get the idea that killing in the defense of others is “wrong”?!  Where does an idea like that come from?

It may be unpleasant and undesirable, but it is NOT “wrong”!  In fact, killing is sometimes the only righteous action to take in this world.  Jesus Christ himself wasn’t some pansy pacifist, in fact he said if his kingdom were of this world he’d paint the place red with blood (which he will do when he comes back).  And he instructed his disciples, who would remain in the world, to arm themselves – not for conquest – but for self defense.  

---

; and it's not excusable to kill civilians--any civilians--because of the actions of their governments.

You, on the other hand, do think that it's okay to kill civilians because you don't like their government, which is also al-Qaeda's justification for 9/11. Literally that was their exact excuse, that American civilians are culpable for US government action because the US government is elected.

Where is this argument coming from?  Where exactly in my plan do you find me targeting civilians?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

They were 'rapidly depleted' before, too, and also that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

but it has everything to do with what I am saying - Islam is a religion intended to be a politically imposed religion that is not tolerant of anything other than Islam…simple and accurate.

---

You do know that what happened with those Copts in Egypt got a lot of people really angry at the army and the SCAF had to go into damage control mode by banning religious discrimination, right?

Yeah, I’m sure the Copts are snug and secure now.

---

I'm also not buying your sudden concern for Christian minorities in the Middle East, considering your views on the subject of Israel.

The NT view (which matches the OT view) that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews is not contradictory with NT theology.

---

It's called pacifism. You may have heard of it.

Yeah, and it’s a pretty naïve and despicable belief.  Like to see someone break in and attempt to rape your mother and wife and we’ll see how pacifist you become.

---

I would certainly think it was wrong for the SWAT team to do that, but I would understand why they did it and not judge them for it. Just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's not sometimes called for.

You are so full of contradictions - if it is called for in certain circumstances, then it is NOT wrong in those circumstances, in fact, in those circumstances it is the righteous thing to do.  Me blowing the brains out of someone breaking into my house with the intent of killing my family is the righteous thing to do.  Period.  Exclamation point!

---

Because we live in a Fallen world, which you apparently don't want to understand the full import of.

Oh, I am fully aware of it.  The fallen world ushered in death as a needed consequence.  And God intended man to be prepared to kill to defend life, both in the OT and in the NT.  God never forbid killing, rather he forbid murder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He also said that His Kingdom isn't in fact of this world, if you'll recall.

See part in bold

---

Agreed, there is such a thing as 'proportionate force' and the early Christians needed to defend themselves. But killing when there is any other option to solve the situation is always, always, always wrong, for the precise reason that only God has rights over our lives.

The only way to deter barbarism is through force, especially religious barbarism.  Unlike the secular tyrant, religious barbarism is planted in faith, not in gain or loss in this world…which is why bring-us-back-to-the-stoneage Shria law is desired by the majority of Muslims.  The only way to defeat when it is forced upon you is through force, there is no other option unless you want to pay tax and treated as a second class citizen.

And if you think the Muslims are content with just having Shria law in their own countries, then you are extremely naïve.  Islam is not a race or nation or freedom-of-choice based religion, rather it is a religion that seeks to unify the whole world under an Islamic political state.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm referring to your apologism for dropping atomic bombs on factories full of conscripted children at the end of World War II. And you may not be 'targeting' civilians here but the fact of collateral damage certainly isn't enough to diminish your sabre-rattling.

How many civilians were killed in the battle of Okinawa?  Answer – Estimates range from around 80k to 150k.

How many Japanese soldiers were killed in the battle of Okinawa?  Answer – 100k (roughly 90-95% of Japanese fought to the death)

How many Japanese soldiers were killed in the battle of Iwo Jima?  Answer – about 99% of 18k soldiers fought to the death, only 278 were captured alive

Multiply those numbers to the mainland of Japan and the decision to drop the nukes to end the war is a no-brainer….in fact, 90k–166k people killed in Hiroshima (2nd Army HQ)and 60k–80k in Nagasaki (home to huge sea port and factories) is about the same as the carnage of just Okinawa alone

But my plan to defang Iran/Iraq/Syria is not anywhere on the scale of the civilian causalities of the WWII nukings.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

but it has everything to do with what I am saying - Islam is a religion intended to be a politically imposed religion that is not tolerant of anything other than Islam…simple and accurate.

Absurdly bigoted and historically myopic. There are certainly types of Islam that are like that

Certain types?  How about the type practiced by Mohammad himself?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Relative to how they were before? Actually, depending on how enforcement goes, yes, it's entirely possible that they will be.

Can you give me a count on the number of nations where the Christian population has increased after an Islamic government was put into place?  I think the answer will be 0 +/- 0

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's contradictory with opposing religious discrimination, though. But you obviously don't actually care about religious discrimination unless it's Muslims doing it.

This has nothing to do with religious discrimination, rather it is racial…it’s the Jews land whether the Jews are religious or atheists.  I myself do not have the right to claim land in Israel.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have in fact been in situations in which my family was endangered. Remarkably, I managed to defuse them without killing anybody. Had I not been able to I would have tried to atone for it.

I don’t know what rock your got your concept of atonement from, but:

1) there is no justification for doing something that you know you will later regret.  If you think that there is, then name me one single example in scripture where someone had ask forgiven for something they had to do, much less for killing someone in self-defense.
2) it’s a basic foundational doctrine of Christianity that you cannot atone for your own actions.

So all this self-pity self-righeous self-contradicting pacifism of yours is just a bunch of baloney.

religious dictatorships are often more forgivable than secular ones.

what?  On what basis?

---

Killing people because they make you pay relatively small taxes is such a childish, short-sighted, and morally reprehensible disproportionate response that I don't even know where to begin.

So, you’d be willing to lay down and give up your rights and be treated as a second class citizen in your own country if Muslim attempted to take it over, instead of picking up a gun and defending it?!  What kind of a pussy are you?

---

Also, you know that there have been many non-Muslim theocracies throughout history, right?... Some types of Christianity also seek to unify the whole world under a Christian political state

Yeah, and I’d put a bullet between the eyes of a “christian” theocrat attempting to overthrow the constitution a lot quicker than I would a Muslim theocrat.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's far from clear what was actually going on in Japanese high command at the time and whether or not the United States jumped the gun, but this really isn't the point.

So, Harry S. Truman was expected to be Marvin the Mind Reader, eh?  I think Truman allowed the actions of the Japanese high command to speak to their intentions.

---

Also, the huge seaport and factories were being run by conscripted children. I'm going to keep using the phrase 'conscripted children' until it sinks into your venal, tribal little skull.

And all those Japanese soldiers who died in WWII were NOT conscripts and were instead all volunteers?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not a question of 'scale'. It's a question of it being wrong to preemptively kill civilians.

I…never…mentioned…targeting…civilians…while…defanging…Iran…Iraq…Syria…

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

we need a new representative for pacifism...I just can't reconcile "it is 'wrong' for a SWAT team to kill someone in the defense of others, but it is called for...though they will need to atone for their actions"

what is the SWAT team to do for atonement - adopt 10 miles of a local highway and clean it for 2 Saturdays per person they 'wrongly' but 'necessarily' killed?  

How about cleaning poop droppings of homeless kittens in the local animal shelter?  My wife does that.  I'll have to go home and ask here what she is attempting to atone for.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Can you give me a count on the number of nations where the Christian population has increased after an Islamic government was put into place?  I think the answer will be 0 +/- 0

Persia and India, among others.

As I said, Islam right now is indeed comparatively sh**tty, historically speaking.[/quote]

What?!   Historically speaking…Mohammad pretty much cleansed Christianity from the ME, the Christian populations dropped (usually by the sword) dramatically during his conquests.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, so it's racial discrimination. Gotcha.

Yeah, I am discriminating against myself…what a bigot I am.

---

Also, I misspoke. I meant 'repent', not 'atone'. Sorry about that.

So, basically ‘wrong’ equates to ‘sin’, thus the need for repentance…now, we’re speaking the same language….so, you believe it is a “sin” for a SWAT team to use deadly force, yet you think that that “sin” is justified?!

Does your bible have Jesus saying, “Go and sin no more…unless it is justified”?…cause I think I missed that verse.

---

I am willing to entertain arguments to wait out Iran…but I am not going to sit here and listen to a bunch of contradictory nonsense that attempts to define deadly force used in the act of self-defense as a “sin” and then attempts to claim “sin” is sometimes justified.  Your attempt to muck up the English language has one aim and one aim only – to cloak the lie that you are pedaling.

Sin is sin, period.  The bible NEVER portrays it as justifiable.

Again, I am fine with people arguing that my plan will cause more bloodshed in the near and long term.  That is a viable argument.  But it is NOT a viable argument to openly claim sin is justifiable in some cases for it is never presented that way in scripture.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Do you care about any other religious minorities in the mideast or Islamic Asia other than Christians, Jmf? Like say, Hindus under Islamic rule India for example? Pretty sure their population rose under kings like Akbar. Though to be fair to you, he was the exception, and most Islamic rulers were pretty sh**tty.

what is this, the exception that disproves the rule? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There were centuries when Islamic rule was more tolerant of other faiths than Christendom was.

you know, after the 839th time, it's gets boring having to explain that I don't care for any kind of theocracy, Christian or otherwise.

---

Tbs, I am not happy with some of the extremist elements gaining more power, and I think we should press for minority rights diplomatically.  I do not think that we should automatically assume that these new Arab Springs governments will be hostile to the US and preemptively foster this enmity by bombing them.

again, another straw man argument - for I haven't advocated preemptive strikes against the Arab Spring countries, only Iran and Syria.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You are willfully misinterpreting what I am saying or else you are so incredibly ignorant that you genuinely do not understand that there is any kind of Christian moral thought other than your own.

actually, I prefer biblical moral thought, rather than creating my own.

---

I am not attempting to cast sin as 'justified', only 'understandable'. If it is justified in the sense of being forgivable, which is a word that I have used while you have been the only one insisting on the use of 'justified', it is because the result is unintentional.

Then where in the bible is sin “understandable”…give me a single example out of the entire bible.  And where is sin only forgivable if the result is unintentional?

I don’t recall a single passage where the bible has anyone saying, “Sorry, God can’t forgive you for this sin since it was intentional.  You wanted to steal.  You planned the theft.  And you intentionally stole….so, ‘No Forgiveness For You! Next!’”

God is not a soup nazi when it comes to forgiving sin.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Nathan, I've created a thread on the Religion Board where you can continue attempting to explain the logic of your "pacifism + the need for sinning SWAT teams"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The Christian kingdoms (Christendom) that persecuted Muslims and killed or exiled Jews were not theocracies either.

such as...?

---

Several Islamic kingdoms were quite tolerant in comparison. My general point is that you are making broad generalizations about over 1 billion people with a weak foundation.

my knowledge of current events is a bit hazy...remind me again which Muslims countries currently have a growing Christian population?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Really?  There are hundreds of examples.  Edward I expulsion of the Jews, Ferdinand and Isabella's forced conversions and expulsions, pogroms throughout C. and Eastern Europe for 600 years.  Religious tolerance isn't exactly a western virtue.

well, forced conversions fits under my definition of theocracy...and Western persecution of the Jews doesn't have to involve Christianity, take Hitler for example.

so, I am not saying this is limited to Islam...I'm just saying the Arab Spring is going to turn out bad, very bad

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

someone of course will say here that 'Hitler was a Christian'

well, they might say that, but that doesn't make it so.  Hitler saw himself as "Savior" and his supporters attacked Christian churches because they didn't think, in comparison to Hitler, Jesus was worthy of being Savior.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Also, jmfcst, I haven't read most of this thread, but I suspect it's got plenty of wtf moments. Am I right?

here is a summary of what I can remember:

Most agreed the vast majority of the Muslim world hates the US and would side with ANY Muslim country that was at war with the US…Most agreed Christianity is under attack in the vast majority of predominately Muslim countries and that these countries are not tolerant of other religious viewpoints…Most agreed there has been a lot of religious intolerance throughout history…Most now the see the Arab Spring as ending very badly and no longer even argue the issue…Nathan for some unknown reason, brought nuclear weapons and my agreement with Truman’s decision to drop the bomb into the discussion and I informed this forum that the US nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED killed about the same number of Japanese troops and civilians as was killed during the battle of Okinawa ALONE…Nathan introduced us to the pacifism and the idea that killing is intrinsically wrong and sinful, even when cops have to put down trigger happy maniacs killing civilians with large caliber automatic weapons.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

and...I advocated the removal of Iran's and Syria's offensive military capability (airforce, navy, missiles, heavy army equipment such as tanks and rockets)