SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Days ARE Evil

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 Next Page )
PosterThread
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Terrorism is the war of the poor, and War is the terrorism of the rich.

Sir Peter Ustinov


Are we willing to see or are we blinded by our comforts?
The battle is a spiritual one.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/11/19 10:19Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

Jeff,

it's interesting that you quote Ustinov. Earlier I had mentioned that there doesn not seem to be political solution. For Peter Ustinov there was still one valid political solution left: a world government. He has said, “World Government is not only possible, it is inevitable; and when it comes, it will appeal to patriotism in its truest, in its only sense, the patriotism of men who love their national heritages so deeply that they wish to preserve them in safety for the common good.”

I admit I am too influenced both by an apprehension of anti-christ and a deep sense of American independence to readily embrace the idea. (Ustinov, as president of the World Federalist Movement, was a firm supporter of the International Criminal Court which has indicated that Bush should be tried as a war criminal.) In the end I think it's impossible but one can't help but feel the tide turning slowly in that direction.

I am asking because if there was ever a reason for nations to start prosecuting Christians with a clear conscience...it would be because many in our ranks, along with fundamentalists from other faiths, oppose ecumemical and political globalism. Do you have any thoughts on this?

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2005/11/19 13:22Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Brother Mike wrote:

Quote:
t's interesting that you quote Ustinov.



I do not know anything more of Ustinov than what you have stated here. I quoted this quote from page 89 of Buchanan's book.

Quote:
Earlier I had mentioned that there doesn not seem to be political solution. For Peter Ustinov there was still one valid political solution left: a world government. He has said, “World Government is not only possible, it is inevitable; and when it comes, it will appeal to patriotism in its truest, in its only sense, the patriotism of men who love their national heritages so deeply that they wish to preserve them in safety for the comm




Last week we began receiving a subscription to a news paper that serves the area we are planning to move to. "The Lancaster New Era" was described by the sales rep as a paper that represents the conservative agenda. So I began to read and found one of the editorials written by "Charles Krauthammer. Up until last week I had never heard or read of Krauthammer, yet I also came across this man in Buchanan's book. I would like to quote this in relation to your thought.

Page 12

"When the Soviet empire started to unravel with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Cold War that had defined America's mission came to an end. Americans began to cast about for a new foreign policy. Owen Harries of the National Interest invited this writer to participate in a symposium on America's role in the post-Cold War world, alon with neoconservatives Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, and Charles Krauthammer.

Kirkpatrick, a former UN ambassador, held out the hope that we might become again what we had been before a half century of hot and cold war from 1939 to 1989: "The time when Americans should bear such unusual burdens (as the Cold War) is past. With a return to "normal" times, we can again become a normal nation-- and take care of pressing problems of education, family, industry, and technology."

Wattenberg, however, urged that America not come home at all but launch a global campaign to "wage democracy" all over the world.

[b]Krauthammer's[/b] vision was even more grandiose. It should be the "wish and work" of America now, he wrote, to "integrate" with Europe and Japan inside a "super-sovereign" entity that would be "economically, culturally and politically hegemonic in the world." The old republic was to be absorbed by the new entity.

This "new univeralism," wrote [b]Krauthammer[/b], "would require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty in general. This is not as outrageous as it sounds."

---end of thought----

One thing I know is that the Scriptures teach that there will be a one world government just like that which man tried to establish back in the book of Genesis

Gen. 10:8 Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.” 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 From that land he went to Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (that is the principal city).

3 Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. 4 And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”


This will happen again. And I know that we can do nothing about this from happening. To me what is most important is the fact that we ourselves search for the truth and are not caught up in the lie. We are called to expose the lie. When we do this we will be persecuted by those who strive to promote the lie.

People like Charles Krauthammer are seeking to establish democracy that places men under the rule of one world government. These doctrines of men are weaving its way into the minds of Christtians who are not willing to discern what is evil. These times are perilous for the Children are being cast about by every wind of doctrine.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/11/21 11:05Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

Thanks Jeff,

A couple of affecting statements...

Quote:
"The time when Americans should bear such unusual burdens (as the Cold War) is past. With a return to "normal" times, we can again become a normal nation-- and take care of pressing problems of education, family, industry, and technology."



I've mentioned this before, but it seems hard for Americans to imagine themselves anything less then the greatest nation on Earth. That is not so bad in it if our definition of greatness is righteousness. There was a time when our aspirations were to be more then rich and powerful, as captured by this well-known 1850 statement attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville:

“I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers - and it was not there . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there . . . in her rich mines and her vast world commerce - and it was not there . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution - and it vas not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” (It's typical of the disillusionment of our times that the authenticity of this cherished quote is now being called into question by scholars.)

Now, that the cold war is over, we might have hoped that the arms race would likewise wind down. On the contrary I fear it's only grown more chaotic and dangerous, and we have become the pace setter. In a twist of the plot, Americans who previously saw themselves as making the world safe for democracy are finding themselves the subject of fear and loathing.

Quote:
Wattenberg, however, urged that America not come home at all but launch a global campaign to "wage democracy" all over the world.



The irony strikes at the heart of America's self-definition:independence. We who are most opposed to all forms of foreign interference, highly suspicious of the UN, have become a global power that dwarfs the UN's claim upon the planet.
Quote:
People like Charles Krauthammer are seeking to establish democracy that places men under the rule of one world government.

I remember a British citizen complaining that it was unfair that they couldn't participate in the vote for the American president...claiming that our presidential vote affected her life more then British political races. Even as an American voter, I understand her sense of powerlessness before recent events in America.

At the end of the day it is not hard to feel a sense that the world has become a runaway train. The passenger cars are full of people, some who are laughing and others who are desperate to leave, while a few are exhorting all to brace for impact. These latter warn that really no one man is running the engine but the rickety speeding train, winding back and forth, is sure to reach it's destination, fixed as it is on the track of God's government.

There is a government that I do believe in after all! "To us a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders."

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2005/11/21 12:31Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

In terms of fighting a war against Terrorism, how would one look at this situation.

When Nazi Germany invaded France and set up its government; there came a movement know to us as the French Resistance. The Germans suffered from the terrorism created by this organization. Yet we look upon this work as heroic.

When President Bush stated that we are going to fight a war against terrorism, what does He really mean?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/11/21 12:33Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

I see your point but I think there are important differences...

Did the French target women and children purposely? (American caused civilian casualities are horrible, but can not be compared to the policy of targeting civilians such as in 9/11.)

Also, America was not the only western power aiding various mid-east nations. While we are allied with Israel, France has funded the Palestinian Authority...yet both nations suffered from terrorist strikes before the Gulf Wars. The only conclusion I have is that radical Islam is not guided by the same defensive logic that the French resistance was. Indeed, the recent attack against Jordan proves that Al Quiada is like a rabid dog, that bites anything in it's path.

I appreciate the fair-mindedness but I cannot equate Islamic terrorists with freedom fighters. 9/11 was inexcusable.

The image of freedom fighters has more substance inside Iraq. I remember answering someone who was outraged at the decitful tactic of Iraq soldiers who dressed in civilian clothing in attempt to get closer to American soldiers. I told them, "before you point out the suicide bomber in their eye, remove the B-52 from thine own!"

Even so, the feeling I get from the conflicting reports from Iraq, is that the population wanted Saddam out. Those that are resisting are not doing so as part of a "conquered nation". They are insurgents...and they are coming from outside Iraq.

I'm going to attract criticism for this, but I think the people of Iraq will be better off without Saddam. Iraq was a developing nation before the Ba'ath party raped it, killing the other political parties. If we doubt this, then I still think it's not to late to reinstate Saddam. We could parade him back in...of course all those people who were kicking his statue and spitting on his picture would be in trouble.

Now I still think we need to hear a firm plan for leaving Iraq intact and strong. And as for Al Quaida, I can't see them as the French Resistance, and I can't see America as Nazi Germany.

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2005/11/21 13:04Profile
GaryE
Member



Joined: 2005/4/26
Posts: 376
Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania

 Re: Days ARE Evil



The following review was sent to me on my e-mail account a couple of weeks ago. It is my opinion that it is accurate and true. I realize that this subject is not spiritual at all and usually only brings about strife and contention, but have decided to add it to this thread since it fits well here.

In Christ,
GaryE


.................................................
-
Historical Review of Iraq Situation

A California Lawyer's Perspective on the Iraq War

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally (Are they ever? General Patton once said,"I'd rather have a battalion of Germans in front of me, than a battalion of french behind me!") the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because none of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler - actually, Belgium surrendered in one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America's ass by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany. Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million. Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe, England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich. Isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse. I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. AND we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs - they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it everywhere at once so we have created a focal point for the battle now, at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or somewhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons?

And Iraq was paying for much of these French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

World War II, the war with the German and the Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war - and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again . . . a 27 year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

[The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $180 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. (What will the next hit cost in $ & lives if we wait until the Jahadist have nuclear weapons???) It has also cost over 1,900 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the lives that the Jihadist snuffed on 9/11.]

But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, conditioned I suppose by 60 minute TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, e. g. Libya, Dubai and Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, the Jihadist, believe they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It WILL NOT go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany, which is well underway, and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadist say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law as dictated by the Qur'an), an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against it.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes -cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German imperialism (WWI), Nazi imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam War, itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance through Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight a minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.

This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had the right plan the war would have been easy, cheap, quick and clean.

That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.

This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq.

It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken a little more than 1,900 KIA in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia.

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this.

They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe - in America. For this priviledge, they should thank US veterans.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism.

Sadly, American Liberals just don't get it.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California



_________________
Gary Eckenroth

 2005/11/21 13:42Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

I think it's worth noting a recent comment I heard made by the Iraqi president on the American and Iraqi deaths in the present conflict. In so many words he said that while the death count is tragic, it is not nearly as bad as what was happening when the Ba'ath party ran the country...where on average, 30,000 Iraqi citizens were murdered by the Saddam government every year. So, I suppose, in these evil days, that will have to count as progress.

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2005/11/21 14:38Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Brother Mike wrote:

Quote:
I appreciate the fair-mindedness but I cannot equate Islamic terrorists with freedom fighters. 9/11 was inexcusable.




I agree with this statement for the most part. Yes Islamic terrorists are different than much of what we have seen in the past. And yes, I should have not made a comparison of situations between these two events in history. They just don't line up.

Yet, what was it that the terrorist attacked on 9/11? What was their focus? Was it meant to kill women and children or something else? We often submit that there are civilian casualities that were not targeted yet they occur. They occur everyday in Iraq by the hands of U.S. soldiers. We have many testimonies from the soldiers of these events. This is the outcome of war, it happens. The young kids fighting over there have to make split second decisions. It is either them or me. But the results, what does it do to those who experience this? What pictures play over and over again in the minds of those subjected to war? I believe it may bring them a little closer to crying out to God. And I pray that they would be filled with the peace that comes as a perfect gift down from the Father.

I in no way sanction what those who practice terrorism do. What I am looking for is how should we fight the roots of terriorism. What if the world saw the evidence of the power of God in those who profess Him. Would not these radical Isalmists like Paul, forget the things of the past, and look onward and upward to the call of Christ in their lives?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/11/21 15:56Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Quote:
The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance through Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.



Since 632 Ad there has been a clash of civilizations. For eight hundred years, it was the Muslims who were the advanced people of the world. The European Christian nations were the barbarians. And then things changed around. And now it seems like things may change around again.

I wonder how Daniel, Shadrach, Mishack, and Adbendego felt as their nation Israel was considered the barbarians and the Babylonians the civilized nation?

God protected those who lived in bondage to the Chaldeans. God protected His people during the time of Queen Ester. Why would He not protect those who have the mind of Christ? Why do we need the U.S. government to protect our families? What if it is God's will that live in subjection to the Wahhabe nation?

The real question is would we submitt to Islam or be like Daniel?

These are easy things to say and contemplate, yet only when I am confronted by realily will I know the outcome. Yet the love of the truth will deliver us from the lies. God is faithful. It is we who must discover His ways.


In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/11/21 16:20Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy