quote:

Well he was not living in Jordan when he conspired this suicide attempt, so why would one bomb Jordan. Start where he lived or visited and use extreme prejudice until the culprit conspiratory are found; dispenase with them immedaintely, and the next group will have a little more problem gathering supporters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
I love it when Christians advocate maiming and killing of innocent people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000
And what about other cases where individuals conspired while on American or European soil. Shall we use extreme prejudice there as well?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
And dropping bombs in Jordan will add thousands (possibly millions) of new jhadists to the conflict and cause the few allies we have to defect. Doesn't sound like a winning formula to me.

Well he was not living in Jordan when he conspired this suicide attempt, so why would one bomb Jordan. Start where he lived or visited and use extreme prejudice until the culprit conspiratory are found; dispenase with them immedaintely, and the next group will have a little more problem gathering supporters.

I saw this in a practicle application on the Isalnd of Roatan a number of years ago. I was living on a boat in a harbor and we were diving on a 16th century shipwreck. There was a small motel close to where we were anchored. Some one stole some jewelry from a tourist's room, and the Army came out from the mainland (Hondural). All the folks living on the island were black and spoke english, the mainland were hispanic and spoke manily spanish.

They came in three boats on an early Sunday morning, and surronded the area of houses where the employees of the hotel worked. The kicked in the door of the first house they came to dragged out the man of the house and beat him unmercifully, knocking out teeth, breaking an arm, etc. he finally convinced them that he had nothing to do with the thefts.

They went to the next house and dragged the man outside; he started screaming that he did not steal anything, but that his brother in law who lived in one of the houses had done so. They shackled the brother in law loaded him on the boat to the mainland; walla no more thefts.

I had just finished 18 months in Viet Nam so this did not seem to strange to me; and it worked. It would work with the terrorist also.

It is a war agaist folks who have no scruples against killing innocents and children; it would not be pretty, but it can be won.

Thank
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarox
I can imagine a righteous Jesus killing to be honest. He's tough and He's Lord. But knocking teeth out and beating mercilessly? That's not Jesus at all. If we are really upset at how the Romans treated Christ, shouldn't we make sure that above all, we don't treat people that way? Do unto others...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarox
I can imagine a righteous Jesus killing to be honest. He's tough and He's Lord. But knocking teeth out and beating mercilessly? That's not Jesus at all. If we are really upset at how the Romans treated Christ, shouldn't we make sure that above all, we don't treat people that way? Do unto others...

That is a nice touchy feely post, and I am sure it is also an honest one; but consider this passage;

(Rev 19:11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

(Rev 19:12) His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

(Rev 19:13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

(Rev 19:14) And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

(Rev 19:15) And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

(Rev 19:16) And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

(Rev 19:17) And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

(Rev 19:18) That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

(Rev 19:19) And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

(Rev 19:20) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

(Rev 19:21) And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Thanks
RC

quote:

The kicked in the door of the first house they came to dragged out the man of the house and beat him unmercifully, knocking out teeth, breaking an arm, etc. he finally convinced them that he had nothing to do with the thefts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarox
I read it, and I am all for Christ conquering evil, and I'm totally ok with him killing those who he sees fit to kill, even if it's a lot. No probelms there.

With the exception of the Beast though, whom I think we can probably agree may be a special case, Jesus is just outright killing. Sword here, sword there, bam, dead.

What I'm getting at is there's a difference between killing someone and this:

quote:

The kicked in the door of the first house they came to dragged out the man of the house and beat him unmercifully, knocking out teeth, breaking an arm, etc. he finally convinced them that he had nothing to do with the thefts.

Under what circumstances would Jesus break a guy's arm and bust out his teeth?

The question still remains, why didn't Jesus do any of this to drive out the Romans? And why do we expect earthly leaders, who we would hope would strive to imitate Jesus, to treat people this way, if even Jesus wouldn't in comparable circumstances?

I'm not saying we shouldn't go to war, but that there's a need for standards in how we conduct ourselves.

And I don't think it gets said enough (and yes I'll concede this: especially by people on the left) but thanks for your service to our country. As frustrated as you get me sometimes you still have my respect and appreciation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000
And what about other cases where individuals conspired while on American or European soil. Shall we use extreme prejudice there as well?

Anyone who conspired to commit terrorism against the United States should go down. American citizens have constitutional rights that do not (or at least should not) apply to foreign citizens.

quote:


Which is why tryinig the Christmas day terrorist in civilian courts is just plain outright stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Do you think all non-citizens charged with crimes in the US should be denies the rights outlined in the Constitution?

-Dan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

Jhad This! Would-be Bombers Blow Themselves Up.

Fourteen suspected terrorists died Tuesday night when the bus they rigged with explosives blew up prematurely, police said.

quote:

“Modern counterinsurgency is focused on winning the support of the population,” says Silverman, the Iraq war veteran and counterinsurgency expert. “The Philippine counterinsurgency strategy was to ‘kill them all.’ ’’

Perhaps the primary lesson from the war in the Philippines is that the United States must be willing to settle in for the long haul, said Dan Roberts, a Vietnam veteran and host of the public radio history program, “A Moment in Time.”

Though the war was declared over in 1902, American soldiers continued to die in the Philippines for 46 years - up to the onset of Word War II, Roberts says. The United States granted independence to the Philippines in 1946.

“I don’t think the U.S. wants to stay in Afghanistan for 46 years,” Roberts says. ”But that’s the way you do these things. You have to be willing to stay there and shed blood decade after decade.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Do you think all non-citizens charged with crimes in the US should be denies the rights outlined in the Constitution?

-Dan.

Those here illegally, and/or those committing an act of war (or terrorism) should be denied the rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

I thought that this was a sobering comparison of Afghanistan to a war we previously fought and it isn't Vietnam:
Excellent article.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar
How do you determine which non-citizens are guilty of terrorist acts w/o due process?

quote:

What do you do with illegal aliens who commit non-terrorism related crimes?

quote:

Amman, Jordan (CNN) -- The wife of an alleged suicide bomber who killed eight people at a U.S. base in Afghanistan last week says she is shocked by his actions but "proud" of what he did.

Defne Bayrak, the Turkish wife of Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi -- a Jordanian doctor identified as the attacker -- said she doubted accusations her husband had been an intelligence agent, but was satisfied he did not die in vain.

"I am proud of my husband. My husband accomplished a very big operation in such a war," she told reporters. "If he is a martyr, may God accept his martyrdom."

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar
How do you determine which non-citizens are guilty of terrorist acts w/o due process?

By the act that was committed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar
What I meant was - how do you determine they're guilty? This guy on the plane is easy. Others not caught red-handed may not be.

-Dan.

quote:

Military courts are very well adapted at determining guilt, and they do it much more quickly and less expensive than the court system designed for American citizens and crime (not terrorism).

If the Military court determines that the act was not an act of war or terrorism then they can kick it back to the civilian authorities.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsnody2001

quote:

Military courts are very well adapted at determining guilt, and they do it much more quickly and less expensive than the court system designed for American citizens and crime (not terrorism).

If the Military court determines that the act was not an act of war or terrorism then they can kick it back to the civilian authorities.

Thanks
RC

Yeah. If they say you're guilty, you are guilty... whether you actually are or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsnody2001

quote:

Military courts are very well adapted at determining guilt, and they do it much more quickly and less expensive than the court system designed for American citizens and crime (not terrorism).

If the Military court determines that the act was not an act of war or terrorism then they can kick it back to the civilian authorities.

Thanks
RC

Yeah. If they say you're guilty, you are guilty... whether you actually are or not.

They're also good at saying your innocent if your guilty, or no go on a technicality etc. etc. A fine example would be the My Lai trials.

quote:

Wow, I did not know you were in Nam, maybe I met you over there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj
I do know that the majority of US public opinion didn't turn on Vietnam until after My Lai.

quote:

Honestly, one should not believe every thing they read in the anti-war press or for that matter in the revised history books.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj
I do know that the majority of US public opinion didn't turn on Vietnam until after My Lai.

Honestly, one should not believe every thing they read in the anti-war press or for that matter in the revised history books.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj
I do know that the majority of US public opinion didn't turn on Vietnam until after My Lai.

Honestly, one should not believe every thing they read in the anti-war press or for that matter in the revised history books.

Thanks
RC

When did popular opinion turn against the war? I know there were the jerks who would spit on soldiers and such throughout the entire time.