The thread about the 3 Christian girls beheaded in Indonesia got me thinking. If you lived in a part of the world where followers of your religion were under constant and vicious attack, at what point would you feel justified in taking the fight to the attackers. I am not saying in "immediate self defense situation" but in a more pre-emptive strike like situation. Make sense?

For me a pre-emptive\counter stirke would have to come at the request of my local religious leaders. If I knew of an immediate attack that was going to take place and the only way to stop it would be to hit them first, that would change things a bit. Don't know if I would wait for the go ahead.

Thoughts?

For disscussion sake let's say it is a 3rd world country and the local authorities do little or nothing to help.

ETA: spelling

The Crusades were a great idea that was poorly planned and equiped.



This time I say we equipe them better and take the attack to them since they already attacked first.

Technically, one should never make a pre-emptive strike in the name of religion. But in reality, when your foe is using terrorist tactics to kill innocents, then it is justified. Granted, it's not really the Christians vs. Islamics here. But it IS the civilized world vs. islamic extremists (and their lap dog liberal dupes).

Quoted: . But in reality, when your foe is using terrorist tactics to kill innocents, then it is justified.

If they are already attacking then it isn't pre-emptive is it?

Quoted: The thread about the 3 Christian girls beheaded in Indonesia got me thinking. If you lived in a part of the world where followers of your religion were under constant and vicious attack, at what point would you feel justified in taking the fight to the attackers. I am not saying in "immediate self defense situation" but in a more pre-emptive strike like situation. Make sense? For me a pre-emptive\counter stirke would have to come at the request of my local religious leaders. If I knew of an immediate attack that was going to take place and the only way to stop it would be to hit them first, that would change things a bit. Don't know if I would wait for the go ahead. Thoughts? For disscussion sake let's say it is a 3rd world country and the local authorities do little or nothing to help. ETA: spelling

So, you are saying that the world needs a new set of violent religious extremists?  Give Bin Laden a call. Maybe you can pool your resources.

What would make you different from any other terrorist group that feels justified in its actions?  

Quoted: What would make you different from any other terrorist group that feels justified in its actions?

Because terroist are killing innocents while we would be killing the terrorist attacking the innocents.

It really is not that hard to understand and I am surprised how few people grasp this simple concept.

The term pre-emptive in this context is pretty loose. The meaning was more not-a-revenge-attack-but-not-quite-immediate-self-defense-attack. And this is not on a global scale. I am talking your area. I am not taking a local incident that happedned 5K miles away in another country and using it to justify kicking your neighbors dog.

Quoted: Quoted: What would make you different from any other terrorist group that feels justified in its actions?   Because terroist are killing innocents while we would be killing the terrorist attacking the innocents. It really is not that hard to understand and I am surprised how few people grasp this simple concept.

No, it is you who fails to grasp that individuals who go hunting those that threaten their religion on command of "local religious leaders" are in fact TERRORISTS.  

You are no more a judge of the virtue of your own groups actions than Bin Laden is a worthy judge of Al Qaeda's virtue.

Quoted: No, it is you who fails to grasp that individuals who go hunting those that threaten their religion on command of "local religious leaders" are in fact TERRORISTS.   You are no more a judge of the virtue of your own groups actions than Bin Laden is a worthy judge of Al Qaeda's virtue.

No one is threathening Muslims on this planet.

But Muslims ARE threathening Christians and other muslims.

it's like this.  If you approach me with a knife with intent to harm me then I will defend myself.  My defense is not a terrorist act, but the knife holders actions were.


it really is simple.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What would make you different from any other terrorist group that feels justified in its actions?   Because terroist are killing innocents while we would be killing the terrorist attacking the innocents. It really is not that hard to understand and I am surprised how few people grasp this simple concept. No, it is you who fails to grasp that individuals who go hunting those that threaten their religion on command of "local religious leaders" are in fact TERRORISTS.   You are no more a judge of the virtue of your own groups actions than Bin Laden is a worthy judge of Al Qaeda's virtue.

Ehhhhhhh... I don't quite agree. Let's look at Speilberg's new movie "Munich" for instance. He tries to paint the picture that there is little difference between terrorists and those who seek to dole-out justice upon those who commit acts of terror. BULL! Terrorists kill innocents. These people hunted-down and killed those who do such evil acts. There is a HUGE difference between them. I DO agree with your sentiment that you don't run around killing people because your religious leader tells you to. That's EXACTLY what the militant islamics do. But if they have spilled innocent blood, then you are only bringing them to justice (by death) by hunting them down. Maybe we're splitting hairs here. But there is a HUGE difference between MURDER (of innocent blood) and killing those who have killed or are planning to kill innocents.

What is everyones opinion about what is happening to the kids in sudan. I feel that instead of inporting these people to our country we should possibly help them defend there own land. I feel that it is there home and they shouldnt have to come here and be refugees.

As far as lethal force in the defense of religion its wrong. But lethal force to protect your rights to survival is more than justifyable.

If your religious leaders are telling you to kill people then they are not familiar with their own religion and it's a sign you just might be in a radical cult.

Quoted: What is everyones opinion about what is happening to the kids in sudan. I feel that instead of inporting these people to our country we should possibly help them defend there own land. I feel that it is there home and they shouldnt have to come here and be refugees. As far as lethal force in the defense of religion its wrong. But lethal force to protect your rights to survival is more than justifyable.

I would agree that we should do what we can to help defend those in the Sudan. BUT... you won't find many to share those views. Most think that we are to defend ourselves, but that we shouldn't be risking lives to defend non-Americans. I can certainly see that point-of-view. But I've always felt that "where much is given, much is expected" and that the Lord expects us to help those less fortunate and to defend the weak as we are able. That's tough though because you're asking the parents of our servicemen and women to allow their children to be sent into harm's way for something that has nothing to do with America's security (directly, anyways). But if I had Bill Gates' wealth, I'd be VERY tempted to hire a large and skilled mercenary force to go into the Sudan and protect the victims of genocide and be an "equalizer" there. I realize that's a pie-in-the-sky notion that has it's thorny points. But I'd try and do SOMETHING to help those people nonetheless.

And I agree that it's really all-about self-defense here. By chasing-down and killing those who've committed murder against innocents you are defending yourself against future attacks by those same murderers. Call it revenge, punishment, or whatever... but the fact is that killing terrorists makes a world with one less terrorist. People can say that it creates more terrorists, but I think that's a naive notion in this day and age. Obviously, leaving them alone did NOTHING for our security. They are like vermin and much be hunted-down and killed. A rat is no less dangerous if you choose to ignore it.

Quoted: If your religious leaders are telling you to kill people then they are not familiar with their own religion and it's a sign you just might be in a radical cult.

Go away...

well if nothing else I think the sudanese should at least have some sort of arms or somthing to protet themselves. In my opionion money is better spend giving them a means for protecting themselves rather than displacing them across the globe (AKA Jewish people). I think that too little is being done to help them where as too much is being done for other nations with somwhat fewer problems. I dont know if it is racism or a lack of compassion or that they arnt a geopolitical place of importance like Iraq with its oil.

Im not saying mobilize the military to fight anothers war but maybe offer assistance to those who need help. Religion shouldnt matter but protecting the minority does, example muslims of Bosnia.

Quoted: Quoted: If your religious leaders are telling you to kill people then they are not familiar with their own religion and it's a sign you just might be in a radical cult. hr

Sorry if you feel that way, but I don't think that abandoning the principles of your chosen religion (whether it be Christianity, Islam, or whatever) and choosing to listen to "religious leaders" who tell you what to do (including pre-emptive killing) is the mark of a true adherent of the religion.  This is what bin Laden, Eric Rudolph, terrorists, extremists, etc do.

Lethal Force in Defense of Religion

You mean "the lesser jihad"

- Depending on what denomination you belong to, there is very little chance that your leaders will instruct you to do such a thing.  Most of them will be looking to the government for leadership.  Most of the poeple in governement will not have the courage to do what is needed.  It will more than likely depend more on your ability to exercise correct judgement to ensure your survival and the survival of your family than anything else.  

- Everybody has a line, which, if crossed, will motivate them to pick up a rifle and shoot back, or shoot forward to prevent the line from being crossed again.  You should know now where that line is for you, before it gets crossed.  

- The definition of war has changed over the centuries, and will continue to change.  It will become accepted that the many conflicts worldwide started by radical islamists is war.  

- It is impossible to win a war by playing defense.  

grommet

Quoted: Quoted: What would make you different from any other terrorist group that feels justified in its actions?   Because terroist are killing innocents while we would be killing the terrorist attacking the innocents. It really is not that hard to understand and I am surprised how few people grasp this simple concept.

They hide amongst the general population. How you will you sort the lambs from the goats?  Especially when many of the lambs are giving support to the goats?

Do you kill those who are giving them aid as well?

How do you distinguish between people who knowlingly donate to terrorist organizations and those who give to their Mosque or local charity and it finds its way into terrorist coffers?

If it were a simple concept, then there wouldn't be any terrorists, they would have been stamped out ages ago.

The fact that you think its a simple concept worries me just a bit.    To an extremist the world is very simple.    They see things as black and white, good and evil.    Real life is seldom that simple.

The truth is the only solutions that will stamp out terrorism are not palatable to us.   We would need to do the same thing to the Arabic people's that we did to the Native Americans.   Destroy their economic base and leave them starving and beaten, so fearful of our retaliation that they wouldn't dare to attack us again.    Instituting a system of collective responsibility will work, if you have the will to push it through and don't balk at killing innocent men, women, and children.   The effect it would have on our soldiers and our nation would be catastrophic imo.

Its not going to happen in this day and age, and I can't say I'm too sorry about that.

Carpet bombing of areas were support is given.

Arabs understand positions of strenght.

Quoted: Carpet bombing of areas were support is given. Arabs understand positions of strenght.

Good idea.
Instead of fixing the issues we have long term, lets just give them something else to add to their cultural memory.
How about we just keep doing what we are doing in Iraq.
Pres. Bush's plan is working very well - and it is above all else a long term fix.

Quoted: The Crusades were a great idea that was poorly planned and equiped. This time I say we equipe them better and take the attack to them since they already attacked first.

What, exactly, do you think we're doing?
Matt

Quoted: Carpet bombing of areas were support is given. Arabs understand positions of strenght.

we don't indiscriminately target civilians anymore,  you want to wind up with another Veitnam in fact (as opposed to liberal fantasy) then push for carpet bombing.