People often say that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 “changed everything.” But as the years pass by, it has grown painfully obvious that the attacks have, in fact, changed very little. A prime example of this is what some consider to be President Bush’s ill-advised, wasteful and foolish invasion of Iraq.
In the aftermath of September 11th, one of the most common questions being asked was “Why?” Why do they hate us? What could possibly motivate these terrorists to commit suicide in order to inflict harm upon us? Why did so many women and children in the Middle East celebrate and dance in the streets at the news of the horrible attacks?
President Bush answered the question only hours after the World Trade Centers had crumbled to the ground.
“America was targeted for attack,” the President explained, “because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.”(1) Bush later expanded on his original statement when he addressed Congress and the American people shortly after 9/11:
“Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber—a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other . . . . These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life.” (2)
Other neo-conservatives and war hawks followed suit. Former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp wrote, “I would add … they also hate our democracy, our liberal markets and our abundance of economic opportunity, at which the terror attacks were clearly directed.” (3)
National Review boasted in its October 1, 2001 editorial that America was the target “because we are powerful, rich, and good. We are resented for our power, envied for our wealth, and hated for our liberty.” (4)
Two weeks later, National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru expressed the same opinion in another article, stating that “the radical Islamists’ broader quarrel is with American power: not with the uses of that power, but with the fact of it. We are infidels. And we are liberal, capitalist, modern, powerful, and rich; therefore hated.” (5)
Columnist Paul Greenberg wrote that “the haters need no reason to hate us. It is enough that we are who we are—a free and powerful people . . . They can’t bear our happiness, our prosperity, our power, and most of all the realization that others want to model themselves on us and build their own free societies.” (6)
George Will chimed in, explaining that the terrorists “hate America because it is the purest expression of modernity—individualism, pluralism, freedom, secularism.” (7)
Certainly this view sounds good to American ears, which might explain why so many people, even moderate conservatives who should know better, have bought into it. But however nice this simplistic and self-congratulatory explanation sounds, it simply doesn’t hold water. As Charley Reese once wrote in one of his columns, “It is absurd to suppose that a human being sitting around suddenly stands up and says: ‘You know, I hate freedom. I think I’ll go blow myself up.’” (8)
Former CNN journalist and terror analyst Peter Bergen is one of the few people in the world who has had the opportunity to interview face-to-face the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden. Bergen had a keen interest in the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, declaring that “there was always an unresolved quality to the U.S. government’s investigation” of the event. Bergen’s questions about who masterminded and funded the operation led him to further pursue the subject, and his efforts to contact bin Laden were rewarded in March 1997. Bergen wrote about his encounter in his book Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden, published in 2001. (Publication of the book, originally set for mid-summer 2002, was drastically sped up after the 9/11 attacks.)
According to Bergen, once the interview began, “bin Laden began to rail in Arabic against the injustices visited upon Muslims by the United States and his native Saudi Arabia.”
As one reads through bin Laden’s lengthy criticism of America, it soon becomes clear that the terrorists do not “hate our freedoms,” nor do they hate us because of our democracy, liberty, happiness or prosperity. Bin Laden instead lists specific political reasons why he and his followers have declared “jihad” (a Muslim holy war against infidels) on the U.S. government.
Among the reasons:
—The U.S. government . . . “has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous, and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of [Palestine].”
—The U.S. government is directly responsible for the death of large groups of people in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq.
—The U.S. government has occupied Arabia (a peninsula between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf that politically includes Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.)
“This U.S. government abandoned humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes,” bin Laden claimed. “It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the word . . . For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the U.S., because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God’s word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries.”
According to bin Laden, “the collapse of the Soviet Union made the U.S. more haughty and arrogant . . .” As a result, our country has supposedly “started to look at itself as a master of this world and established what it calls the New World Order.”
“The U.S. today has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist,” bin Laden claimed. “It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rules us . . . and wants us to agree to all these. If we refuse to do so, it will say, ‘You are terrorists.’”
Bin Laden concluded his interview with Bergen with this statement: “If there is a message that I may send through you, then it is a message I address to the mothers of the American troops who came here with their military uniforms walking proudly up and down our land . . . I say that this represents a blatant provocation to over a billion Muslims. To these mothers I say if they are concerned for their sons, then let them object to the American government’s policy.” (9)
Bin Laden is undeniably the de facto leader of the terrorist group al Qaeda, and was responsible for running numerous terrorist training camps throughout Afghanistan and Sudan in the 1990s. According to Bergen, he is considered to be a “hero throughout the Middle East” for his role in the war against the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Dr. Saad al-Fagih, a Saudi dissident whom Bergen also had contact with in his effort to find bin Laden, estimated that between twelve to fifteen thousand men served with bin Laden during the Afghanistan war, and that of those, over four thousand men are still “committed to bin Laden’s cause around the world.”
Clearly, the views that bin Laden expresses are representative of the views of a vast number of people in the Middle East, including those terrorists who engage in “jihad.”
It is also clear that these people are truly motivated by hate. Bin Laden himself freely admitted this when he told Bergen that “the hearts of Muslims are filled with hatred toward the United States of America and the American president [at that time, Clinton].”
But it is equally clear that President Bush and the neo-conservative war hawks either have no inkling of what actually motivates this hate, or they simply don’t care or don’t feel compelled to complicate the issue by telling the truth to the American people.
Bin Laden’s (and by extension, the terrorists and other Islamic extremists’) “beef” with the United States is really quite simple. National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru wrote that “the radical Islamists’ broader quarrel is with American power: not with the uses of that power, but with the fact of it.” But anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of the situation and is being honest with himself knows that Mr. Ponnuru has it exactly backwards.
Some supporters of the war in Iraq, demonstrating an alarming lack of foresight, might be inclined to ask, “So what?”
But what does it say about our leaders and those neo-conservative war hawks when they either cannot or will not identify the real reason why terrorists hate us?
“Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it” is an old saying most of us are probably familiar with. It’s a saying that Bush and the war supporters need to learn. They have either ignored the past, or simply refused to learn from it, and continue to commit the same mistakes that put us in the position we are today.
In his farewell address to the American people in 1796, George Washington admonished our nation to maintain neutrality toward all nations and not get involved in foreign disputes of any kind. “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all,” he said. “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
Today Washington’s wise advice is scoffed at by most people, even many who fancy themselves conservatives. Those who do believe our nation should return to the path touted by Washington are often labeled “isolationists” or worse. But our nation’s first president knew what he was talking about. Over 200 years ago, he correctly predicted what would happen if our nation did not follow the principles he set forth:
“Just and amicable feelings towards all [nations] should be cultivated,” he said. “The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests.
“So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification.” (10)
A study of American history shows that our nation has done precisely what Washington warned against, and that Washington was correct when he predicted the consequences of these actions.
Except our situation today has become much worse than the situation that Washington describes. Millions of people across the world hate us. Entire generations hate us. Why? Not because of our supposed freedom, or liberty, or whatever other attributes Bush and the neo-conservatives pat ourselves on the back for. They hate us because for too long our government has interfered in the political, social and military affairs of other countries.
While military action in Afghanistan was justified, this is one reason why invading Iraq was simply a mistake. By invading a country and toppling a government that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, our government is simply engaging in more of the same behavior that caused the attacks in the first place.
This is corroborated by the fact that our invasion in Iraq has clearly created a new wave of people intent on inflicting harm upon the U.S. and U.S. forces. In a recent column by U.S. Representative Ron Paul, Paul cites a recent study by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communications that concludes that in the struggle for the “hearts and minds” of Middle Eastern people on Iraq, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.”
As Paul writes, the Pentagon report “flatly states that our war in Iraq actually has elevated support for radical Islamists. [The report] . . . conclude[s] that our active intervention in the Middle East as a whole has greatly diminished our reputation in the region, and strengthened support for radical groups. This is similar to what the CIA predicted in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, before the invasion took place.” (11) [The report can be read at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf]
Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, reached a similar conclusion in his recent book Imperial Hubris. In his introduction to the book, Scheuer wrote critically about U.S. and coalition attempts to govern “apparently ungovernable postwar states” in Iraq and Afghanistan, noting that “in conducting these activities . . . U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s.”
Scheuer concludes that as a result, he feels the United States of America is, unbelievable as it may sound, bin Laden and al Qaeda’s “only indispensable ally” in the world today.
In addition, a February 17, 2005 article in the Washington Post reported that CIA Director Porter J. Goss admitted to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that “Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists.” Goss also warned that “jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism,” and will “represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.” (11.5)
Some people advance the argument that “it is better to fight the terrorists in Iraq then over here.” Perhaps these people should ask the citizens of England—victim of a series of attacks several weeks ago—-how well this argument holds up. And perhaps this argument would hold more weight if the Iraqi insurgents were made up largely of foreign militants who have traveled to Iraq, as the Bush administration has repeatedly claimed. But in fact, a recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies shows that foreign militants make up less than 10 percent of the insurgents fighting U.S. forces. (12)
In other words, the vast majority of people we are fighting in Iraq are not foreign terrorists; rather, they are Iraqis who have risen up against U.S. occupation of their country.
Other people, even self-styled conservatives, argue that we should no longer follow the non-interventionist policy advocated by our Founding Fathers since “times have changed since then.” But it is this very same argument that liberals have used for decades to advocate numerous abuses of governmental power that clearly went against the principles the Founding Fathers set forth—among these, our bloated welfare program, abortion and state-funded abortion, a constitutional right to sodomy, etc.
This argument also ignores that while times do change, sound principles do not. That is why Washington was able to correctly predict what would happen if our country did not follow the Founding Fathers’ view when it came to foreign policy, even though times did change. That’s why today, countries like Switzerland are virtually completely safe from terrorist attacks or other military problems. They followed the principle we should have followed.
Is there not a sense of embarrassment that just over 20 years ago the United States was supporting Hussein’s regime in Iraq? Our government helped finance Iraq’s war against Iran, and provided Iraq with intelligence and military support (contrary to our nation’s official declaration of neutrality in the matter, needless to say). Today we have photos and video footage of current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld greeting and shaking hands with Hussein. (12.5)
Moreover, reputable sources have reported that Saddam was in league with CIA and U.S. intelligence officials since 1959, when he was “part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.” And in the mid-1980s, veteran CIA operative Miles Copeland admitted that the CIA had enjoyed “close ties” with the ruling Baath Party, while former National Security Council staffer Roger Morris recently claimed that the CIA had chosen the Baath Party “as its instrument.” (13)
This is just one illustration of how a government meddling in the political affairs of other nations can come to no good. The current invasion and regime change in Iraq is no exception: war supporters are loathe to admit it, but the possibility of Iraq deteriorating into a full-scale civil war is becoming more likely day by day. (13.5) Numerous polls show that support for Bush and the Iraq war are both plummeting, and many Republicans and Democrats who previously supported the war are now bailing out, demanding some sort of “time table” or “exit strategy.”
But as Paul notes, “no attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist. This blanket acceptance of foreign meddling and foreign aid may be the current Republican policy, but it is not a conservative policy by any means.”
Then again, President Bush is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Even Bush’s dwindling number of supporters in the Republican Party can’t argue this point. Bush openly declared his support for gay and lesbian civil unions on national television (14); he has participated in out-of-control government spending that would once have made Democrats blush (15); he has failed to veto a single bill in six years as president, including bills he previously said he considered to be unconstitutional; and he has repeatedly betrayed conservatives in numerous other areas, including immigration reform, Supreme Court nominees, gay rights and civil liberties.
As a result, most Bush supporters cling desperately to the “war on terror” as the reason they still follow our current president. But nation-building and spreading “democracy” around the world at gunpoint is not a conservative policy either, and people who claim it is are not conservatives. It is not even a liberal policy. It is an imperialistic policy that usually fails miserably and ultimately leads to ruin.
Unfortunately, we can only watch in horror as Bush and the war hawks lead us further down the same path that put us where we are today.
Somewhere in a cave around the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, Osama bin Laden is probably snickering with glee.
——————————————-
You can view Derek Wallace’s blog at
___________
References:
1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.htm
2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
3. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jackkemp/jk20010926.shtml
4. http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr091201.shtml
5. http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/ponnuru101501.shtml
6. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/printpg20011003.shtml
7. http://www.propositionsonline.com/html/secularism__anyone_.htm
8. http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Freedom
9. All quotations from Holy War. Inc., pages 19-23
10. http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/
11. http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=4159
11.5 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28876-2005Feb16?language=printer
12. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI27Ak03.html
12.5 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
13. http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
13.5 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050926/wl_mideast_afp/iraqpolitics
14. http://www.civilrights.org/issues/glbt/details.cfm?id=25769
15. http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rugy-030212.htm
I had put a note before the headline of the article but it was left out . . . the gist of the note was that this is the first in a series of articles dealing with Iraq.
If all goes according to plan, next issue will address Iraq and al Qaeda.
My first issue with this is that moderate Muslims are a minority. HERE is a story that deals directly with this…
My second issue is with the whole “They’re Muslims so they deserve the whole Middle East” attitude. They have just about ever grain of sand over there and they won’t sleep until they have Israel! Do you honestly think that they should be rewarded for their anti-Israeli activity. How many jihadis have sworn that they will not rest until every last Jew has been thrown into the sea? WAY too many…
Apparently, you’ve been reading too much Islamic propaganda.
David
Oh…btw, I have a post on whether or not Iraq is a “just” war…you can read it HERE: http://theaccount.blogspot.com/2005/10/iraq-war-just.html
Arabs/Muslims have had that land since 70 A.D., when the Lord destroyed the nation of Israel. Then it’s taken over by the military forces of United States/Britain-supported Israel about 1,900 years later. If unprovoked wars of conquest are okay, then I guess it’s alright for Israel to move in and kill thousands of Palestinians to establish their home land.
“My first issue with this is that moderate Muslims are a minority. HERE is a story that deals directly with this…”
I believe moderate Muslims are a minority, too—a minority that was made much smaller by the invasion of Iraq. And I don’t believe Islam is a religion of peace. It’s President Bush who believes these things. Unfortunately, this doesn’t change the principle I point out in this article, and it doesn’t change a number of other points which will be addressed in future articles.
Arabs/Muslims have had that land since 70 A.D., when the Lord destroyed the nation of Israel.
Actually, they haven’t…You forget that Samaritans and some Jews still remained. Other than that, you didn’t have Arabs at all – Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, yes, but no Arabs. The land of Israel passed from Roman hands into Byzantine (pseudo-Roman) hands, and finally into Arab hands in the late 7th century. Of course, it was also under the Turks for a long period of time. But God promised His people that He would “gather them from the ends of the earth” and bring them back to the land that He swore on oath (in His own Name) would belong to them and their descendants forever. God’s Word is much more important than petty politics and political correctness.
Am Yisrael Hai!
Obviously if God is going to gather his people to Israel from the ends of the earth, that’s His job and not ours. It’s not our responsibility and not our prerogative.
And we already know from the Scriptures that God uses nations and people for His purposes (Pharoah, Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, Cyrus, etc.) so who’s to say He didn’t use the United States and Britain?
So what makes you think this modern nation of Israel is “God’s people”? They do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. They are a Socialistic/atheistic state. No doubt there are some few true Christians in Israel, but there is nothing I have ever heard that indicates the nation of Israel as a whole has bowed the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ, apart from Whom there is no salvation (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). Besides this, the New Testament teaches that physical lineague means nothing (Matthew 3:9, John 8:39), and that the true Israel now is the elect church of God (John 8:39, again, Romans 2:28-29, Galatians 3:26-29, Ephesians 2:11-22, Philippians 3:3). God is interested in the hearts, not our physical descent… Which is why I believe many of the Old Testament prophecies regarding Israel are spiritual promises to the church.
My purpose is not to get into a millenial debate, but I do question the idea that the modern state of Israel has a place in fulfillment of prophecy, since they are as opposed to the true religion of Christ as any nation on earth.
I do agree, btw, that God uses nations and people for His own purposes… all people, all nations, everywhere, as a matter of fact. Paul describes Him as the God who “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.” (Ephesians 1:11)
I think David has revealed an interesting point which unfortunately is not talked about a lot. A large segment of people, including various political leaders, believe that our interference in the Middle East is justified if it helps or supports the state of Israel. Why? Because they’re supposedly still God’s chosen people, etc.
These people don’t consider whether such interference will help or hurt the United States, or whether the United States even belongs in the Middle East, or a number of other issues that can be brought up. Their religious belief that the Jews are still God’s chosen people and that the state of Israel should be supported in every way possible trumps everything else, even the safety and well-being of our own nation. As David said:
“God’s Word is much more important than petty politics and political correctness.”
George Washington really knew what he was talking about when he said: “The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
Oh, him. General Odem is a posterboy for the anti-war protestors. :) Just ignore him…. BTW, over 250 Generals and Admirals endorsed President Bush in 2004. That says something. :) I might post later….
SecDef, I’m having a little difficulty finding any source that says that over 250 generals/admirals endorsed Bush in ‘04. That doesn’t mean as much as you probably would like to think it does, though. The military is known to vote Republican, and many people in the military undoubtedly hold incorrect views on U.S. interference in foreign affairs.
There are many military figures who also oppose the war in Iraq, including former Sec. of Navy (under Reagan) and decorated Marine Veteran James Webb, and (the now deceased) Col. David Hackworth. Even more people like Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf toe the line, but have expressed and continue to express definite reservations about even going into Iraq in the first place.
Derek—Though they may not all be saved, the Jews are still God’s chosen people and as such will still have a special role in future history. The question is rather whether it is our job to further that role.
Also, you can’t just dismiss military leaders because it “is known to vote Republican.” That’s illogical. You first need to investigate whether there might be a reason that the military tends to vote Republican. Their experience apparently gives them a reason, whether their choice is good or bad. You can’t prove anything about whether the military endorsements mean something until you investigate the thinking behind it and prove it to us.
There is much danger in an overly literal reading of scripture, especially when one over-emphasizes a small portion of the overall tapestry that is the Lord’s book.
As was mentioned already, the nation of Israel is largely a spiritual entity. This has been a common view held since the first church fathers wrote biblical commentary. Origen wrote an especially enlightening piece on the spiritual nation of Israel.
Many people fail to make the distinction between Hebrew and Jew. Whereas Hebrew is the ethnicity of many Jews; Judaism is a religion. As a Jewish friend of mine once said, “many people have a Jewish heart and don’t know it”. The modern Jewish relgion is an amalgamation of what Christians know as the Old Testament and the Talmud, teachings/interpretation of rabbis since the early years AD. Arguably, Christianity, not Judaism, is the true descendent of pre-Christ Hebrew religion; the Judaism of today stemming more from beliefs espoused by the Pharisees.
It must be remembered that much of the Old Testament was prophetic and thus at the least bearing a double meaning, if not totally allegorical.
While I do not believe that Muslims have any right to “every grain of sand” any more then anyone has a right to possession of Earth, I do believe that that does not give others the right to push them off it, as was done by the Jews post-WWII. Just as an excessively literal reading of Muslim doctrine leads to jihadist extremism today, so to the Jews were lead to fanaticism in the name of zion by their own literalism.
Was it not a strong mark of Jesus’ teachings that overly literal focus on the law lead to spiritual death?
History does repeat itself and sadly, now we are repeating the legalism of the Hebrews which lead them astray in the Old Testament, and crucified Jesus in the New.
KM, the leaders of this country should not be basing their foreign policy decisions on the religious beliefs of a certain number of Christians. They could just as easily adhere to my religious beliefs, which believes that God’s chosen people are the children of Abraham’s faith, not the children of Abraham’s body (see the verses I listed in my earlier post). I agree completely with Derek that we should be applying the policy declared by George Washington (also supported by Thomas Jefferson, and other of the Founders). I am in favor of using Biblical precepts in governmental matters, but the Bible gives no specific directions for foreign policy. As we can see here, there are a lot of different opinions on Israel. Our leaders are supposed to do what’s best for the USA, not what’s best for Israel. Unfortunately, they all too often seem to be doing the latter.
Well, Replacement Theology strikes again…and, again, it’s never with good result…
I don’t have time to go into that topic (and it would be rather off-topic at the moment) but SecDef has some stuff about it at his Xanga and I have some stuff on it as well in my blog…So, just check it out…
Our leaders are supposed to do what’s best for the USA, not what’s best for Israel. Unfortunately, they all too often seem to be doing the latter.
And did it ever occur to anyone that a friendly Israeli is a better ally than a simmering Muslim who is cursing you in his head because of your “unholy” presence in Arabia? Israel has always been a strong ally of the United States. Not only that, but the Scriptures indicate that all who bless Israel shall be blessed. It is in our turning from Israel that we have come upon disaster. You want evidence? I’ll be glad to provide it:
+http://www.branchofdavid.org/america.htm#america
(About Replacement Theology) + http://www.branchofdavid.org/israel.htm#israel
I never said that America’s leaders should be basing decisions on anyone’s religious beliefs. I disagree with your point that the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people. Regardless of the fact that they are not all elect, they as a nation still have a distinctly different relationship to God.
Personally, I don’t see the moral equivalency between occupying a country and crashing planes full of men, women, and children into buildings. Not only is Osama Bin Laden a ruthless murderer, he’s also a hypocrite.
No one here is arguing that Osama bin Laden is a “good guy”, or that there’s anything good about the terrorists. I think what Derek is arguing is that the war in Iraq is not a necessary component to the War on Terror, and in fact has only spawned more hatred, and therefore, more terrorists. There’s probably not a lot of “moral” difference between invading and occupying a sovereign state and crashing an airplane into a building full of innocent people… both end up in death, destruction, and mayhem.
As far as the issue of “chosen people…” I can’t find in the New Testament where there is difference placed between Jew and Gentile. In fact, Paul spends considerable time disputing that notion. Galatians 2:26: “For ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” I won’t argue with you over whether Israel still has a special relationship with God, even though many (to all appearances, most) of her people are not true believers. I would far rather be among those “chosen before the foundation of the world” to salvation (Ephesians 1:3-6) than one chosen to be of Abraham’s physical lineague. After all, God is able to raise up physical children of Abraham out of the stones, which is why John the Baptist and Jesus both warned the Jews that being Jews gave them no special advantage with God, but that all who reject the Messiah will suffer a similar fate. In the end, there is only one way of salvation, and whoever is saved, Jew and Gentile, is equally justified by the blood and righteousness of Christ (Galatians 3:28, Romans 3:29-31). Therefore I ask, in the end, What difference does it make what your physical lineague is?
No one here is arguing that Osama bin Laden is a “good guy”, or that there’s anything good about the terrorists. I think what Derek is arguing is that the war in Iraq is not a necessary component to the War on Terror, and in fact has only spawned more hatred, and therefore, more terrorists. There’s probably not a lot of “moral” difference between invading and occupying a sovereign state and crashing an airplane into a building full of innocent people… both end up in death, destruction, and mayhem.
As far as the issue of “chosen people…” I can’t find in the New Testament where there is difference placed between Jew and Gentile. In fact, Paul spends considerable time disputing that notion. Galatians 2:26: “For ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” I won’t argue with you over whether Israel still has a special relationship with God, even though many (to all appearances, most) of her people are not true believers. I would far rather be among those “chosen before the foundation of the world” to salvation (Ephesians 1:3-6) than one chosen to be of Abraham’s physical lineague. After all, God is able to raise up physical children of Abraham out of the stones, which is why John the Baptist and Jesus both warned the Jews that being Jews gave them no special advantage with God, but that all who reject the Messiah will suffer a similar fate. In the end, there is only one way of salvation, and whoever is saved, Jew and Gentile, is equally justified by the blood and righteousness of Christ (Galatians 3:28, Romans 3:29-31). Therefore I ask, in the end, What difference does it make what your physical lineague is?
Ironicly, the Jews claim Jesus as an espouser of “replacement theology” also.
Despite His strong messages of peace, humility, and spiritual poverty; do you then believe He made an exemption for the land obsession of a group of people bound more by blood than belief?
Bear in mind that the Jews looked for a war prince as Messiah the first time, and that was why many missed Him.
S. A., I totally agree with your analysis of the equal status of Jews with Gentiles in salvation. But…
The Gentiles were grafted onto the tree of the Jews. The Jews were not removed. That does not mean that all the Jews are saved any more than they were all saved in the OT. It means that the nation of Israel is still under a unique covenant with God. I will have to study to be able to substantiate this, but certainly in Revelation, the Jews have a slightly different future than Gentiles do. They will have the same split in them between believers and unbelievers, but they will still be split from the Gentiles.
“Also, you can’t just dismiss military leaders because it ‘is known to vote Republican.’ That’s illogical.”
You apparently don’t have a problem when SecDef’s says: “General Odem is a posterboy for the anti-war protestors. Just ignore him…” I sense double standards here.
“And did it ever occur to anyone that a friendly Israeli is a better ally than a simmering Muslim who is cursing you in his head because of your ‘unholy’ presence in Arabia? Israel has always been a strong ally of the United States.”
Apparently you’ve never heard of Jonathan Pollard or the U.S.S. Liberty, have you? I sense a future Virtue article in the making here.
I’m not prepared to provided detailed comments on the issue of “Replacement theology” etc., but I do think it’s interesting that Sam has provided numerous Bible passages, while those arguing the other side have provided maybe one or two. Someone has perhaps been doing a bit more homework here.
;)
I know there are a few Bible passages that are used to support the idea that God will restore the Israelites and the Jews are still God’s chosen people, but these passages have generally been misinterpreted. Perhaps we can get into specifics later, although I can’t get too wrapped up into this.
In the meantime, those who claim the Jews “are still God’s chosen people and as such will still have a special role” in the future have to explain passages like Galations 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile], slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Obviously this is a figurative passage, but the meaning is clear.
I would also strongly urge that people read John 8:31-47. I may still end up quoting it word for word later.
There is another passage in Acts worth bringing up, but that can wait.
“You apparently don’t have a problem when SecDef’s says: “General Odem is a posterboy for the anti-war protestors. Just ignore him…” I sense double standards here.”
I have no comment on whether General Odem is a posterboy. I don’t know who he is. I do know that you should investigate whether the military leaders have reasons for voting Republican. Then refute their reasons, not themselves.
“In the meantime, those who claim the Jews “are still God’s chosen people and as such will still have a special role” in the future have to explain passages like Galations 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile], slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Obviously this is a figurative passage, but the meaning is clear.”
Passages like this refer to salvation. Israel’s status as God’s chosen people has status outside of salvation, in which its status is equal to ours.
The Jews can have whatever status anyone can please outside of salvation. If you’re not going to be saved, it’s not going to do you any good in the long run. This is why I don’t understand the big deal people make over Israel. Any status anyone has outside of salvation is not a place anybody should want to be.
Okay I do not see why you are so worried about the Iraq war? Are you worried we hurt their perfect little counrty by overthrowing their benevolent dictator
Saddom Hussain was a horrible cruel dictator who chemically bombed is own people, tortured raped and killed those in opposition to his views. Commiting Many acts as horrid as Hitler’s.
No one asks why we went to Germany to overthrow Hitler when it was the Japenese who bombed Pearl Harbor. (and at the time there was no evidence that Japan and Germany had anything in common.) Why should we NOT free those under the tyranny of such a man?
Judging by the suicide bombings in Iraq, I’d say we’re still fighting terror, so why the fuss??
The Jews have always been our allies and us theirs, I for one am not willing to betray them and side with their enemies who want to kill all Jews and Christians just because they’re Jews and Christians!
I do not know of any time where God gave up on Israel and denounced them as his chosen people. and regardless of wether they are or not. THEY are a much better ally than the muslem countries that already hate us and will not cease to hate and war against us until we become a nation of Islam!
Actually, Susan, we never had any problem with any Muslim country before we helped forcibly place Israel in a territory previously occupied by Palestinian Muslims. That is the root of their hatred for us. I suppose since supporting Israel is in line with your Millenial view, though, that’s reason enough to support it. Maybe some day we’ll find someone who argues the president should conduct his foreign policy according to the view that the true Israel is believers in the Lord Jesus, as you can read in the last few verses of Romans 2, and in Philippians 3:3.
I find your logic regarding the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein to be more than a little disturbing. Carrying that notion to its logical end, we find it our bounden duty to remove every brutal dictator. You referenced Hitler… Yes, that was very kind of us to remove the dictator Hitler, while at the same time fighting on the same side as that wonderful, benevolent statesman Joseph Stalin. Stalin’s victims, some estimate, range as high as 30-60 million. But we were his staunchest ally, and in all likelihood saved him from defeat, then handed him all of Eastern Europe on a silver platter. Please don’t tell me that the U.S. is interested in spreading freedom around the globe. We’ve been making friends with China since 1973, where well over 100 million have been murdered. Saddam Hussein is a piker compared to these guys, and I don’t care if they’re murdered by chemical weapons, a gas chamber, or a shot to the back of the neck. We simply pick the dictators we want to replace, and make friends with others. If we want to start displacing brutal dictators, wouldn’t it make sense to start with our next-door neighbor, Mr. Fidel Castro? How many conservatives are calling for that? The reason this excuse is invented for removing Saddam is because our President who removed him is a Republican. I have a very strong feeling that Al Gore or John Kerry had been in the Oval Office when we attacked Iraq, the Conservative reaction would be much different.
Until you start calling for the forcible removal of every dictator across the globe, then justifying the Iraq war on the grounds of Saddam’s brutality is, sad to say, hypocritical. And that doesn’t even begin to bring in the question that our government was established to “PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE…” Not the defense of the Iraqis.
Susan, while tradition certainly cannot be cast out without a second thought, the mere fact that traditionally Americans have allied with Jews(really only significantly dating back to WWII) is not sufficient to sustain the arguement for continued alliance.
You’re also succombing to a straw-man tactic, whether intentional or not; you claim that the arguement here has been for backing Islamic extremists. I don’t believe anyone would support extremists or terrorists; their methods are dubious at best. However, a critical examination of the situation reveals that Muslims and Arabs have legitimate reasons for concern and displeasure that are often forgotten.
And I will again note that the concept of Israel being equivalent to all Jews is not supported biblically, nor by the philosophy of the fathers of the Christian church. The nation of Israel is a spiritual concept, not an ethnic group, and not a mass of sand. When Jesus calls for His disciples to give up their family, posessions, and land He most certainly is not telling them to give up their salvation. For one preaching spiritual poverty, the idea of being so world-centric as to spill blood over a particular plot of land would have been foreign.
It seems to me that the Jews are repeating the worldly idolatry of the Old Testament, and are clinging too closely to material things as do many in these times. If we are to give the very cloaks off our backs, if asked for, then how may we withhold land so guardedly?
There is a story of a female catholic saint(whose name escapes me right now) whom after great contemplation and prayer decided to dedicate herself to God and run away from her home and serve God. She ran away, gave away her posessions and began her life. However, she still did not feel in touch with God. She knew she was not truly walking with Him yet. Then one day she realized what was wrong. She had been saving a single gold coin as “insurance”. Realizing that she lacked complete faith in and abandon to God’s will, she tossed the coin into the street and never looked back. Therafter she was blessed with revelation because she had recieved grace which had allowed her to realize the folly in the coin.
I am also reminded of a scene from Stephen King’s “Salem’s Lot”. The priest in the novel and a small boy are confronted by a vampire who has also been dabbling in occult magic. The vampire thus is serious manisfestation of evil, yet the priest clutches his crucifix, standing up to the vampire, and proclaims his faith in Jesus. The vampire offers the priest a deal; he will let the boy go if the priest puts down the crucifix. The priest turns the deal down but quickly finds that the vampire is no longer kept at bay by God’s light. The priest trusted in the piece of wood in his hand and failed to trust in God. He wound up biten by the vampire and damned.
God never gave up on Israel, but Israel is redefined everyday by the makeup of those walking God’s path; carrying their own crosses behind Jesus in His example.
And you are all still against Israel even though the president Iran has declared he will no stop until Israel no longer exists? Let us not forget the covenants in which God promised that the land would belong to Israel’s descendants FOREVER…
I have an article on Replacement Theology…and most of it deals with New Testament passages…
A Counter to Replacement Theology
Am Yisrael Hai!
S.A.Said
Actually, Susan, we never had any problem with any Muslim country before we helped forcibly place Israel in a territory previously occupied by Palestinian Muslims.”
Ben Said “However, a critical examination of the situation reveals that Muslims and Arabs have legitimate reasons for concern and displeasure that are often forgotten.”
Let us not forget that God gave the land of Cannaan (Israel) to Abraham (the nation of Israel) before the nation of Islam existed. The land was originally Israel’s Islam took it from those who took it from Israel, and now Israel has taken it back what is wrong with that? so it made those who currently had it upset but hey they made the people before them upset as well so what? Israel had it first and has it now!
I really don’t know why you all think that God no longer counts the nation of Israel as his chosen people, gentiles were grafted onto the branch of Israel but Jews were never removed.
Romans 11:1
“I say then, God has not rejected his people has he? May it never be! For I too am an israelite…”
Read the entire chapter of Romans 11 it explains Israels place with God now that gentiles are given salvation
SA
Congress voted to go to war in Iraq, for many different reasons that still exist. There is nothing Unconstitutional about it. You may say we are now obligated to overthrow every dictater, but this war was declared,through lawful means, on Iraq alone.
Iraq is full of terrorists constantly bombing our troops so it does fall in line with the ongoing war on terror as well.
I believe both David and Susan believe I am against modern Israel. I wish to make clear that is not the case. My position is simply that its misguided to claim that the current political nation of Israel is equivalent to the spiritual nation of Israel described by God. Therefore its also misguided to base policy on holding up this nation. I attempt to offer perspective.
David-
I’ve read your replacement theology link. However, I believe you’re constrained by the ultra-literalistic focus on exegis that has taken hold of many modern theologians. Yes, the seed of Abram was the seed of many nations. Yes, all land was given to Israel (hence, “all show bend knee and tongue”). Yes, God’s covenants are never broken because He is faithful.
Now here is where we disagree. Our God is a trinity. The Father, the absolute; the Son, the changing/becoming force; and the Holy Spirit, the link between the two. God changes and God stays the same. Also significantly, the Israel spoken of is more then a physical place or an ethnic group. The Pharisee, for example, were Jews, but as Jesus made clear, they still needed salvation and rebirth. Saul was a Jew: yet he required saving by Christ. Peter and Matthew seem to have focused their ministries heavily on Jews; why spend time preaching to the choir?
There have certainly been some very spiritually endowed Jews who have been touched by grace. I’ve been lucky to have known a few. However, the fact one is a Jew by ethnicity, does not make one a Jew at heart where it counts. As Paul, after conversion, would have said: circumsize the heart not the flesh.
I would also point out that your replacement theology arguement does not support the notion that the Jews are the destined holders of the land. While Israel is granted the land, there is no substantiation that the Jewish people of today are Israel.
Susan-
The Jews did not have it first; the Canaanites did, along with a number of other tribal groups. Read Joshua and Judges, or consult any textbook on western civilizations.
Ben makes a great point that I should’ve brought up earlier. There is not a person in the world today that can prove he is of the physical lineague of Abraham. The genealogical records were destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. I believe God did this for a purpose, to show that the true Israel are those who “worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” These are the people that are “the circumcision” (Philippians 3:3). And anyone who knows the Bible knows that “the circumcision” refers to Israel. I don’t have any problem with someone believing that God will bring Abraham’s physical descendants back into the fold, based on Romans 11; some of the best theologians I know hold that position. However, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the true Israel is a spiritual entity; who can argue, after reading Hebrews, that prophecies such as Jeremiah 31:31-34 refer only to physical Israel? And how can anyone misinterpret a passage such as Romans 2:28, where Paul says in unmistakable language, “HE IS NOT A JEW WHICH IS ONE OUTWARDLY.” Obviously, it is better to be of the spiritual circumcision than the physical. Physical circumcision profits nothing.
I also question the idea that the nation of Israel is still a special, distinct entity from the church. Ephesians 2:14 clearly says that Christ has “broken down the middle wall of partition between us.” Forgive me if I’m wrong, David and Susan, but you seem to believe that Israel is somehow pleasing to God whether they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ or not. Such a notion is so antithetical to Scripture I cannot condemn it strongly enough. The 1948 state of Israel is clearly not a nation that honors Christ; they are a Socialistic/atheistic state. Does God honor such a nation? I think not. We need to learn the lesson that John the Baptist tried to teach the Jews (Luke 3:8): “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Perhaps God will bring the physical Jews in at some point. But if He does, He will bring them to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus, for no man can please God apart from Christ.
Susan-Congress did not Constitutionally declare war on Iraq. They issued a blank check to President Bush to make war on Iraq, an authority which you will not find in the Constitution. Declarations of war is the sole province of Congress; I reiterate, there was no declaration, only a blank check issued to the president to make war as he saw fit. This results in dictatorial control of the armed forces, a very unsafe thing. My argument still stands that, if your reasoning that we needed to overthrow Saddam because of his brutality, then we have the same moral obligation to overthrow all other cruel dictators; and, while we’re at it, why not the government that sponsors the butchery of millions of unborn children every year?
Your argument that Iraq is full of terrorists bombing our troops is ex post facto. Obviously, if our troops hadn’t invaded Iraq, they wouldn’t be resisting. I find it rather comical that if a nation is occupied by someone we don’t like, such as France during WW2, that it’s okay for resistance fighters to bomb and murder their soldiers, but once it’s done to us, it’s wrong. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not excusing the terrorists, and I am on the side of our military as much as anyone. What I’m against is a government that has sent them over there for no purpose, to fight people who view themselves as fighting for their God-given land. There are plenty of terrorists in other countries that would be more than happy to bomb our troops if we invaded and occupied them. And, I have no doubt, if we were invaded and occupied, you wouldn’t have a problem with our people resisting the invaders with every violent means necessary.
“I have no comment on whether General Odem is a posterboy. I don’t know who he is.”
Let me introduce you to him then. He’s a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He served as Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988 (UNDER RONALD REAGAN), and from 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army’s senior intelligence officer (UNDER RONALD REAGAN).
From 1977 to 1981, General Odom was Military Assistant to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a member of the National Security Council staff, he worked upon strategic planning, Soviet affairs, nuclear weapons policy, telecommunications policy, and Persian Gulf security issues.
He’s also written numerous books and has written articles for numerous publications.
I would like to point out to this…whatever he styles himself writer that his prime source is Osama bin Laden, a man directly responsible for the loss of three thousand lives on Sept. 11. This terrosit leader boasted that “America will run when attacked” after the tragedy in Mogadishu (in Somalia, which BTW for Derek W. is in Africa), Bin Laden thought that and proved that during 8 years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. He made the mistake of assuming that we would still do it with a strong commander in chief, he attacked us and he now rues his mistake. His is no longer safe in Afgahanistan, Iraq has become an example of those who threaten other nations with nuclear warheads.
For his point about George Washington’s admonishment. Washington was president before this thing called the War of 1812 (which BTW for Derek W. started in 1812) when the British tried to retake America, they failed. After this President James Monroe (our 5th President) created a law called the “Monroe Doctrine” which was basically a statement to other nations saying that we will get involved in foreign affairs if they harm our national interest. This was because British naval captains had been pressing American seamen into working on British ships, sometimes fighting their own brothers. America tried to stay aloof but America has been drawn in by other powers. Sure we’ve occupied places, we’ve invaded places, but last time
(my browser got messed up so I’ll finish here)but last time I checked we were only the United States of America (not AmericaMiddle eastEuropeAsiaetc.). We occupied two countries after World War II (a war Derek W. probably thinks unjust), Germany and Japan, both are leading nations today, Germany even has enough prestige to disagree with out foreign policy (thought they don’t want us to withdraw our troops).
Nice sarcasm there, JDC! I never would have guessed when the War of 1812 took place! Thank you for informing me!
; )
Who said anything about running when attacked? Military action against Bin Laden and his terrorist cell is perfectly justified, but Iraq and Afghanistan are, believe it or not, separate nations. Yes, I know there was this “link” between al Qaeda and Iraq, but I’ll address that in a suitable fashion in the next issue or so.
BTW, Reagan made the right decision in Somalia. He pulled out, and guess what? No more problems for us in Somalia! Yes, it did cause later terrorists to grow bolder, but if we were to follow Reagan’s example and withdraw troops from the Middle East, terrorists would no longer have any reason to attack us, period. Recognizing and following through on this is not “appeasing” terrorists either—it’s recognizing that there is a problem and the only way that problem can be permanently taken care of is to get our nose out of where it doesn’t belong.
“He made the mistake of assuming that we would still do it with a strong commander in chief, he attacked us and he now rues his mistake.”
I assume you must have personal contact with Bin Laden if you know he “rues his mistake.” Whatever his views are on what happened in Afghanistan and the Taliban, though, our invasion of Iraq was the best thing he could have hoped for. I already addressed this in the article.
“America tried to stay aloof but America has been drawn in by other powers.”
Not true. Despite our declaration of neutrality in WW1, President Wilson did his very best to get us involved, and eventually did. Franklin Roosevelt was looking for an excuse to enter WW2, and successfully goaded the Japanese into attacking us. There are many other examples of smaller wars where America could have easily stayed out of the whole mess if we wanted to.
“Iraq has become an example of those who threaten other nations with nuclear warheads.”
So what are your thoughts on North Korea, JDC?
“After this President James Monroe (our 5th President) created a law called the “Monroe Doctrine” which was basically a statement to other nations saying that we will get involved in foreign affairs if they harm our national interest.”
I’m not prepared to comment extensively on the Monroe Doctrine yet, but off the top of my head, I think the doctrine limited that statement to our own hemisphere. I have some other comments to make but need to check up on them first.
Great discussion going on here. I’m intrigued by the differing viewpoints. I just want to add something “simple” that most of us probably have read before. Might be a good time to read it again:
In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me—and by that time, there was no one left to speak up.
Martin Niemüller
You also might want to check this out:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,119503,00.html
You may not think it is “not our fight to fight”, but YOU better hope someone is willing to fight for YOU when ‘they’ come at YOU for YOUR beliefs. If we cower down now, trust me, ‘they’ll’ eventually get to YOU. I’m VERY thankful my country was willing to fight when I was attacked on Sept. 11.
I made a typo on that last comment. What I intended to type was: “You may or may not think it is “not our fight to fight”...
Sorry, but I think you got the idea.
In answer to your questions…
Nobody said anything about running. But last time I checked Saddam hussein’s Iraq was a safe-house and training-camp for other terrorists. Also Hussein would write checks to the family of suicide bombers who blew themselves up in Israel, these bombers injured innocent people, Israelis (who you intensly dislike), europeans and AMERICANS.
And BTW Regan didn’t have anything to dow ith Somalia. Clinton was the one who got us into Somalia. He let the UN order our troops around and they got slaughtered because of his stupidity.
I take it you must be a mind-reader (of people long dead), if you know that Roosevelt “goaded” the Japanese to attack. It seems to me that Japan was preparing for years for such a thing, if not, explain why Japan attacked Wake Island within days of Pearl Harbor.
On North Korea…I seem to remember a country who told us that they would not give up nukes and refused to talk about it. In the meantime US troops took Baghdad. The next dayu this country told us that they wanted to talk about disarming. What was that country’s name? North Korea!
Even though I totally disagree with you, I must admit that you’re a pretty smart kid. Too bad you’re on the dark side.
S.A.
In response to Susan’s point about Hitler and the Holocaust, you said that the US was not responable for removing every dictator.
I wonder if you ran WWII would you have left Hitler the murderous dictator of Germany? Would you have contitued to allow him to murder millions of Jews in the most grotesque ways? Have you been to the holocaust museum? Have you seen what went on in those camps?
perhaps we did fight alongside another horrid dictator like Stalin, perhaps we should have fought him as well… But in no way do I regtret freeing Germany and the other german occupied territories from the horrors of the Nazis!
Please rethink your position….
Wow, we’re up to 40 comments! I appreciate all the feedback, especially since for a while it looked like this article would never even get published.
Anyway, I have several college papers and tests to study for today, so sit tight and I’ll try to write up a response sometime tomorrow.
Thank you, Bob, but I have already thought through my position, and have no intention of changing it. If it was our responsibility to save the Jews or anyone else, then why wasn’t it our responsibility to save the 6 million or more Ukrainians being butchered in the 1930s? Or why isn’t it the responsibility of Iran or some other nation to come over here and put a violent end to our abortion mills? Are the lives of Jews worth more than the lives of Ukrainians, or our unborn infants? Apparently so. Or what about the thousands (some say millions) of Palestinians that the Jews killed when they seized their national homeland by force? Who wanted to stand up for them?
Nope, I’ve never been to a holocaust museum, nor do I intend to. Number 1, The propaganda about the holocaust is so powerful that people get into the mindset that the Jews were the only people who suffered during WW2, or maybe the 20th century. Number 2? I believe the tale of the holocaust is, by and large, over-exaggerated, though that is too deep a debate to get into here. I recommend you look up Dr. Arthur Butz on the internet, and read some of his papers, if you’re interested in considering an alternate viewpoint.
Nobody said anything about running. But last time I checked Saddam hussein’s Iraq was a safe-house and training-camp for other terrorists.
I intend to address this line of argument in my next article on Iraq. For now, let this comment suffice: Even if Iraq was a “safehouse” and “training camp” under Saddam, it has become much more of a “training ground” for terrorists since the U.S. invaded.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html
Also Hussein would write checks to the family of suicide bombers who blew themselves up in Israel, these bombers injured innocent people, Israelis (who you intensly dislike), europeans and AMERICANS.
I would suggest that any citizen who is visiting a foreign nation filled with civil and military strife is taking a dangerous risk and needs to take personal responsibility for that risk. Frankly, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not America’s concern. We shouldn’t be involved in it anymore than we should be involved in a conflict between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. Saddam sending checks to families of suicide bombers involved in that conflict is not even close to being a valid reason for us to go to war.
The “who [sic] you intensly [sic] dislike” comment is not even worth responding to. Advocating neutrality and believing what the Bible teaches regarding Jews does not equal intensely disliking them, and you know it.
And BTW Regan didn’t have anything to dow ith Somalia. Clinton was the one who got us into Somalia. He let the UN order our troops around and they got slaughtered because of his stupidity.
My bad there. I think I’d agree with you on your assessment of the U.N. The U.S. really shouldn’t be in the U.N.
I take it you must be a mind-reader (of people long dead), if you know that Roosevelt “goaded” the Japanese to attack. It seems to me that Japan was preparing for years for such a thing, if not, explain why Japan attacked Wake Island within days of Pearl Harbor.
Oh, we know for a fact that Roosevelt goaded the Japenese into attacking. I think this is a future Virtue article in the making.
Pat Buchanan gives a good nutshell description of what Roosevelt did: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/patbuchanan/2001/11/24/161709.html
On North Korea…I seem to remember a country who told us that they would not give up nukes and refused to talk about it. In the meantime US troops took Baghdad. The next dayu this country told us that they wanted to talk about disarming. What was that country’s name? North Korea!
See:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=486902
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/20/nkorea.timeline.nuclear/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560
_I wonder if you ran WWII would you have left Hitler the murderous dictator of Germany? Would you have contitued to allow him to murder millions of Jews in the most grotesque ways? Have you been to the holocaust museum? Have you seen what went on in those camps?
perhaps we did fight alongside another horrid dictator like Stalin, perhaps we should have fought him as well… But in no way do I regtret freeing Germany and the other german occupied territories from the horrors of the Nazis!_
Stalin and the Soviet Union Communists butchered 10-30 million of their own people (estimates vary). The Soviet Union carved up Europe after WWII, murdering millions more. Within 10 years they had communist spies all over the U.S., even at our highest levels of government. I could go on. This is a classic case of how the winner writes the history books. Germany during WWII has been completely and thoroughly demonized as the devil itself, while the actions of Stalin and the Soviet Union are simply forgotten, dismissed, or swept under the rug.
One question for all of you who argue that the jews are no longer the chosen people, and that the New testement removes all the promises to the physical decendants. If he goes back on his promises to them, WHAT HOPE can you have that he will fulfill his promises to you? If he fails in any of them his covenants are void, including the new covenant. And BTW since when has the words eternal, and prepetual changed their meaning, as in “You are my people FOREVER”. Yes he disciplines, but according to Isaiah he will not destroy. And I don’t know about you, but my God is the eternal unchanging God who has reveled himself though the scriptures, and has reconcilled us to himself though the sacrifice of his son. If he changes he is only another little false god who will eventually disappear from the world’s stage , as he should.
Nancy –
You’re suffering from the perception that a person who is Jewish by physical descent is neccesarily a member of the spiritual Israel.
God’s promises are faithfully kept but its vital to know to whom those promises are addressed. God addresses His promises in the bible to the nation of Israel. This nation is not a geographic, political, nor ethnic entity. Saul was a Jew in birth and likely practiced Judaism. However, Saul was not welcomed into the light until touched by the Holy Spirit. Saul was not a member of the nation of Israel until he was spiritually consecrated to it as Paul.
This brings up an interesting point. Judaism, such as it is practiced today by most, but not all, Jews is the close descendent of the legalistic and literalistic religion of the Pharisees. Christianity, at least for many especially in the mainstream, has drifted into this same mold. We are repeating the same sins of the Jews who lost their way; clinging too tightly to worldly things and ego.
God promises the nation of Israel a chosen place, yes. He makes this vow to the descendents of Abraham, yet those descendents are not merely flesh and blood. Those who have descended from the same spiritual seed will make the nation of Israel that will serve God. This leads to the creation of laws of justice, derived out of love, God. These laws and local tradition and symbolism lead to a pious life for many that lead closer to God.
This time did not last. Many people went back to old habits and vices. It was easy for those who had not fully grasped the teachings to be decieved and lead astray. Some stayed strong, holding faithful to God, and these were the truly chosen; the spiritual nation of Israel. They only had the strength BECAUSE God had chosen them and granted them the freedom of will to chose not to sin.
Out of the remaining faithful came humble Mary who, without any regard for herself, bore Jesus into the world. Joseph too was of a pure heart. When it was Jesus’ time His radiance drew those with the eyes to see His truth; the spiritual Israel. Those with faith knew Him and others who were blind were shown the light and broken from bondage. Yet many like the Pharisees remained bound and blind.
Judaism is something evolved from this latter group. The former group became the first Christians. Yet history is repeating itself. Christianity has become for most a shadow of its former self, perhaps doomed to be another Judaism.
sorry, but it is you who is not reading scripture as it is written. I was taught “if common sense makes good sense, look for no other sense” when studying scriture. You are spiritualizing passages that are very straight forward.
To respond to your other point, gentiles are grafted into Israel, not the other way around. the jews failed at being lights to the nations as they were meant to draw others to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Yeshua, ( Jesus’s hebrew name), sent his followers, (ALL Jews) to be that light as was originally intended, and gentiles have benefited greatly by this and have been called along side to also be lights. We are to serve him together, drawing others to him. We are all to be his people though adoption. This does not do away with his promises to physical Israel.
Yes both modern christianity and judaism have elements of paganism which need to be removed, however, early followers of the Way,ie. Yeshua, were considered a sect of judaism, as taught by their messiah, and rabbi(teacher), Yeshua.
SA,
The Israelis did not kill thousands of blameless Palestinians when they “seized their homeland by force” Butz is a down right liar and holocaust deciever. Were your reletives rounded up? What do you know! Israel was granted to the Jews by the UN, and was IMMEDIATLY attacked by 6 Arab nations, and survived! doesn’t this say something about whether God wants them there? All he had to do was with-hold his hand, and we wouldn’t even be discussing this.
Their are many in the land coming to Messiah. 15 years ago their was about 5 congregations of Jewish believers. Now their are over 100 and more are growing all the time. It says in the end of days the time of the gentiles would be accomplished, and he would open again the eyes of his people for salvation. Well this is happening, does this mean nothing to you , are you even willing to lokk beyond your safe little place to what is really going on?
one last thing, God also promsed that he would bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse them. Which you want blessings or cursing, because right now you are cursing.
Nancy –
There are actually 4 senses to scripture: literal, allegorical, anagogical, and tropological. The literal sense was used chiefly to help facilitate the 3 spiritual senses. Never does the bible state “spiritual Israel” or “physical Israel”, its simply understood. Many people grasp this in the prophets’ visions (though this is more true among theologians) but few extend this truth in modern times to earlier Godly intonation. Early Church fathers however believed in this view and used it frequently in their exegis.
Yes Gentiles were grafted on Israel. However, as I said before, we were grafted onto the spiritual Israel. All Gentiles are not saved any more then all Jews are or ever were.
You are missing the depth of the term idolatry that the Old Testament speaks of when you relegate it to pagan beliefs. Jesus attacks the Pharisees on their overally literal and legalistic way of approaching scripture. That is exactly the way many modern people do it and exactly how mainstream Judaism does it. The Pharisees worshipped the law; that was their chief idol.
There are supreme Godly absolutes and virtues, but there is also much that has become dogmaticized which was symbolic of the truth or which facilitate truth, but was not the teaching in and of itself.
Yes Jesus’ followers were seen as a sect of the Hebrew religion which they were. They were the one true surviving expression of the ancient Hebrew tradition that had become obscured by legalistic, literalistic, Pharisees.
By the way, “common sense” is actually largely counterproductive to spiritual exercises. True logic can be useful, especially when guided by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, “common sense” is just another way of saying society’s (or far to often one’s own) assumptions, biases, and opinions. Truly, if you attempt to apply “common sense” to the bible, then you are doomed.
I was intrigued by your thing about modern Judaism and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Ironically, Christianity has more in commone with the Pharisees than any other Jewish sect at the time – Sadducees, Zealots, and Essenes. In fact, you will recall that the Apostle Paul was a Pharisee and remained one during his ministry. Note that it was Pharisees that defended Christianity in its early days (Gamaliel’s speech to the Sanhedrin when Peter and John were brought before them, their defense of Paul when he spoke of his “hope in the resurrection of the dead”). Unfortunately, too many people today are like Sadducees…non-literalists…
David, I can understand why you see the link between Pharisee and Christianity in light of the Christian heritage today, though I’m sure thats not what you meant.
I appreciate you pointing out Gamaliel’s speech. The possability of it being a liability to my arguement had not crossed my mind. The Recognitions of Clement I, as well as the records of Photius claim he was a Christian convert who secretly worked within the Sanhedrin after his conversion to aide Christians. This is certainly understandable considering the significant persecution going on at the hands of non-converted Hebrews.
While Saul and others were Pharisees, this did not obviously prevent them from being converted.
I am probably guilty of being lax in my language. Where I have said something like “religion of the Pharisees”, I should say, “religion espoused by many Pharisees”. And, if one wanted to argue that other Hebrew groups held similar views that would be fair as well. The Pharisee happen to be the ones that the Bible uses as a most prominent symbol and who were the basis for our modern Judaism.
And, musing upon it to myself, “literalistic” may not be the most accurate way of explaining what I’m getting at. Its close but, as I alluded to in my previous comment, the literal is in fact true; sometimes its our unvoiced assumptions or impressions that shift it. This can be especially problematic for us so long as we don’t speak Hebrew or Greek, though I believe that with introspection God will make things clear to those in time He wishes. Truly then we would become like children, free of any thought or will but God’s.
However, I stand behind my point that the ancient Hebrew society overtime went from one of pious observation to one where the humbleness of Mary and Joseph was quite unusual. At that point theologically the true religion continued on through Christianity, leaving some Hebrews behind.
Idolatry in the old testement was ANYTHING that was given worship/adoration apart from the Lord.
As for the pharacies, the only time he spoke against them was when they made the Fence laws( laws that were above the Torah, so that someone could not even get close to breaking a Torah commandment), these made it more difficult for the average person to live Torah, it made it a burden. On other things,ie. marriage, he agreed with the most stringent of the pharisees’ leaders. He was /is considered to teach according to Hillel and Shammai on various topics. He was always against the sadusees who did not believe in resurection, and were more political than religious leaders.
Many pharasees and some sadusees are known to become believers, It is suspected that Gamaliela was, but he was Saul’s teacher a pharasee.
Yes we need the spirit to guide us in understanding, but no-one has answered about God being changeless. So do the covenants stand or isw he proved false?
Actually, I did respond to that. I said that the promises are faithfully kept, therefore the covenants do stand; I just believe your interpretation of the meaning of what the covenant is, is incomplete.
As for the term changeless… God is actually changing AND changeless at once.
God the father is absolute, objective, and never changing.
Jesus the son is changing and becoming, the embodiment of the way.
The Holy Spirit is the ether in between that draws both, through love, together.
Well, I would still like to know how you know that Roosevelt goaded the Japs into attacking us. But I have decided to leave this discussion, arguing with you would just lend credence to your views and I wouldn’t want that. With that I am signing off as a proud, neo-conservative war-hawk.
JDC
Well, I would still like to know how you know that Roosevelt goaded the Japs into attacking us.
I’m adding it my “to-do” list of Virtue articles to write.
:)
Most of you have probably seen the so-called “Letter to the Editor” that also apparently doubles as Issue 21’s “featured article” (how that works, I don’t know). Anyway, there’s a lot of backstage politics that I’d probably get into trouble if I talked about, but suffice to say, if you’ve been reading Virtue Mag for a while you’re familiar with the person who wrote this. For some reason, it was decided to not allow comments, but the editor has given me the ok to post a refutation of “Sweet Tea”’s article here. Stay tuned, I plan on posting it later today.
I agree with what JDC is stating. How do you know the mind of Roosevelt? Additionally, I find your source for that ‘theory’ flawed. I don’t see anywhere in that article an actual quote from FDR that gives any basis for your supposition. All it is, is the opinions of a man, who is passing those as facts, without any real citing from FDR himself.
Oh, we know for a fact that Roosevelt goaded the Japenese into attacking.
Ok, if you think it is such a fact, then pray-tell what is it?!
Most of you have probably seen the so-called “Letter to the Editor” that also apparently doubles as Issue 21’s “featured article” (how that works, I don’t know).
Ummm….maybe you’re seeing somthing different than I am, but I don’t see the ‘Letter to the Editor’ as the featured article…it’s something about the whole SCOTUS nominee thingy.
Yeah, it’s been changed since then.
Ah, ok. Just checking.
Sweet Tea (ST) claims my article was “misguided” and accused me of using misconceptions, taking quotes out of context and making opinion look like fact. He then adds that my article “really followed no journalism ethics” because I quoted from “anti-war” sources and even from (gasp!) Osama Bin Laden himself. Never mind that ST himself quickly resorts to ad hominem attacks in his article, that he makes broad assertions without provided any documentation or evidence whatsoever (I cite 18 different references in my article; ST cites none), and that he ignores most of my arguments while continuing to repeat claims I already refuted in my own article.
Let’s begin with the quote that ST uses as a headliner for his article: Osama Bin Laden’s statement that “freedom and human rights in America are doomed.” ST presumably is trying to convince his readers that Bin Laden hates America for our freedom and human rights, and that it is Bin Laden’s goal to destroy freedom and human rights in America. But ST has done exactly what he accuses me of doing: he has taken this quote out of context. Bin Laden’s entire quote can be found in a CNN article, where we find what he actually is saying is that the U.S. government is the one destroying freedom and human rights in America: “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in—and the West in general—into an unbearable h*ll and a choking life.”
You may agree or disagree with Bin Laden’s assessment of America, but certainly he is not saying what ST is trying to portray him as saying.
ST then launches into a series of ad hominem attacks, presumably because he can’t refute the actual statements of those I quoted. His first attack is on William Odom, and consists of pointing out that: a) liberals love him, b) he writes for anti-war.com, c) he is mentioned on a web site that also links to the Huffington Post, a liberal blog. (The horrors!) ST somehow seems to think that because of these three things, Odom’s statement “The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history” should be disregarded.
ST engages in so many logical fallacies, it’s difficult to keep count. Besides repeatedly using ad hominem attacks, ST also uses a guilt-by-assocation fallacy, since he is trying to imply that because “liberals love” Odom, Odom himself must inherently be a liberal. In the process, ST is implying that any politically liberal person is not qualified to speak authoritatively about the Iraq war, which is certainly not true.
People only need to compare Odom’s actual qualifications and experience to what ST writes to see that ST is engaging in nothing more than a hatchet job, and a poor one at that. The idea that because Odom is mentioned in a positive light on a web page that also links to the Huffington Post is especially ridiculous, and frankly doesn’t deserve a dignified response.
While doing his Google search, ST must have missed that Odom, a retired Army Lt. General, is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He served as Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988 (UNDER RONALD REAGAN), and from 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army’s senior intelligence officer (UNDER RONALD REAGAN).
From 1977 to 1981, General Odom was Military Assistant to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a member of the National Security Council staff, he worked upon strategic planning, Soviet affairs, nuclear weapons policy, telecommunications policy, and Persian Gulf security issues.
He’s also written numerous books and has written articles for numerous publications.
ST also tries to discredit Charley Reese, pointing out that Reese is “anti-war” and that he “attacks Bush.” It puzzles me why ST spent so much time trying to discredit this man, since I only quote from him once, and the quote is simply: “It is absurd to suppose that a human being sitting around suddenly stands up and says: ‘You know, I hate freedom. I think I’ll go blow myself up.”
Once again, ST doesn’t even try to refute the actual statement I quoted. Apparently he can’t argue with Reese actually said, so he results to that old tactic liberals like to use—attacking the person instead. Incidentally, Reese is a very talented writer and columnist, and his conservative credentials can’t be questioned. He is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the NRA, and has been a member of the League of the South. He frequently writes in support of the Confederate cause in the Civil War, our right to keep and bear arms, and many other conservative issues.
One more thing: Reese SUPPORTED George Bush for President in 2000, which is something ST conveniently left out. Perhaps ST didn’t want to ruin the idea that Reese is some knee-jerk anti-Bush Democrat. Newsflash, ST! Not all “conservatives” have sold out like you have and continue to support Bush. Some have recognized he is just as bad as the Democrats and realize that it would be better to have a Democrat president that would move the Republican Congress back toward a more conservative and principled position.
ST then quotes part of my passage on Michael Scheuer, and for the third straight time he doesn’t even try to respond to the actual quote! (Actually, he doesn’t even quote the whole quote, since he leaves out “ ‘in conducting these activities U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s.’ Scheuer concludes that as a result, he feels the United States of America is, unbelievable as it may sound, bin Laden and al Qaeda’s ‘only indispensable ally’ in the world today.” (Apparently ST didn’t want to make it TOO obvious that he couldn’t actually refute any of these statements.)
According to ST, since Scheuer is “anti-war” and even (gasp!) “very opinionated,” nothing he says can be taken too seriously. Never mind that Scheuer is the former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit.
ST never explains where he came up with the “he’s very opinionated” comment, or more importantly, how that would affect the truth of Scheuer’s statements. And how does ST know that Scheuer is “very opinionated”? He never says. What is ST’s definition of “very opinionated”? He doesn’t say that, either. If I didn’t know better, I’d think that ST is just desperately pulling things out of thin air to try to discredit these people since he can’t argue with the truth of the actual statements.
One of the putdowns ST consistently uses is the “anti-war” label:
“The article really followed no journalism ethics, as it ‘searched for truth’ by grabbing quotes from anti-war sources . . .”
“Yes, he writes for Anti-War.com. Is that saying enough?”
“Charley is anti-war as well.”
“This source, again, is anti-war. It fails as an objective source.”
“Again, we’re looking at an anti-war source. He’s very opinionated.”
As we can see, I can quote anyone from a political columnist to a former chief of the CIA bin Laden unit and a former Director of the National Security Agency and Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, and it won’t matter to ST, because they’re all “anti-war” and therefore aren’t valid, objective sources. Unfortunately, for some reason ST never addresses the actual statements and arguments these “anti-war” people make. Instead, he simply dives head-on into another fallacy by begging the question and assuming that which he claims to prove:
“It’s pretty simple [why they hate us]. We are a “Christian” nation. We are free. We are allowed to dress, act, speak, write, and go where and how we want. We don’t follow the principles of Islam. They’re extremists out to kill us so they can have virgins in heaven.”
He wrote the above in response to my statement: “Why? Why do they hate us? What could possibly motivate these terrorists to commit suicide in order to inflict harm upon us? Why did so many women and children in the Middle East celebrate and dance in the streets at the news of the horrible attacks?”
I answered this question in detail, providing many different sources and references. ST’s “refutation” of this is simply to restate his own opinion as fact without any evidence or support. As anyone who read Why They Hate Us knows, I already refuted and proved wrong the very statement ST just made! And this is supposed to be a rebuttal of my article?
ST then goes on to quote his esteemed “anonymous military source.” (If I were to pull a page out of ST’s book, I could just say his anonymous military source is obviously pro-war and isn’t objective.)
ST seems to assume that when I quote bin Laden railing against the U.S. government, I agree with everything he says, including statements like, “The U.S. government . . . has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous, and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of [Palestine],” and, “The U.S. government is directly responsible for the death of large groups of people in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq.”
Apparently ST never bothered to read my article very closely. I never said I agreed with all of Bin Laden’s claims. What I did say is that these claims (which many Middle Easterners believe), together with our military intervention are what motivates the hatred for the U.S. government. The claims bin Laden makes (i.e. how many deaths in Iraq is the U.S. responsible for) are open for debate, and I did not take sides on that issue. What I did take sides on is the issue of U.S. intervention in foreign countries, which is what ULTIMATELY is responsible for our situation.
ST thinks my statement, “Clearly, the views that bin Laden expresses are representative of the views of a vast number of people in the Middle East, including those terrorists who engage in ‘jihad’” was out of line. “Clearly? A vast number? Those are pretty big statements without a lot of backup,” ST says. I didn’t spend a lot of time backing that statement up because anyone who is familiar with the Middle East knows it is true. See www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FC18Ak02.html for one example.
ST claims I took the George Washington quotes out of context because Washington lived at a different time period. “The last time I checked I wasn’t driving a buggy,” ST writes, utilizing essentially the same argument liberals use all the time when busy trampling on the Constitution. Later in his “rebuttal,” ST admits that, “Yes, principles do stay,” but he writes that “when President Washington said this, we were a young nation, with no military, no navy, no money, and big debts. We couldn’t get involved in costly wars in Europe. We couldn’t afford to split the nation over whether to support France or whether to support Britain in war. You have to take Washington’s comment in its context.”
There are two problems with this: first, ST admits that sound principles do not change, but he then turns around and implies that sound principles DO change if you happen to be rich and powerful. Secondly, he is putting words into Washington’s mouth. Washington didn’t made exceptions for a rich, powerful nation in his speech. He didn’t say, “We should follow these principles now because we’re a young nation, with no military, no navy, no money, and big debts; but when we get bigger we don’t have to follow these things.” NO! Washington CLEARLY implied the OPPOSITE! “_The great rule of conduct for us_, in regard to foreign nations, is,” he writes, “in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” Washington doesn’t make exceptions or speak of historical “contexts.” He is establishing this as a firm principle, the great rule of conduct, the best path to follow for as long as our nation may exist. And Washington explains why, too!
“The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests.
“So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification.”
ST and is esteemed “anonymous military source” claim I took a recent study by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communications “out of context.” They don’t quite explain how—ST’s esteemed esteemed “anonymous military source” only explains that the intent of the task force was “to address” what I am “perpetuating” and then proceeds to quote one (!) passage from the task force that apparently is supposed to illustrate his point. After studying the passage, I fail to see how it either shows I took the task force “out of context” or how the task force was trying to address what I am “perpetuating.”
In the meantime though, ST never quite explained the task force’s following statements:
“The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe, weakened support for the war on terrorism, and undermined U.S. credibility worldwide.” (see page 15 at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf)
and: “Americans have inserted themselves into this intra-Islamic struggle in ways that have made us an enemy to most Muslims.” (see page 35)
and: “American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing the support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.” (see page 40)
ST winds up his article with some other run-of-mill and simplistic arguments that I will be addressing in future articles. I believe it should be clear to objective readers by now, however, that ST’s accusations of me relying on misconceptions, opinion made to look like fact, and not following “journalism ethics” are not true, and are only motivated out of bias and an inability to actually refute what I previously wrote.
Finally, ST writes: “Part of the terrorist’s job is to stir up anti-war protests among Americans, and wreak havoc on the President and his administration and upon our nation.” I guess the terrorists have had it easy lately, because the President and his administration are already doing a good job of wreaking havoc upon themselves and upon our nation.
; )
I agree with what JDC is stating. How do you know the mind of Roosevelt? Additionally, I find your source for that ‘theory’ flawed. I don’t see anywhere in that article an actual quote from FDR that gives any basis for your supposition. All it is, is the opinions of a man, who is passing those as facts, without any real citing from FDR himself.
That’s because it’s an opinion column where there are word limits, etc. Like I said, it was a description of what FDR did in a “nutshell” and it was not intended to be an authoritative account.
In response to your second comment: You’ll have to wait until either Sam or myself decides to write an article on the subject.
:)
Hey, Alex King put the “letter to the editor” by our “guest writer” back up as the featured article!
You can really tell this is a quality publication when the featured article is by “Sweat Tea”
; )
You can really tell this is a quality publication when the featured article is by “Sweat Tea”
Derek, I don’t know what your problem is, but it seems to me that you are happily putting down the magazine that you write for (it is apparent that you must enjoy doing writing for Virtue Magazine, as you seem to have an article in every issue). It’s almost as if that upon building a house you sit there and point fingers at it, criticizing a work that you contributed to. Just my 2 cents….
Yes, the events of the past month or so have left me very disgusted, and I can’t resist making the occasional sarcastic dig over what is becoming an obvious joke.
Needless to say, I don’t enjoy writing for Virtue nearly as much as I did two or three months ago.
One more thing . . ST made this claim in his “rebuttal”/”letter to the editor”/featured article:
We needed to get rid of Saddam, a terrorist, and remove the WMD from the country. Unfortunately we made the mistake of going to the UN and asking for permission. It gave time for Saddam to remove the WMD, and make Bush look bad.
There is no evidence that Saddam removed the WMD he supposedly had before the war . . . as one AP article reported:
“But the officials familiar with the search [for WMDs in Iraq] say U.S. authorities have found no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein transferred WMD or related equipment out of Iraq.”
In fact, ST apparently never heard about the 2004 CIA report that concluded Saddam did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion, and had not even begun any program to produce them.
It’s obvious that ST has done very little research, if any at all.
“There is no evidence that Saddam removed the WMD he supposedly had before the war.”
Well, one must realize that there isn’t really much evidence that there wasn’t any WMD in Iraq. And who’s to trust the CIA with all the recent news?
Plus, it seems your taking this “Sweet Tea” guy’s article and comparing his Bibligraphy to yours. I personally don’t think that you can do that. How do you know he hasn’t done a lot of research? After reading his article, I saw that he was using a Lt. Colonel’s quotes. First hand interviews—nice quotes from Osama bin Laden. Plus, it seems you’re taking huge offense at a letter to the editor. I would be happy to see that readers are responding to your articles!
“It’s obvious that ST has done very little research, if any at all.”
I just reiterate bRadical. And it just seems your out to attack very harshly anyone who criticizes you. Not good to spit out ad hominem.
James, you seem to be appealing to a lack of proof of the negative in your first statement, which is a logical fallacy. It’d be like me arguing, “Well, you know, there isn’t any evidence that aliens from outer space don’t exist.”
But obviously, all parties involved here reached the conclusion that “Saddam did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion, and had not even begun any program to produce them.”
And who’s to trust the CIA with all the recent news?
If you’re referring to the CIA leak scandal, to my understanding that wasn’t the CIA’s fault. It was people outside the CIA who leaked the name of the agent.
Plus, it seems your taking this “Sweet Tea” guy’s article and comparing his Bibligraphy to yours.
Not really. I did think it was worth mentioning, however, that I cited 18 different sources in my article while he only cites his military friend once or twice.
“How do you know he hasn’t done a lot of research?”
Because he makes claims like: “We needed to get rid of Saddam, a terrorist, and remove the WMD from the country. Unfortunately we made the mistake of going to the UN and asking for permission. It gave time for Saddam to remove the WMD, and make Bush look bad.”
when we know that: “...officials familiar with the search [for WMDs in Iraq] say U.S. authorities have found no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein transferred WMD or related equipment out of Iraq.”
Not only that, we also know that the 2004 CIA report concluded Saddam did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion, and had not even begun any program to produce them.
Plus, it seems you’re taking huge offense at a letter to the editor. I would be happy to see that readers are responding to your articles!
This gets into stuff I can’t talk about. :P Suffice to say, both readers and other Virtue staff writers are given the ability to respond to various articles through the ability to post comments, which we are utilizing right now.
: )
And it just seems your out to attack very harshly anyone who criticizes you.
I don’t think that’s true . . . have you read through the first 30-40 comments that were posted here? However, I don’t have patience or respect for an article that is nothing more than a hatchet piece on various people, that calls into question my journalism ethics, engages in numerous logical fallacies, and doesn’t even try to refute any actual arguments/statements advanced in the original article, etc., etc.
I’m just wondering about Saddam gassing and killing thousands in Iraq. I mean, those are illicit weapons. (I really think they need to open comments over at Sweet Tea’s article).
But I looked again at his article, and it seems he did quite a bit of research on all of your sources, and the people and reports you mentioned in your article. But he had some good quotes from Osama.
“I don’t have patience or respect for an article that is nothing more than a hatchet piece on various people, that calls into question my journalism ethics, engages in numerous logical fallacies, and doesn’t even try to refute any actual arguments/statements advanced in the original article, etc., etc.”
Interestingly enough, after clicking on the links in the “Letter to the Editor” I did find you had used anti-war sources and from reading your article, they seem like facts. As for logical fallacies, the only logical fallacies I see in the letter to the editor is the usual opinion found in those letters to the editor. I mean, I thought that was what letter to the editor’s were for: exposing problems and fallacies in an article written in a magazine. I saw lots of arguments against certain parts of your article. He quotes you then responds.
“his gets into stuff I can’t talk about. :P Suffice to say, both readers and other Virtue staff writers are given the ability to respond to various articles through the ability to post comments, which we are utilizing right now.”
I think I’m following you there…whoever this guy is, he’s visted Nashiville and he’s seems to be friends with Richard Land. It’s interesting to note that he uses Richard Land’s defense of the Iraq war. It’s not extensive, but it does a pretty good job in defense.
Anyway, your writing skills are very fantastic, but I’d have to agree more with Sweet Tea’s letter, especially after examing the sources.
As for the CIA, I’m sure that’s another topic. But in my opinion, part of the blame should be laid on the CIA. And Plame doesn’t seem like an “agent” at all. It seemed lots of people already knew who she was. I’d be interested in an article on this here.
~James
both readers and other Virtue staff writers are given the ability to respond to various articles through the ability to post comments, which we are utilizing right now.
I’m posting as admin, because I wanted to say that I would have highly objected to someone posting a 3100 word, 8 page letter in the comment section. If it didn’t break our database, I think it would be very confusing.
I’m just wondering about Saddam gassing and killing thousands in Iraq. I mean, those are illicit weapons.
Right, but it has been shown that Saddam no longer had those weapons or capabilities after the first Gulf War.
But I looked again at his article, and it seems he did quite a bit of research on all of your sources, and the people and reports you mentioned in your article.
His research amounted to blatant ad hominem attacks and efforts to undermine the credibility of pretty much everyone I quote from. (I believe I have already explained why the people I quoted from are highly credible and why ST’s attacks are meaningless). But once again, ST failed to respond to the actual statements/arguments.
But he had some good quotes from Osama.
Um, he quoted from Osama Bin Laden a number of times but he only came up with two of those quotes himself. All the others were quotes that I originally included in my article. Of the other two quotes, one is taken out of context (see my above posts) and the other actually supports my argument in Why They Hate Us, since Bin Laden says something to the effect of: it is our duty to drive the Americans from all Muslim nations.
Interestingly enough, after clicking on the links in the “Letter to the Editor” I did find you had used anti-war sources and from reading your article, they seem like facts. . . As for logical fallacies, the only logical fallacies I see in the letter to the editor is the usual opinion found in those letters to the editor.
I honestly believe I have already addressed this in those three long posts I made in this very thread on Nov. 5th. I don’t know if you’ve read it or not, James. If you have and you still feel the way you do then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Um, he quoted from Osama Bin Laden a number of times but he only came up with two of those quotes himself.
Actually, I stand corrected. There is only one quote, and that is the one he took out of context in the headline.
“His research amounted to blatant ad hominem attacks and efforts to undermine the credibility of pretty much everyone I quote from.”
Sweat Tea has every right to question your sources, if there is a reasonable basis to do so. And it appears to me that the question of who’s right in this case comes down to whose sources are correct, therefore it would be of paramount importance to examine credibility of quotes. And you examined his. Don’t complain when he questions yours.
Actually, poison gas could not be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. It was most widely used in WW1, but the effects compared to other weapons such as the machine gun were negligible. Poison gas was hardly a threat to U.S. security, and I still maintain that a dictator’s acts of savagery against his own people are no cause for us to go to war. If it is, we’d be fighting half the nations in the world.
Nancyk- Since you obviously know nothing about Dr. Butz or his arguments, I won’t discuss their relative worth. I could make an argument like you, and say “how do you know thousands of innocent Palestinians weren’t killed-was your family killed?”-but I won’t, because that is an argument absolutely without merit. The only point I will make is that Dr. Butz does not even attempt to argue that no families were rounded up or deported, since that is an obvious historical fact. The 6 million being gassed and killed is what he disputes.
Furthermore, I’m not “cursing” the Jews, as you say, unless giving an honest appraisal of what I currently see is considered cursing. God had some awfully harsh things to say about Israel throughout both testaments (see Deuteronomy 9:6 for a starting point). I would ask you this: Do you believe Jews are sinners doomed to hell unless they repent on the Lord Jesus Christ, just like Gentile sinners? That’s what I believe, and that’s what the Scriptures teach (see Romans 3). I’m not trying to bash Jews or any other sinners, any more than they deserve to be bashed, but Jews are headed to the same place as Muslims and all other unbelievers, unless God has mercy on them. I will not argue with anyone over whether God is going to call the Jews into the fold of Christ in great numbers at some point in the future. I don’t personally hold that view, but the arguments for it do contain some merit… I just don’t see it happening now. If it does, I will be more than pleased to see thousands or millions of more souls rescued from eternal damnation. If they are saved, though, it will be because God had mercy on them, not because they had Abraham to their father. Please look up John 8:39 and Matthew 3:9, which I’ve already referenced in an earlier comment. Christ is the center of the Scriptures, not the nation of Israel… and those who are saved are spiritual Israel… you can look up the verses I referenced earlier, which speak too clearly and concisely to be disputed. It doesn’t offend me for someone to hold a different millenial position than me, though, so long as they believe the Biblical doctrine that all who are saved are saved not because of who they are, but in spite of who they are, and are saved by the atonement of Christ alone.
Whew… I have a lot of catching up to do on this thread, having been gone for nearly a week. I’ll just cut this short and say that Derek did a great job responding to Sweet Tea’s “letter to the editor.” As far as an argument for his side, I think Derek’s was much more professional, and more reliant upon dependable sources. I’m wondering why Sweet Tea couldn’t have submitted an article simply advocating his position, rather than taking the time to attempt to take apart Derek’s article, and doing it mainly by bashing Derek’s sources, when his own are equally, or more, prejudiced towards his point of view. Oh well, we all have our prejudices… ;)
I like KM’s question and comment.
“I’m wondering why Sweet Tea couldn’t have submitted an article simply advocating his position, rather than taking the time to attempt to take apart Derek’s article, and doing it mainly by bashing Derek’s sources, when his own are equally, or more, prejudiced towards his point of view. Oh well, we all have our prejudices…”
I would assume it would be hard to not mention this article in his response. Also, I would guess that he highly objected to this article, and wanted the editor to know. And he certainly did let the editor know. I, unlike you, look beyond the proffesionilism to the actual words he’s written, and how it is presented (the tone, etc.). And what’s wrong with checking out sources?
You examined his. Don’t complain when he questions yours.
I didn’t examine his sources, because he didn’t actually provide any. It’s kind of hard to examine sources that aren’t there, don’t you think?
And it appears to me that the question of who’s right in this case comes down to whose sources are correct
Mr. Wallace: sources, evidence, documentation
ST: no sources, no evidence, no documentation, made statements proven to be inaccurate
And it appears to me that the question of who’s right in this case comes down to whose sources are correct, therefore it would be of paramount importance to examine credibility of quotes. And you examined his. Don’t complain when he questions yours.
Your bias is evident, KM. ST didn’t question my sources, he engaged in a second rate hatchet job while completely ignoring the question of whether actual statements and assertions were truthful and valid.
His “examination” of my sources consisted of things like: source 1 is mentioned on a web site that also links to the Huffington Post, a liberal blog; source 2 doesn’t like Bush and source 3 is “very opinionated.” These statements would be laughed right out of any serious discussion by objective people.
Oh yes, and all my sources are anti-war. There is something fundamentally wrong with ST’s repeatedly using this assertion, and I’m not sure I’ve quite put my finger on the exact reason why yet. But I believe he’s engaging in circular reasoning there:
1. My sources’ various statements against the war in Iraq cannot be accepted as truth.
Why not?
2. Because my sources are anti-war.
Why are my sources anti-war?
3. Because they make various statements against the war in Iraq.
More later. I have more comments to make on this “opinion as fact” thing.
From James:_Plus, it seems you’re taking huge offense at a letter to the editor. I would be happy to see that readers are responding to your articles!_
James, perhaps you should take a look at a recent post at SmartHomeschool, which is Assistant Editor Alex King’s blog:
Although at first I had the temptation to spend this entire post discussing strange southern words [“Sweat Tea”], but I ran out of time. So instead, I’d like to turn your attention to an article that was released just yesterday. Entitled “Letter to the Editor”, this incredible treatise is cleverly disguised as correspondence to Virtue Magazine. Believe it or not, the author’s name was changed to nothing but, “Sweet Tea.” What a coincidence.
Ironically enough, Alex goes on to say: “Seriously though, if you’ve wondered how to respond to anti-war arguments, you need to read this.” I had to laugh. Ignoring arguments, doing no research, citing no sources or evidence, making statements already proven false and engaging in numerous logical fallacies is the way to respond to anti-war arguments, apparently. The pro-war camp must be in worse shape than I thought.
; )
I have to wonder what makes you so mad that you ruthlessly attempt to tear down anyone who opposes you. Rather than simply discussing Sweet Tea’s letter, you prefer to flame the author, the staff and even Virtue itself. What makes you so angry that you can’t even have a civil conversation?
I used to respect you and would have at least listened to your arguments. But after the way you continue to tear down other people – even your own colleagues – I must say, you have lost a great deal of my respect as a reader.
“I honestly believe I have already addressed this in those three long posts I made in this very thread on Nov. 5th. I don’t know if you’ve read it or not, James. If you have and you still feel the way you do then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.”
That is ruthlessly tearing down anyone who opposes me?
Rather than simply discussing Sweet Tea’s letter, you prefer to flame the author, the staff and even Virtue itself.
My comments have all been directed at ST’s article, with the exception of one joke about his name.
But after the way you continue to tear down other people – even your own colleagues – I must say, you have lost a great deal of my respect as a reader.
The only other “colleague” I have mentioned is the assistant editor—once I noted he put this so-called letter to the editor up as the feature article again (after it had been taken down by others), and once to merely quote something he posted on his blog admitting that this so-called letter to the editor is “cleverly disguised as correspondence to Virtue Magazine.” I don’t believe that qualifies as tearing down a person.
And I apologize for sounding “ruthless” and “angry.” That is not my intent. My intent is to try to hammer home the point that this “Letter to the Editor” is an extremely poor rebuttal, and the accusations it makes against me and my article (full of misconceptions, out-of-context quotes, opinion made to look like fact, no journalism ethics, bad ethics) are not true.
Thank you for saying that Derek! What you want to say will be better received if you change your tone.
To the clueless Derek Wallace
You quote bin Laden as saying:
“It is also clear that these people are
truly motivated by hate. Bin Laden himself
freely admitted this when he told Bergen
that ‘the hearts of Muslims are filled
with hatred toward the United States of
America and the American president [at
that time, Clinton].’”
In case you’re too inept to notice, ObL said “the USA”, not “the world”. (Or do naively and idiotically believe the US is the world?) If ObL is full of hate toward the rest of the world, how come he has never attacked anyone who didn’t attack muslims first? How come the only countries he targets are those that take part in the US’s colonialist mentality?
9/11 wasn’t an unprovoked assault, it was a response to the US’s own actions. You brought it on yourselves with your own foreign policy.
Bob Dog, I’m a bit puzzled at your response. You don’t seem to have read my article at all, since I take a similar position to the one you hold. In the very next paragraphs after the one you quoted, I write:
_But it is equally clear that President Bush and the neo-conservative war hawks either have no inkling of what actually motivates this hate, or they simply don’t care or don’t feel compelled to complicate the issue by telling the truth to the American people.
Bin Laden’s (and by extension, the terrorists and other Islamic extremists’) “beef” with the United States is really quite simple. National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru wrote that “the radical Islamists’ broader quarrel is with American power: not with the uses of that power, but with the fact of it.” But anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of the situation and is being honest with himself knows that Mr. Ponnuru has it exactly backwards._
There is not a person in the world today that can prove he is of the physical lineague of Abraham.
Yeah, this debate’s long over but I just wanted to note that THIS piece of information is, in fact, false. Through DNA analysis, they’ve been able to identify the Cohenim – the descendants of Aaron, positively. Just do a search on it…
Umm…I know this is REEEEEEEEEEEALLY late…but I didn’t see this response. O:-)
“SecDef, I’m having a little difficulty finding any source that says that over 250 generals/admirals endorsed Bush in ‘04.”
It was when General Tommy Franks (Ret.) endorsed President Bush. CNN transcript from the RNC:
“And each of us on this platform, along with countless others, including more than 250 retired admirals and generals, whose names you see on the screen behind me, stand united, united in the firm conviction that the best way to defend America today is to stand by a resolute commander in chief and reelect George W. Bush.
And now I am honored to introduce a recent addition to our group, a highly decorated and widely respected retired general from the United States Army, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, the man who led our forces to victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, General Tommy Franks!”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/02/se.01.html
I watched this and have it on tape, too. :D
And for the record, 12 retired generals and admirals endorsed Kerry at the DNC. :) Kerry claimed that he had 100 others who he would reveal, but I cant find any record of him revealing them. ;)
“That doesn’t mean as much as you probably would like to think it does, though. The military is known to vote Republican,”
I wonder why they vote Republican. :)
“and many people in the military undoubtedly hold incorrect views on U.S. interference in foreign affairs.”
An ‘ad hom’ attack against the military without proof. :P I suppose that General Odem holds “correct” views while General Franks holds “incorrect” views?
“There are many military figures who also oppose the war in Iraq, including former Sec. of Navy (under Reagan) and decorated Marine Veteran James Webb, and (the now deceased) Col. David Hackworth. Even more people like Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf toe the line, but have expressed and continue to express definite reservations about even going into Iraq in the first place.”
...and there are many more who support it. :) And General Schwarzkopf’s stance doesn’t surprise me too much. You may be interested to know that he consideres Samaritan’s Purse a radical right-wing organzation (because they sent Arabic Bibles to US troops in the Persian Gulf War suggesting that they ask their Saudi counterparts to help them read them :D).
So yeah…sorry its so late…but just saw this now. :D
Thanks for the comment and providing the source SecDef! I’m thinking it’s about time to write another article about the war in Iraq soon. Hopefully it’ll spark another 80+ comments.
:D
ROFL! :D
Derek, you’re a fine writer with a tremendous gift for gab—particularly for someone of your age—though your Osama quotes don’t offer anything other than the fact that the man hates us, and does so without meaningful specificity. Your argument’s great on the high school level, but it won’t wash beyond undergraduate school without serious polishing. Best of luck, at any rate.