0
votes

To my friend, rawnak

posted August 27, 2008 - 1:59am
To my friend, rawnak

I have always be fascinated by the ancient Indian Scriptures, especially the Mahabharata and Ramayana, but because of their spiritual content, were prohibited in the country I was born and grew up. But the importance of the books was such that you cannot teach about Indian history without mentioning them.< p>

Regarding the position of Jesus Christ, the God of the Bible, about war, it is not clearly specified. Jesus always taught love and peace, even to the point of telling us that we should even love our enemies. But the times Jesus lived on earth, Israel was an occupied territory by the Roman Empire, and even as He makes some comments and references about it, His position was never a political or military one. To properly appreciate and understand the biblical position regarding war, we must look at the whole Bible and the teachings of God through many prophets, kings and military leaders. The Bible consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of instances where God Himself has instructed His people, Israel to go to war against its enemies. Furthermore, the manner in which those wars were to be conducted would be considered by today's men's standards, barbaric and criminal, since often God instructed Israel not only to kill the enemies (soldiers) but also their women, children and livestock, and burn down and destroy their homes and settlements, their crops and their lands. Things are different in the New Testament, where the emphasis is made on love, peace, in helping others and even sacrifice for them. And yet, we believe in one God who is the same, yesterday, today and forever, and who changes not.

Many Christians avoid reading and studying the Old Testament, other than perhaps the Book of Psalms, the Book of Proverbs, the Book of Isaiah, and a few other which makes very little if any reference to war. When wandering in the desert, after being freed from the slavery in Egypt, God has given His Laws to His people, Israel, and, again, many of the God given Laws were, by today's standards, cruel and barbaric.

One of the Ten Commandments is, "you shall not murder". Unfortunately, biased readers of the Bible interpret the word murder in a convenient and "politically correct" manner, and find no reason at all to take the life of another human being. That is being taken totally out of context and true meaning, since the Commandment prohibits the intentional, premeditated and unjustified taking of an innocent person's life. Nowhere in the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, is self defense prohibited, even to the point of taking the life of an aggressor as a last resource.

It is worth mentioning that Jesus Christ was tortured and crucified not by the Jews, since there was nothing according to God given Laws that Jesus has violated to the point of deserving the death penalty. That is the reason Jesus was taken to the Romans and it was the Romans who put Jesus on the cross, even as Jesus was found innocent by the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate.

Back to the issue of love and war, if you love someone, you will do whatever you can to protect him/her, even if protection means taking the attacker's life as a last resort to save your loved one's life. For a time, even here in the United States, killing in self defense was not considered a crime, until the liberal cancer persuaded the Courts that even the criminal has rights and if killed while committing a crime, the killer is charged with homicide or manslaughter, and most likely spend the rest of his/her life in prison. As stupid and unjust as it sounds, criminals have more rights that law abiding citizens.

On a larger scale, a nation has all the right in the world to defend itself against enemies that not only have sworn to destroy the nation and kill its citizens, but have actually done that, both on its territory and abroad. When the enemy has publicly declared that it will do whatever they can to harm you and your people and destroy your nation, and has supported their threats with action, it is completely reasonable to take preventive measures, even to the point of hunting them down and eliminating them.

And that is what the Unites states is doing. We have no other choice, because the enemy will never sit down to negotiate peace, because the enemy doesn't want peace but the destruction of America and the killing of innocent men, women and children. There is only one option left, and that is, extermination. It is a matter of kill or be killed.

Now let the liberal, insensitive and irrationally liberals start attacking my article and my views. I stand by my country and by my people.



Comments

Idlewild, then, it seems as if Saddam Hussein

ordered the massacre of tens of thousands of Kurds with pepper spray? Were you arround when Saddam was compelled bu the UN to produce evidence that the WMD they claimed to have and used were destroyed. Iraq never provided any evidence even after it was warned that the failure to comply may lead to military action. Saddam has stubbornly brought this war upon him, a war that likely would have not happened were he to comply with the requests of the UN. You also seem to have been absent when the 1991 war ended without a peace treaty signed, which perpetuated a state of war that was never finished. We did not start a war in 2003, we finished the war started in 1991. That is a historical fact. On the other hand, the presence of Al Quaeda in Iraq proves they were there during Saddam, since they started the insurgency, especially aided by Iran and other fundamentalist regimes in the area. I refuse to believe that Al Quaeda is that stupid as to face a organized military power with overwhelming inferiority in military power and equipment. Of course, it is all dependent of the sources of your information regarding the complex situation in Iraq to assess the real story. We are not in Iraq to impose them to become the 51 state, we are there to guarantee a smooth transition from a dictatorship to democracy and to protect the emergence of a free and democratic Iraq. We are not at war with Iraq, that war was finished and the mission to dethrone Saddam Hussein was accomplished. Our mission is to search and destroy the insurgent rebel positions and elements which a a real threat to the effort of the Iraqi people to live in peace and freedom. Now, see if you can get the adhominem board idiot to come up with some fantasies about his version of the events. To read my posts and articles click here: http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

rawnak, I am not sure where you got your info from

but the US Air Force was bombing the mountains of Afghanistan where local intel has indicated elements of the Taliban were hiding or had military units. The bombing was not aimed to getting one man, but to assist the Afghanistan freedom fighters get rid of the regime that has been harboring Bin Laden and his terrorist training camps. I wander if your assessment of "bombing the whole nation to pieces" is a serious claim, since it is completely false. To read my posts and articles click here: http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

@ Imorovan

"But terrorists are not nations that can be invaded and taken care of, they are individuals or small groups which move from one place to another and are not easy to find and eliminate. It is wrong to judge a whole nation for the acts of a few radical fundamental terrorists." And yet post 9/11, America thought nothing of bombing the whole of Afghanistan just for "ONE" man that they were after, Osama Bin Laden? And the best part is that even after they finished bombing the whole nation to pieces, they were still not sure if they got Osama or not! I call that double standards.

A matter of opinion

The writer of this article believes that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., and that attacking Iraq was an act of "self defense." Many Americans (and people in other countries) disagree, and it has been shown time and time again by the U.S. government's own records that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, was not in cahoots with Al Quaeda, etc.

rawnak, I sympathize with you

and with any nation in the world which is attacked by terrorist. But terrorists are not nations that can be invaded and taken care of, they are individuals or small groups which move from one place to another and are not easy to find and eliminate. It is wrong to judge a whole nation for the acts of a few radical fundamental terrorists. For fairness sake, Pakistan has its own share of suffering on the hands of terrorism. And I applaud any gesture or action that shows restraint and friendship in very tragic and hurtful situations. But the enemy must be eliminated or else. And I strongly believe that Pakistan and India are not enemies, but both victims of groups that would love nothing more than to see the two nations engaged in a bloody war. That is after all one of the terrorism agenda. To read my posts and articles click here: http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

To read my posts and articles click here:

http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/lmorovan

Kindly Note

that inspite of the repeated attacks innumerable times and the killing of innocent citizens, women and children, India has always been the first to extend a hand of friendship towards Pakistan in the hope of bringing peace to the motherland.

Thanks Imorovan

For enlightening me about the Bible. "On a larger scale, a nation has all the right in the world to defend itself against enemies that not only have sworn to destroy the nation and kill its citizens, but have actually done that, both on its territory and abroad." "And that is what the Unites states is doing. We have no other choice, because the enemy will never sit down to negotiate peace, because the enemy doesn't want peace but the destruction of America and the killing of innocent men, women and children. There is only one option left, and that is, extermination. It is a matter of kill or be killed." Based on the above two paragraphs, India would then be justified in attacking Pakistan and "exterminating" them from the surface of the earth, which we are perfectly capable of doing. But then, it is America who deters us from doing so. Why? When it is right for America, why is self defense wrong for India? Why is America taking Pakistan's Side in this? India has been tormented enough by terrorist attacks from Pakistan and their claims to occupy Kashmir. Shouldn't we declare war?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <span> <object> <param> <embed> <table> <tr> <td> <div>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Join Xomba Today

Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member