[JerryLove]

as for my thoughts about the use of nuclear weapons during world war 2

Yawn. There's anothe position saying that they were unneccessairy to ending the war and used for political rather than military gain... but that sub-topic is out-of-scope here. See the dozen other examples.

BTW: You seem to be saying "the ends justify the means" in your support of them.

Deuteronomy 20 established rules for the Hebrews outside of God-ordered wars against particular Canaanite tribes. They forbid collateral damage, even of trees. I don't see Christian or Jewish nations abiding by this - just in the opposite, in fact, since Israel has destroyed many aged Gaza groves, laying waste to cultivated land.

I'm confused: How does "I don't see OT rules being followed" equate to "I support violation of the laws of God"?

you are talking about the same God who told Saul to butcher everyone in a kingdom, and rebuked him through Samuel when he kept the king alive and some of the goods and live stock....

Did God tell Isreal to use white phosporous on the Palestinians? If so, we are having the wrong discussion.

I never said there wasn't anything wrong with certain acts....just like the Holocaust was horrible act by a evil man....what I am saying is there are times when you have to kill 10 or 20 people to save millions.....

Actually: you said you couldn't imainge outlawing a weapon in war.

Now you are back to the end/means argument.

I already said I have had to pray about my own personally beliefs....I didn't come here to argue on a Christian forum with my brothers and sisters in Christ.....

Then your choice to post a controversial claim on a discussion board is unusual.

Still... this whole position seems wrong. You took outside advice to get here (the people you taught you about the Bible), but then abandoned the idea of outside input? Now I suppose I'm getting out-of-scope.

[tlj009]

Perhaps if Palestinian land wasn't forcibly taken away from them, after years of Britain defending Arab sovereignty, they wouldn't feel compelled to fight like this. If they fight on Israeli terms, they stand no chance of maintaining their identity.

Imagine that the E.U. and China carve a large section of Texas, from Dallas down to Austin and San Antonio, and give it back to the Comanche and Tonkawan. After all, it was their ancestral land and plays a role in their religious beliefs.

Do you think Texans would accept this? Do you think they would stick to the conventional rules of warfare? Do you think nearby American states wouldn't lend aid to the Texans?

In the American Revolution, the colonists used quasi-guerilla tactics - surprise attacks on the British, abandonment of the battlefield to melt into swamps and forests, tar-and-feathering of non-violent loyalists, etc.

Um...there wasn't just some outside force that took the lands from the Palestinians and gave it to the Jews. What happened was that the Jewish people began returning to the land, mainly by buying the land. The Palestinians didn't like it and Britain couldn't control the territory. The land that was taken was taken because the Jews won the fight basically. The British pulled out and gave the decision to the UN. But even then the British didn't pull out immediately and were basically helping the Arabs by their embargos until they did leave completely.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by KaiserZr

if you are a military leader/general I believe victory should be the top priority....you are not there to be a politician, but to figure out the best quickest way to defeat your enemy by using military force...

If you are a military leader, you are still accountable to morality, and victory can never be higher priority over morality. It has less to do with politics, and more about that these soldiers and citizens are people with lives; they are not merely pawns on a chessboard. The quickest, most effective, moral strategy is the best. I am not judging Israel's use of white phosphorus, or Hamas using human shields; I am, however, standing by the idea that ethics can never be thrown out.

There is no teleological suspense of the ethical. And I know it is difficult to hold both Christian beliefs and the belief that victory is top priority for a military leader. They are incompatible, to put it bluntly. You can be a good leader and not hold victory as highest priority. That, my friend, is not incompatible.

[KaiserZr]

Originally Posted by athanatos

If you are a military leader, you are still accountable to morality, and victory can never be higher priority over morality. It has less to do with politics, and more about that these soldiers and citizens are people with lives; they are not merely pawns on a chessboard. The quickest, most effective, moral strategy is the best. I am not judging Israel's use of white phosphorus, or Hamas using human shields; I am, however, standing by the idea that ethics can never be thrown out.

There is no teleological suspense of the ethical. And I know it is difficult to hold both Christian beliefs and the belief that victory is top priority for a military leader. They are incompatible, to put it bluntly. You can be a good leader and not hold victory as highest priority. That, my friend, is not incompatible.

that I can agree with you can be a good leader and keep morality as a major reason for your decisions...but not always in a military sense....why do you think some of the greatest military minds in history were usually people who's moral decisions are very questionable....

there is only one that really jumps to my mind that actually did make a moral decision to not kill any Jews he captured after a battle and that was the "Desert Fox" General Rommel.....who did not agree with Hitler's holocaust....eventually his disobedience would cost him his life after he was pretty much forced to commit suicide....

The last thing I will say about this subject is that I don't see how a Christian can be a military leader and be effective.....I figure the strain to keep your morals while achieving victory would be too much....

[JerryLove]

So given the choice between "the command of God" and "military victory", you would choose the latter?

It's interesting that God is #2 or worse on the priority chain.

[athanatos]

KaiserZr: Before getting into this further, I would like to preface this with the fact that I am shocked that you have held onto this belief so resolutely. What makes the military sense (e.g. victory) exempt? <-- This question is pivotal to allowing me to understand your position.

If you reply to any of my post, reply to this above question. You don't even need to reply to any part of my post, but if you do, at least reply to the above.

Originally Posted by KaiserZr

that I can agree with you can be a good leader and keep morality as a major reason for your decisions...but not always in a military sense....why do you think some of the greatest military minds in history were usually people who's moral decisions are very questionable....

The greatest military minds are often considered so only by segmenting one part of their lives and praising that one (military) aspect. Therefore, we would not want to go from one of the "greatest military minds" to one of the "greatest persons" remotely. It may not be clear to you, but it seems like you are making that kind of a move, because you regard military achievement highly. Am I being unfair with this assessment?

there is only one that really jumps to my mind that actually did make a moral decision to not kill any Jews he captured after a battle and that was the "Desert Fox" General Rommel.....who did not agree with Hitler's holocaust....eventually his disobedience would cost him his life after he was pretty much forced to commit suicide....

As for Desert Fox, I applaud him, even if he did die. He took morality more seriously then his military position and even his own claim to being alive.

The last thing I will say about this subject is that I don't see how a Christian can be a military leader and be effective.....I figure the strain to keep your morals while achieving victory would be too much....

Something has occurred to me. There may be a segregation of your thoughts. Let me explain. Military is great and necessary; victory is the point of the military. Christ was awesome and so were his teachings. Yet you do not see these as contradictory at any point (and may not necessarily be); though if they were to contradict, for some reason you side with military. Why is this?

Now, if a Christian cannot be a military leader and be effective, is that (a) because something in the job description is objectively wrong or (b) something unnecessarily is holding him back from getting their jobs done (pesky morals! always getting in the way!).

It seems like you have made a relativism of the matter. "If you're a Christian, then you shouldn't go into the military. Because if you're in the military, then you might have to get rid of morality at points in order to win. Therefore, it is good if we keep Christians out of the military, so people can win." (or something to that effect) My problem with this reasoning is thus: morality is objective, irrespective to those who commit the act, whether in Christ or in the military (or both). So if we are being objective and suggest that Christians stay out of military on grounds of morality, wouldn't we also suggest that anyone stay out of military?

[KaiserZr]

"What makes the military sense (e.g. victory) exempt?"

"So given the choice between "the command of God" and "military victory", you would choose the latter?

It's interesting that God is #2 or worse on the priority chain. '


ok I have said it once and since people don't seem to understand what I have said...I said I have STRUGGLED with my thoughts of war since becoming a Christian....in my first post in this topic I said I have struggled and prayed about it......then I went on to say in another post that I couldn't be a military leader as a Christian because I don't think I could make those decisions...I SIDE WITH CHRIST BEFORE ALL....now I am getting tired of the sarcasm....but then again it is hard to explain to a bunch of people who really don't know me... and a lot of this is hard to explain.....

We all have weaknesses things that are hard to let go....ok so you may understand a little bit....before I got saved I hated people ok....I couldn't stand people, I didn't trust anyone, and I wanted people dead due to things that have happened through out my life (concerning the death of my dad and other situations)....I turned to reading about war to take the pain away I turned all my aggression, anger, and hatred on to that.....I developed a mind set that told me that you annihilate your enemies at all costs......whether it be in the military or non-military...you destroy them before they destroy you....like I said earlier I had a borderline obsession with war, because for me it took the pain away....

I accepted Christ right before I turned 15....and I didn't completely address those thoughts....but I tried to do everything to be what I thought Christ wanted me to be....I had regressions where I had either outbursts of anger or emotional breakdowns throughout my years....even turning away from God when I was 19....I eventually came back after nearly making the worse mistake of my life.....now almost 3 years later I am still rebuilding having to literally question every belief I have ever held.....for me this what that way....I came here to bounce ideas off people, to try to get an understanding of this and I get sarcasm and criticism....

Maybe I asked the wrong people, I figured this would be the best place since no one really knew me....then again this post could be deleted as off-topic, but oh well....I am done, have a nice day

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm confused: How does "I don't see OT rules being followed" equate to "I support violation of the laws of God"?

I'm confused by your confusion. I wasn't saying I support violation of the laws of God. I'm saying that the Bible had strict rules for warfare outside of divinely-inspired slaughter. So God didn't allow for a "victory at any cost" strategy.

That was my point.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Um...there wasn't just some outside force that took the lands from the Palestinians and gave it to the Jews. What happened was that the Jewish people began returning to the land, mainly by buying the land. The Palestinians didn't like it and Britain couldn't control the territory. The land that was taken was taken because the Jews won the fight basically. The British pulled out and gave the decision to the UN. But even then the British didn't pull out immediately and were basically helping the Arabs by their embargos until they did leave completely.

Okay, so alter my scenario only slightly: Comanche and other tribes start buying land en masse in Central Texas and bringing their families there, and begin advocating drastic changes in the documents and customs of the locals, supported by foreign governments.

Then, the EU and China carve out a Comanche state just as the UN carved out an Israeli state from land under Arab jurisdiction (which you note).

Basically, an outside force with no immediate stake in the day-to-day activities of Palestine and no stake in its heritage and governance told them what to do.

[tlj009]

Okay, so alter my scenario only slightly: Comanche and other tribes start buying land en masse in Central Texas and bringing their families there, and begin advocating drastic changes in the documents and customs of the locals, supported by foreign governments.

Then, the EU and China carve out a Comanche state just as the UN carved out an Israeli state from land under Arab jurisdiction (which you note).

Basically, an outside force with no immediate stake in the day-to-day activities of Palestine and no stake in its heritage and governance told them what to do.

I am going to argue with this a little. First, I don't believe that the hate for Indians exist like it did for the Jews. And I don't believe that the violence would be prevalent without that hatred. Now if we went back 100 years, then there may have been widespread hatred.

Second, I don't see the support from the foreign governments. Now if we want to go back 100 years, then I see the support as being even less than the US declaring parts of the country to belong to the Indians. The British basically said that yeah they support a Jewish state .... as long as it doesn't interfere with the Arabs. Even then the British closed the border to Jews and imprisoned them for being illegal aliens.

Third, the decision of the UN and Britain for that matter were just decisions. They didn't help Israel. The UN basically just said yeah I have decided to let Israel be a nation and by the way, all your neighbors are going to try to destroy you. Good luck. If we try to compare this to your analogy, the US would pull out any form of government and let the Indians and Texans fight it out. With Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico helping the Texans. And the Indians still win. So I wouldn't say that the situation is that an outside force told them what to do as much as they simply lost the fight even though everyone thought they would win.

On top of that, most of the Arabs were not kicked out of their land by the Jews. They left to avoid being in the middle of the fight and the Arab Higher Committee refused to let Arabs stay under Israeli control.

My point is simply that all things being equal, I would still fault the Texans for doing the same kind of fighting that is happening Palestine today. Sooner or later they need to start living their life instead of living in the past. They need to start building a country rather than bombing a neighbor that is not going away no matter how much they scream for their destruction.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I am going to argue with this a little. First, I don't believe that the hate for Indians exist like it did for the Jews. And I don't believe that the violence would be prevalent without that hatred. Now if we went back 100 years, then there may have been widespread hatred.

"The only good injun is a dead injun," I can find those exact words throughout writings of the American West. I also can find those sentiments today among people I know. So don't tell me the sentiment does not exist.

Prior to the current middle east conflict, both Jews and Palestinians have told me that there was friendship between both peoples and cooperation in a vast majority of cases, and I fully believe if the nutjobs, such as Hamas would stop attacking, an actual peace accord could be reached with a middle way. As long as it was coming in through peace, buying land, (not seizing it) and settling with families and coexistence, there would not be the hostility that exists.

However, the real hostility started when Palestinians were forced from their homes, and not allowed to return. If you want to know the story, find a Palestinian, who wears a key around their neck to tell you the story. The Palestinians who were forced out wear a key, and it is a family heirloom, that with it goes the responsibility to tell what happened to those who ask. Its a cultural tradition, and hearing the stories they tell puts a lot in perspective.

However, as long as Hamas attack the civilians, the government currently in power has to root them out. Imagine september 11th every day on both sides here. You cannot have rockets loaded with explosives firing into civilian areas.Israel retaliating like Hamas does not help calm the flame. Israel is in a serious bind here. No, I do not think their policies are best, but I understand them as well.

Second, I don't see the support from the foreign governments. Now if we want to go back 100 years, then I see the support as being even less than the US declaring parts of the country to belong to the Indians. The British basically said that yeah they support a Jewish state .... as long as it doesn't interfere with the Arabs. Even then the British closed the border to Jews and imprisoned them for being illegal aliens.

What planes does Israel fly?

Third, the decision of the UN and Britain for that matter were just decisions. They didn't help Israel. The UN basically just said yeah I have decided to let Israel be a nation and by the way, all your neighbors are going to try to destroy you. Good luck. If we try to compare this to your analogy, the US would pull out any form of government and let the Indians and Texans fight it out. With Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico helping the Texans. And the Indians still win. So I wouldn't say that the situation is that an outside force told them what to do as much as they simply lost the fight even though everyone thought they would win.

What Military hardware does Israel use? I have heard dozens of instances of the US aiding Israel.

On top of that, most of the Arabs were not kicked out of their land by the Jews. They left to avoid being in the middle of the fight and the Arab Higher Committee refused to let Arabs stay under Israeli control.

Talk to a Palestinian with a key. A Jewish prof of mine introduced me to the concept, and I met 2 on campus at Moody. the Maid of Honor at my wedding was the third I met.

My point is simply that all things being equal, I would still fault the Texans for doing the same kind of fighting that is happening Palestine today. Sooner or later they need to start living their life instead of living in the past. They need to start building a country rather than bombing a neighbor that is not going away no matter how much they scream for their destruction.

Its hard to build a life when your home keeps getting blown up for just trying to eke out a living. Thats what a lot of people face when Israel razes areas to root out millitants. It is textbook total war, (which the US wrote the book on in the civil war) which keeps a steady supply of new insurgents.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by KaiserZr

ok I have said it once and since people don't seem to understand what I have said...I said I have STRUGGLED with my thoughts of war since becoming a Christian....in my first post in this topic I said I have struggled and prayed about it......then I went on to say in another post that I couldn't be a military leader as a Christian because I don't think I could make those decisions...I SIDE WITH CHRIST BEFORE ALL....now I am getting tired of the sarcasm....but then again it is hard to explain to a bunch of people who really don't know me... and a lot of this is hard to explain.....

I thought you were once again affirming that military can, at times, throw out morality; it seemed from your posts that you were still "struggling with" it. If that is not the case, but that you have thrown out these ideas, then I apologize for misreading (or assuming too much) from your posts. Please accept my apology.

We all have weaknesses things that are hard to let go....ok so you may understand a little bit....before I got saved I hated people ok....I couldn't stand people, I didn't trust anyone, and I wanted people dead due to things that have happened through out my life (concerning the death of my dad and other situations)....I turned to reading about war to take the pain away I turned all my aggression, anger, and hatred on to that.....I developed a mind set that told me that you annihilate your enemies at all costs......whether it be in the military or non-military...you destroy them before they destroy you....like I said earlier I had a borderline obsession with war, because for me it took the pain away....

I'm sorry.

I accepted Christ right before I turned 15....and I didn't completely address those thoughts....but I tried to do everything to be what I thought Christ wanted me to be....I had regressions where I had either outbursts of anger or emotional breakdowns throughout my years....even turning away from God when I was 19....I eventually came back after nearly making the worse mistake of my life.....now almost 3 years later I am still rebuilding having to literally question every belief I have ever held.....for me this what that way....I came here to bounce ideas off people, to try to get an understanding of this and I get sarcasm and criticism....

I gave no sarcasm, and the criticism I was giving is general inquiry -- asking what you mean, and why you believe what you do, in light of Scripture. Given what I believed you were conveying, I think it was easily within reason and appropriate dialogue. Now, if I was too hasty and misrepresented your beliefs, for whatever reason that is not your own, then I apologize. Otherwise, I still seek the reasoning as to why you hold the beliefs you do. I would like to understand you.

Maybe I asked the wrong people, I figured this would be the best place since no one really knew me....then again this post could be deleted as off-topic, but oh well....I am done, have a nice day

You might not have asked the wrong people; it was just unclear (or indefensible) what we thought you were claiming.

[KaiserZr]

I apologize for not being clearer with my statements and causing confusion

[tlj009]

"The only good injun is a dead injun," I can find those exact words throughout writings of the American West. I also can find those sentiments today among people I know. So don't tell me the sentiment does not exist.

Prior to the current middle east conflict, both Jews and Palestinians have told me that there was friendship between both peoples and cooperation in a vast majority of cases, and I fully believe if the nutjobs, such as Hamas would stop attacking, an actual peace accord could be reached with a middle way. As long as it was coming in through peace, buying land, (not seizing it) and settling with families and coexistence, there would not be the hostility that exists.

I don't have a doubt that some still hate Indians. I do doubt that the hate is as extreme as it was for the Jews. I have heard that many, many Jews and Palestinians were friends before all of the fighting started. But I am going to stick with my statement that I think that the hatred for Jews was far greater than the hatred for Indians today. There was a reason for the Arab Revolt from 1936 to 1939 and a reason why the Peel Commission was established. But you are right, if the nutjobs would stop attacking, then a peace could be reached. It is hard to reach a lasting peace with someone when their no. 1 priority is to kill you.

However, the real hostility started when Palestinians were forced from their homes, and not allowed to return. If you want to know the story, find a Palestinian, who wears a key around their neck to tell you the story. The Palestinians who were forced out wear a key, and it is a family heirloom, that with it goes the responsibility to tell what happened to those who ask. Its a cultural tradition, and hearing the stories they tell puts a lot in perspective.

I haven't heard the story and I don't know really any Palestinian personally. But most of the displaced Palestinians were moved out during the War of Independence. Fighting started a long time before that. And I also pointed out before that it wasn't always the Jews evicting people. It was people leaving to avoid fighting and the Arab's moving them out.

Anyway, I do think that you hit on a key point though. The number one thing that would likely help peace along would be to assimilate the Arab population into a society somewhere. Whether it is in Israel or Egypt or somewhere else may not even matter that much. And it may not even cause them to relocate from Palestine but a strong government does need to step in and basically take over the area. The PLO just isn't cutting it.

What planes does Israel fly?

I was talking about how the thing got started. In 1948 the Arab nations were receiving their weapons from Britain while Israel received theirs from Czechoslovakia even though there was UN resolution against it. The US didn't supply planes and weapons until after 1967 which was right after the 6 day war.

What Military hardware does Israel use? I have heard dozens of instances of the US aiding Israel.

Again, I was talking about how it got started.

Talk to a Palestinian with a key. A Jewish prof of mine introduced me to the concept, and I met 2 on campus at Moody. the Maid of Honor at my wedding was the third I met.

No doubt that a good many were evicted by Jews. But most left to avoid the fighting. Still, even if they left to avoid the fighting, they may look at it as if the Jews ran them out of their homes. The truth is that there were and are Arab citizens in Israel. They were likely treated bad for a while. There wasn't an effort to integrate them into the new state until around 1966. That was 18 years after the War of Independence.

Its hard to build a life when your home keeps getting blown up for just trying to eke out a living. Thats what a lot of people face when Israel razes areas to root out millitants. It is textbook total war, (which the US wrote the book on in the civil war) which keeps a steady supply of new insurgents.

No doubt. But it isn't a real total war because Israel does yield at least a little to international pressure. Which is why there is still humanitarian aid allowed in and they don't necessary target civilians. If it was a real total war than it would be over by now with nearly everyone in Palestine dead. I agree that it is hard to build a life in the area simply because of the insurgents. That is why I think that it would be better to drop the border with another nation and so that there is a strong government over the area and civilians can basically run from the fighting. But whichever government does that would find that they have their hands full and so no one really wants to do it. I personally think that it would be best for Israel to take complete control over the area and to integrate the residents into their society. But I could very likely be wrong because I can read the history but I don't know the people.

[Epaphras]

Are Palestinians Arabs? It is my understanding that they are Semitic like the Jews, not Arabs. For that reason, they don't really "fit" in Arab nations like Syria or Egypt. Arab (and Muslim i.e. Iran) support of Palestinian resistance operations is more out of solidarity against Israel than for Arab solidarity, I think.

It would be like Mexico (and Mexican NGOs) supporting Comanche insurgent groups fighting to regain Texan land (ignore the fact that Mexico also forced natives off their land). It's more out of "hatred" of Texas than support of the Comanche people themselves. They (the Comanches) just happen to be the ones willing to pull the trigger, launch the missile, and detonate themselves in public places, and so they are supported by Mexicans. Also imagine that the Comanches are also militaristic Catholics supported by hardline Catholics in the Mexican government and/or operating within Mexico, and they are fighting Protestant Texans (Southern Baptists lol).