9.18.2005

Iran Prepared to Share Nuclear Ability

Iran recently re-opened its nuclear research program (see my earlier article here). Now, they have declared that they are ready to share this nuclear ability with other impoverished nations! Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated promises that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons. Then he added: "Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need." Due to their need? The only need that these nations have is to jihad against Americans. I wouldn't trust Iran or any other Middle Eastern country (barring Israel, of course) with nukes or any other nuclear ability for a single minute, let alone decades! To read the full article from CBS, click here. In Him, D3

16 comments:

David Ketter said...

See, if Iran really wanted to help them, they'd find a new way to grow food in the desert....and then feed all their hungry people!

MVB said...

Iran is really stupid; they know the US is watching them closely, and then they come out and tell us they will give better weapon technology to our enemies! They better watch what they say.

Song said...

Iran says that it's only planning to use the nuclear technology for the purpose of energy. I think that if they stick to that it's fine - why shouldn't they? In many ways it's cleaner than petrol, although perhaps more dangerous if they have problems with their safety controls, etc... I know that the US is worried about the technology being used for nuclear weapons but considering response time and missile defense systems, even if Iran did develop the weapons, the US would be probably able to either destroy the missile or the country before they were hit.
Considering also that there are other countries that are thought of as equally unstable with those weapons and we've not had a nuclear war yet, I'm not that worried.
Furthermore I think that the argument of not allowing any Middle-Eastern country to have nukes or nuclear ability is valid or fair because most of the countries that they are likely to get into conflict with do have the weapons...
The US could annihilate the Middle East with nukes and so could the UK, France, Pakistan, India, N.Korea and a few others if they felt like it. But the Middle Eastern countries aren't making the same sort of a fuss about that as the Us is over them getting the ability to use nuclear energy...
I guess this sort of point of view is very unpopular but I think that there is a risk of making a mountain over a mole-hill in this situation...

Song said...

Sorry typo -

"Furthermore I think that the argument of not allowing any Middle-Eastern country to have nukes or nuclear ability is NOT valid or fair because most of the countries that they are likely to get into conflict with do have the weapons..."

I forgot the word 'not'. :)

MVB said...

Do you really think they are going to use nuclear technology for energy?



"The US could annihilate the Middle East with nukes and so could the UK, France, Pakistan, India, N.Korea and a few others if they felt like it. But the Middle Eastern countries aren't making the same sort of a fuss about that as the Us is over them getting the ability to use nuclear energy... "


Because it is the Midlle East countries who have sworn to destroy us!!!!!! We make a fuss over it, because we know they're a threat! They have declared jihads against us! They don't make a fuss because we haven't sworn to destroy them.

"Furthermore I think that the argument of not allowing any Middle-Eastern country to have nukes or nuclear ability is NOT valid or fair because most of the countries that they are likely to get into conflict with do have the weapons..."


Not fair!! So you wouldn't mind a nuclear holocaust? That wouldn't bother you? We (Americans) wouldn't blow them up, because we know it is not right, we are a Christian nation and still hold to somewhat Christian standards. They on the other hand, think that the right thing to do is to blow us up!

I believe many Americans don't want to die. These terrorists love death, and would encourage a nuclear holocaust as long as the Christians died. Did you notice that we don't mind Isreal have them. Do you know why? Because Isreal hasn't sworn to destroy us! I guess, as an American, I feel stronger about this then you do, having lived through the 9/11 times and have seen the terrorist brutality. If the English ( not meaning to bash the English or anything) wouldn't mind a nuclear holocaust as long as it was a fair one, that's fine. But I don't happen to want to go through a nuclear holocaust.

We wouldn't start a nuclear war, the terrorists world. We know that, that is why we don't want them to have nuclear weapons. We want to live.

Song said...

"Do you really think they are going to use nuclear technology for energy?"

I think that there is something to be said for giving people the benefit of doubt and second chances...

"Because it is the Midlle East countries who have sworn to destroy us!!!!!!"

I don't think the entire Middle East could be said to have sworn to destroy the west. Not all of those countries are interested in destroying the US... Frankly, they've got enough problems with their neighbours.

"They have declared jihads against us! They don't make a fuss because we haven't sworn to destroy them."

They haven't! The ones who have declared Jihad are the minority of extremist Muslims. These minorities are not in control of the Middle East - most of those countries are Muslim but not as a whole an extreme country.
As for 'swearing to destroy them' - the action of supporting a country hostile to them (Israel) could be interpreted as hostile.

"Not fair!! So you wouldn't mind a nuclear holocaust? That wouldn't bother you?"

Of course I'd mind a nuclear holocaust! Most everyone would - even Muslims!

"We (Americans) wouldn't blow them up, because we know it is not right, we are a Christian nation and still hold to somewhat Christian standards. They on the other hand, think that the right thing to do is to blow us up!"

The US may have a strong proportion of Christians but I don't think there can be any strong claim to being a Christian nation - not one country could nowadays.
The US has done a variety of unsavoury things in the past because it was termed as "right". And the US has blow up innocent people too when it was thought to be 'right'.

"These terrorists love death, and would encourage a nuclear holocaust as long as the Christians died."

The problem with that statement is that a nuclear holocaust also kills those Muslims that they are trying to place in control... A war of attrition is useless even to them, no matter how keen they are on eliminating the west.

"I guess, as an American, I feel stronger about this then you do, having lived through the 9/11 times and have seen the terrorist brutality."

I live two hours away from London - The bombings there affected me too. Not just the US got hurt by them. I'm not pleased about that event and I remember 9/11 quite clearly.

"If the English ( not meaning to bash the English or anything) wouldn't mind a nuclear holocaust as long as it was a fair one, that's fine. But I don't happen to want to go through a nuclear holocaust."

The US then should be willing to disarm completly rather than complain about other countries feeling threatened and therefore wanting the weapons.

"We wouldn't start a nuclear war, the terrorists world. We know that, that is why we don't want them to have nuclear weapons. We want to live."

You might not press the first trigger. However attacking countries that are not directly hurting you isn't endearing the US to them. War should be self-defence only! Otherwise you create anger and more problems... If the US is so keen on staying alive, maybe it should stop provoking those who already dislike it.

MVB said...

Song: "They haven't! The ones who have declared Jihad are the minority of extremist Muslims. These minorities are not in control of the Middle East - most of those countries are Muslim but not as a whole an extreme country.
As for 'swearing to destroy them' - the action of supporting a country hostile to them (Israel) could be interpreted as hostile."


Many Middle Eastern countries' governments support terrorism. These governments are corrupt. Maybe not the entire government is, but a large majority have ties to terrorists. And, if the weapons are given to these Muslim countries, they may end up in the wrong hands. There are thousands of Muslim extremists who are quite eager to kill all Christians and would jump at the very chance of doing so. Giving them a second chance, giving them the benefit of the doubt, isn't good enough! We have to protect ourselves and our country and if it means keeping nuclear weapons from these Muslim nations then we better do it. Isreal doesn't swear to destroy us, the terrorists do.


"Of course I'd mind a nuclear holocaust! Most everyone would - even Muslims!"


No, the Muslim extremists ( who could get their hands on these weapons) are also suicide bombers. Remember as the Bible says, those who hate God, love death. They love spreading death, their lives are not as valuable to them as our's are to us. According to their religion, it is an honor to die killing a Christian. If they had a chance at wiping out a Christian nation, even if it meant that they would die in the process, these terrorists would jump at the opportunity. You obviously don't mind a nuclear holocaust as much as I would, seeing that you would be willing to give these terrorists the benefit of the doubt!


" A war of attrition is useless even to them, no matter how keen they are on eliminating the west."


Again, according to their religion they get some great thing from Allah, if they die killing a Christian. All they want is to destroy Christians. A smaller terrorists network might get a hold of them, and they would not refrain from using the weapons.


"I live two hours away from London - The bombings there affected me too. Not just the US got hurt by them. "


You obviously weren't affected very much. You would still give the terrorists the access to these weapons, with the idea that they might not want to destroy us Christians! Did the terrorists on the trains have mercy? Did they refrain from doing it because they would get killed in the process? Did they show any compassion on the hundreds of men, women, and children that they slaughtered? And you would be willing to give them the chance to do it again!!!!


"The US then should be willing to disarm completly rather than complain about other countries feeling threatened and therefore wanting the weapons."


The US should not disarm, because their are people like you in the world who would give the terrorists nuclear weapons.


"If the US is so keen on staying alive, maybe it should stop provoking those who already dislike it."

Song, you don't seem to understand! These Muslim extremists HATE Christians, they will forever and ever. They hate the Lord, they hate YOUR Lord. It doesn't matter if we are at war with them or are at peace with them. Since the beginning of the world, since the time of the Israelites, Muslim extremists have hated and wanted to destroy Christians and Jews!
If the terrorists had a chance to get a hold of a nuclear weapon, you know they wouldn't hesitate. You want to give them that chance just because it's "fair."

David S. MacMillan III said...

Take it easy, MVB. Although what you pointed out was all technically true, it came across as somewhat haughty. Do be careful; we are to "speak the truth in love." The enemy is fundamental Islam, not Song. Don't say things like this:

You obviously weren't affected very much. You would still give the terrorists the access to these weapons, with the idea that they might not want to destroy us Christians! Did the terrorists on the trains have mercy? . . . And you would be willing to give them the chance to do it again!!!!

there are people like you in the world who would give the terrorists nuclear weapons.


That is insensitive and downright rude, I'm sorry to say.

Basically, this is the crux of the matter:

The majority of the Muslims in the Middle East are conservatives. They pray 5X a day, make their little pilgrimage, etc., and hope they can get into heaven. They openly rejoice whenever a terrorist bombing occurs. Many give financial support to terrorist entities.

Muslims are not guaranteed their salvation. One of Muhammud's closest friends said that "Even if I had one foot in Paradise, I would not trust to the cunning of Allah." Muhammud himself did not know for sure whether he would "make it".

The only way for a Muslim to be sure he will get to Paradise is to die while killing the infidel. If they succeed in this, all past history of failures and mistakes is glossed over, and they are ushered into heaven where their 70+ virgin wives await them ASAP. Such are the so-called "fundamentalist" Muslims, who make up a larger percentage than you might think.

Many Muslims do not follow the Koran to the letter out of convenience' sake. They figure that they have more than a 50% chance without going on a terrorist mission, so they shoot for the easy way. However, if there is any open demonstration against the "infidel", these conservatives will quickly become radicals.

Obviously, a nuclear holocaust is the very first thing that radical Muslims want!

The more conservative Muslims who hold high office in Iran pay lip service out of one end of their forked tongues to us, and meanwhile hand weapons and funding to terrorist groups who are willing to do the "dirty work".

Song said that "Iran says it's only planning to use the nuclear technology for the purpose of energy." Sure. Then why, when offered an annual supply of pre-manufactured nuclear fuel, did Iran refuse? The US and Great Britain offered to supply lower-grade nuclear fuel free of charge. But Iran had to have the higher-grade stuff . . . capable of making bombs.

But the Middle Eastern countries aren't making the same sort of a fuss about that as the US is over them getting the ability to use nuclear energy...

Of course they aren't! If you are a member of a gang set on overthrowing the U.S. government, you aren't upset when one of your members gets a shipment of Uzis!

I think that there is something to be said for giving people the benefit of doubt and second chances...

Our military had Bin Laden, a known terrorist, in the sights of a cruise missile. Clinton decided to give him "one more chance". Look what happened. You simply cannot trust anyone with ties to extremist Muslims!

Frankly, they've got enough problems with their neighbours.

They've got enough problems with one neighbor: Israel. Sure, Saddam launched attacks on the Kurds because he was an extreme egotist. Besides, he may have given Islam lip service, but he claimed to be on a level with King Nebechadnezzar of antiquity, and approved a temple to him to be constructed.

And it's because they have a problem with Israel (it goes all the way back to Genesis, folks) that they have a very real problem with us.

As for 'swearing to destroy them' -the action of supporting a country hostile to them (Israel) could be interpreted as hostile.

Israel is not hostile to the Muslims. They offend the Muslims simply by existing! Islam teaches that the Jews were turned into pigs and monkeys because they were so vile. Muslims will not stop attacking Israel until it is pushed into the sea.

The US then should be willing to disarm completly rather than complain about other countries feeling threatened and therefore wanting the weapons.

Maybe if I set an example by destroying my handgun (hypothetical), the criminals will follow the example and do the same, but I don't think so.

If Iran has nuclear weapons, the knowledge that using them would cause a nuclear holocaust might keep the conservatives from using them in an all-out attempt to destroy the U.S. and Israel. However, if the fundamentalist faction got their hands on some nukes, they wouldn't hesistate to start making plans for a full-scale attack.

Therefore, anyone can see that it is in our best interest to keep nukes out of Islamic hands and in our own.

To quote Teddy, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

If we carry the stick and make sure no one who hates us has one, maybe we won't need to use it.

Song said...

"You obviously weren't affected very much. You would still give the terrorists the access to these weapons, with the idea that they might not want to destroy us Christians! [...] And you would be willing to give them the chance to do it again!!!!"

I was furious on the day - I was angry at the wastefulness and uselessness of the action - read the post in my blog about it. But the point I'm trying to make is that it does us no good to react that way. You are tarring every single Muslim with the same brush - just as they look at the USA and see something that doesn't add up to the reality either...

"These Muslim extremists HATE Christians, they will forever and ever. They hate the Lord, they hate YOUR Lord. It doesn't matter if we are at war with them or are at peace with them. Since the beginning of the world, since the time of the Israelites, Muslim extremists have hated and wanted to destroy Christians and Jews!"

You say this and yet the attitude that you present implies a hatred of them - God says to love your ennemies even when they hate you. By loving your ennemies, their actions lose their power, the terrorism won't create fear and they will be even more powerless than when they began.

War only ever produces more war, never peace. You can't fight someone who doesn't fight back.

"The US should not disarm, because their are people like you in the world who would give the terrorists nuclear weapons."

I would want the whole world to disarm - the nuclear weapon is one of the most stupid things humanity has produced. The nearest to good it's ever done is shorten the war in Japan. The information on nuclear ability should be deleted from the world - but someone has to take the step.

"Then why, when offered an annual supply of pre-manufactured nuclear fuel, did Iran refuse?"

Pride! One of the biggest failings of mankind! Also Iran would then be dependant on others for that - on countries that don't get allow with them that well. (cf Trojan Horse!)

David S. MacMillan III said...

You are tarring every single Muslim with the same brush -

Actually, no. Muslims in the U.S. and Europe are such only by culture, ancestry, and perhaps some limited faith.

For Muslims in Middle Eastern countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, Islam is the only way of life.

Secular Islam (U.S. and Great Britian) laments or is indifferent when a terrorist suicide bombing takes place.

Conservative Islam (The leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. and a good percentage of the populace) rejoices at suicide bombings, and passes money/more weapons under the table to:

Legalistic Islam (a sizeable percentage of the populace), which gleefully rejoices and plans a follow-up attack.

You say this and yet the attitude that you present implies a hatred of them -

I don't hate Muslims. I want each and every one to come to the saving knowledge of Christ.

However, I am afraid of Islam! There is a lie that is being perpetrated: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

The truth is that the thing we have to fear is not being afraid! I personally would not enjoy radiation sickness and a nuclear holocaust, so I will do anything I can to prevent it!

God says to love your ennemies even when they hate you.

True, we must love our enemies. That doesn't mean that we should glibly stand by while they prepare to blow us up!

At the Last Supper, Jesus told his disciples that before that time, they had been free to preach the gospel without protection. But now, He said, they needed to buy swords to protect themselves.

Put it this way. I love my enemies, so I want them to live long enough to accept Christ. If I allow them to trigger a nuclear holocaust, they will not live very long. Therefore, I want to keep nukes out of their hands so that everyone will stay alive.

War only ever produces more war, never peace. You can't fight someone who doesn't fight back.

Saying that radical Islam "doesn't fight back" would be highly offensive to my former next-door neighbor. He was on special assignment in Iraq when members of the Republican Guard gunned him down. Not content with wounding him, they stuck the barrels of their AKs under his bulletproof vest and filled his chest with lead until his troops were able to rescue him. Thankfully, he survived. But don't say that Muslims "don't fight back".

Saddam had WMDs, but it is pretty easy to hide them when worldwide TV is focused on the weapons inspectors and their every move. After Saddam's past actions, it would have been foolish in the first degree to give him "a second chance".

I would want the whole world to disarm - the nuclear weapon is one of the most stupid things humanity has produced. The nearest to good it's ever done is shorten the war in Japan.

Shorten? Do you know how many lives were saved by dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If we had been forced to work our way across the Pacific, island by island, Iwo Jima style, the loss of life on both sides would be deafening.

The information on nuclear ability should be deleted from the world

How are ya gonna do that? The system of uranium enrichment has been released to the general public. All I need to build a few nukes is a few thousand acres of land and a couple million bucks.

- but someone has to take the step.

If the U.S. disarmed, it would not magically make everyone else do the same. Rather, it would send a message to the terrorists that now that can attack us with immunity because we cannot return fire!

Pride! One of the biggest failings of mankind! Also Iran would then be dependant on others for that - on countries that don't get allow with them that well. (cf Trojan Horse!)

We also begged them to do a "soft-water" project which would yield a comparable amount of energy but could not be used to make a nuke. Did they? No. They had to have that high-power fuel . . . it doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure out why.

MVB said...

First of all, I want to apologize to you, Song, if I came off as rude. We usually agree on things and I know you aren't one of these mindless liberals, but when I start arguing I get so heated. Anyway, just wanted to say sorry. :)




"You are tarring every single Muslim with the same brush - just as they look at the USA and see something that doesn't add up to the reality either."


No, I'm saying that the great majority of Muslims over in the Middle East want to destroy Christians, it is part of their religion.


"You say this and yet the attitude that you present implies a hatred of them."

No, all I said that they hate Christians, that is why I wouldn't trust them with nuclear weapons. I definitely want them to come to salvation, but in the meantime we should keep these weapons out of their hands.


"War only ever produces more war, never peace."

This is not correct, look at the war US had with Japan. After we had cleansed the country, look at how they have grown, prospered, and are now one of our best friends. Sometimes war is necessary.


"I would want the whole world to disarm - the nuclear weapon is one of the most stupid things humanity has produced. The nearest to good it's ever done is shorten the war in Japan."


It's all well and good to say that, but you know it will never happen. Know that we have the knowledge about these weapons, they will never be totally removed from the earth.

If Iran starts giving weapons away, they will most likely fall into the wrong hands. We ( USA and the UK) should do anything we can to stop Iran from giving them to our enemies, for our own well being.

Song said...

"Actually, no. Muslims in the U.S. and Europe are such only by culture, ancestry, and perhaps some limited faith."

Culture grows from religious belief - society is born when someone stands up and says "this is 'god' and these are his laws". The more faith or religion is ignored the more the society falls apart. It doesn't have to be Christian faith - any faith has the ability to cement a group of people together.
Muslim culture grows from Islam no matter where it is. Islam and terrorism seem synonymous, however the basics principles of Islam do not condone terrorism. There are Muslims who faced with the reality of terrorism start to reevalute those beliefs...
Tell me how you can tell what the Muslim in the streets of Iran and Saudi really thinks? Sure you've got the pictures of crowds yelling their hatred but what about the rest of the population that the cameras aren't on? People always play up to the camera, and it takes only one person to start shouting to get a crowd yelling - how do you know that each and every person is there because they hate the west or because they've just gotten swept away with the excitement of the crowd? Mobs are stupid no matter who is there and what it's yelling - "the collective intelligence is the equivalent of the IQ of the least intelligent person present divided by the number of people in the mob" to quote T.Pratchett...

"I don't hate Muslims. I want each and every one to come to the saving knowledge of Christ."

I want them to be saved too - but I don't think that bombing their countries is a very good way to reach out to them.

"True, we must love our enemies. That doesn't mean that we should glibly stand by while they prepare to blow us up!"

Jesus did.

"At the Last Supper, Jesus told his disciples that before that time, they had been free to preach the gospel without protection. But now, He said, they needed to buy swords to protect themselves."

Where?

In Matthew 26 51-54, one of the disciples try to fight and Jesus tells him off - "For all who draw the sword will die the sword." (v52) Therefore I'd rather not draw 'the sword' - the teaching doesn't just apply to that disciple.

"But don't say that Muslims "don't fight back"."

I wasn't - I meant that [i]we[/i] shouldn't fight back.

In respect to Japan - either way many would have died and killing is always wrong, even if it means killing less people. Every person is worth so much that no one could repay the debt of their murder.

"How are ya gonna do that? The system of uranium enrichment has been released to the general public."

I know that it's impossible to take back words that have been spoken - but you can still wish it was possible.
Considering the knowledge is so easily available, you can't complain if someone you don't like finds it. It's like saying "there it is for anyone... But not you".

"Rather, it would send a message to the terrorists that now that can attack us with immunity because we cannot return fire!"

The US doesn't need the nukes to respond to terrorism - if you needed them that badly, you would have had to use them in Irak, in Afghanistan. The US has the biggest army in the world without needing nukes. Nuclear missiles are sitting in silos gathering dust year upon year because they aren't necessary.

----

"Anyway, just wanted to say sorry. :)"

Aww. That's OK, mvb - all forgiven!

"No, I'm saying that the great majority of Muslims over in the Middle East want to destroy Christians, it is part of their religion."

As I've mentioned already, it's not. I think that it's easy to judge but not check the facts clearly...

"After we had cleansed the country, look at how they have grown, prospered, and are now one of our best friends. Sometimes war is necessary."

[i]'Cleansed'?![/i] Sorry if I baulk at that term! But yes, Japan has become very prosperous... However is the end justification of the means?

"We ( USA and the UK) should do anything we can to stop Iran from giving them to our enemies, for our own well being."

[i]Any[/i]thing?

Lastly - it doesn't matter who says something if it's wrong it's still wrong. War is wrong.

Song said...

Sorry - seems I mixed up my HTML tags... Just don't worry about them..

David S. MacMillan III said...

any faith has the ability to cement a group of people together.

Yup. The 9-11 hijackers were cemented together by their faith in Allah. Unity and sincerity do not necessarily a good thing make.

the basics principles of Islam do not condone terrorism.

I would disagree. I don't have time to type out the verses in the Koran that clearly encourage terrorism, but I'll give you a basic overview:

When Muhummad tried to share Islam as a spin-off of Christianity to the Jews and Christians in his area, he couched it in friendly terms. Thus the occasional "peace and love" verses in the beginning of the Koran.

However, he was met with sharp criticism and his many inconsistencies were pointed out. After that, he abandoned peace and love and moved into jihad mode.

A former professor at Al-Azar University in Cairo, Dr. Mark Gabriel (real name not given to protect him since his head is being hunted by the Muslims he forsook for Christianity) said in one of his books that Muslims interpret the Koran based on which revelation comes latest. Therefore, the Koran must be accepted based on the later, jihad verses rather than the "peace and love" verses.

Tell me how you can tell what the Muslim in the streets of Iran and Saudi really thinks?

Because Dr. Mark Gabriel who I spoke of before was arrested by the Egyptian police and tortured when he casually asked whether the Koran was really the word of God. Read the testimonies of hundreds of Christians at VOM about how the populace stormed their homes with automatic weapons because they held a church service.

- but I don't think that bombing their countries is a very good way to reach out to them.

I don't want to bomb their countries. I want to keep them from bombing us!

"True, we must love our enemies. That doesn't mean that we should glibly stand by while they prepare to blow us up!"

Jesus did.


I agree. Jesus was led "as a lamb to the slaughter, He opened not his mouth." But Jesus was called to die for the salvation of the whole world!

We aren't. Rather, we as Christians are called to preach the gospel: "Go into all the world and teach the good news, baptizing them . . . etc." We can't do that very well during a nuclear holocaust, which is why we have to keep nukes out of the hands of those who would use them to everyone's detriment!

". . . Jesus told his disciples that before that time, they had been free to preach the gospel without protection. But now, He said, they needed to buy swords. . . ."

Where?


Luke 22:36-38.

In Matthew 26 51-54, one of the disciples try to fight and Jesus tells him off - "For all who draw the sword will die [by] the sword." (v52)

Therefore I'd rather not draw 'the sword' - the teaching doesn't just apply to that disciple.


Read verse 54: "But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Jesus came to die. We have come to live for Christ and die for Christ if necessary, not to die for the sins of the world. If we are going to share the gospel, we might need to stay alive.

In respect to Japan - either way many would have died and killing is always wrong, even if it means killing less people.

So I guess we should have just surrendered to Japan?

- but you can still wish it was possible.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride . . . sorry, that's an old quote from my mom.

Considering the knowledge is so easily available, you can't complain if someone you don't like finds it.

It's not that I don't like them. They just don't like me!

If a man swears that he will pick up a gun lying on the ground and shoot me, I will do my best to:

A. Get the gun first.

B. Point my gun at him and tell him I'll shoot if he picks the one on the ground up.

Either way, I won't drop my little Glock into a manhole and tell him to blast away.

The US doesn't need the nukes to respond to terrorism -

I agree. We need them to respond to the threat of nuclear warfare. I don't need a Glock to respond to my little brother throwing rocks at me, I just need my fists. I do need a Glock when gangsters with AKs are closing in on me.

If we don't have nukes, hostile countries will know that they can nuke us without threat of a nuclear retaliation. People hesitate to attack if they know it will trigger a nuclear holocaust.

Song said...

Ultimately it doesn't really matter whether Islam is a peaceful religion or not, whether the terrorists are right in terms of Islam.
What does matter is that we do what is right according to God and that boils down to one thing - "Turn the other cheek".
We are called to face terrorism, opposition and trial in light of this - we shouldn't fight back, we are meant to stand and take it.
The world is only temporary - we're only passing through on our way to heaven; what happens to us, to our bodies doesn't matter in the grand scheme.
God uses whatever happens for good - he takes the terrorism and uses it to strengthen Christians in their faith. God tests us through trial and difficulties and we can come through stronger if we obey God's word and God tells us to turn the other cheek.
We should obey what the Bible tells us - what the rest of the world does is unimportant and doesn't matter to us.

David S. MacMillan III said...

We personally are called to turn the other cheek.

But the government is not.

Romans 13:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. If you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.


We as Christians are each personally called upon to die, if the need arises, for the sake of Christ. But the government is called upon to prevent and punish evil. In America, we have a very real role in the execution of our government through the polls and our elected representatives.

If we personally are asked to deny Christ or be killed, we must turn the other cheek.

If a foreign government threatens war on our government, our government (and us as the people from whom the right to govern is derived) must do our best to stop them.

This is World War Three, not Columbine.

Would you lament the unfaithfulness of a Christian who tackled a gunman at a school shooting to stop him from killing the classmates?