Was Jesus a conservative? or a republican?

[JackRT]

Jesus did say it. Paul did not. IF paul said it, it would not be God's word. It would be pauls word. But I know what you mean.

Paul said it.

 

[RDKirk]

israel does assassinations on hamas all the time.

Back in the 70s and 80s, we used to be regularly astounded by Israel's military feats in all areas. One time the killed a Hamas operative by discovering his supply line for his burner cell phones. They planted explosives in a phone (or maybe a number of them), let the supply line get it into his possession, then dialed him up and blew his head off.

Of course, there were also tight operations like the rescue of the hostages at Entebbe and the attack on the Osirik nuclear power plant construction.

But one thing we keep in mind is that Israel has, respectively, a very, very much smaller operational space and intelligence problem than the US, and its facets rarely change.

For instance, the various tribal and family groups of Hamas have been the same for a thousand of years. Once they know one Palestinian family tree and its connections, the players aren't going to change--and they've know those for decades at this point. That makes intelligence gathering much, much easier. Intelligence garnered from a source twenty years ago is still good today. And the Hamas operating areas are not closed, as is North Korea, for instance. There's no DMZ to deal with.

The physical area of operations for Israel is tiny. Easy to monitor, easy to strike from home ground to target within a very short period of time when a target is identified. The US can do that too when the when the operational space comparably small, as US forces did with drone assassinations in Afghanistan. A small problem and small operational space also worked to the favor of the US when searching for Saddam Hussein. US military intelligence on the scene was able to trace all the members of Saddam's tribe and family and concentrate surveillance on those individuals.

So basically, once you account for the huge difference in the scale of the problem, Israeli successes are impressive...but not awesome. But the problem for the US is worldwide in scale and scope.

 

[jgarden]

The Believers Share Their Possessions (Acts 4:31-35)

31) After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
32) All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
33) With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all
34) that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
35) and put it at the apostles and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

- they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly

- all the believers were one in heart and mind

- no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own,

- they shared everything they had

- there were no needy persons among them

- it (money) was distributed to anyone who had need
***********************************************************
If they had been conservatives/Republicans. the wealthiest "Believers" would have rejected the idea of sharing as socialism/communism and criticized those less fortunate members as lazy and unmotivated.

The richest "Believers" would have voted themselves a "tax cut" and then transferred the responsibility for its financing onto the backs of the poorer "Believers!"

 

[createdtoworship]

Half of America's enemy leaders actually work for them. Why would they assassinate them? They generate fear and more military funding.

a high profile believer in islam posted this in 2012 (she is now a democrat congresswoman in the united states), and remember whenever a terrorist blows themself up, or commits mass murder, they scream allah akbar. And note this has been trending on twitter for about a week now, and she never removed it. Still proud of it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Paul said it.

paul was just a pen, Jesus was the author.

 

[createdtoworship]

Back in the 70s and 80s, we used to be regularly astounded by Israel's military feats in all areas. One time the killed a Hamas operative by discovering his supply line for his burner cell phones. They planted explosives in a phone (or maybe a number of them), let the supply line get it into his possession, then dialed him up and blew his head off.

Of course, there were also tight operations like the rescue of the hostages at Entebbe and the attack on the Osirik nuclear power plant construction.

But one thing we keep in mind is that Israel has, respectively, a very, very much smaller operational space and intelligence problem than the US, and its facets rarely change.

For instance, the various tribal and family groups of Hamas have been the same for a thousand of years. Once they know one Palestinian family tree and its connections, the players aren't going to change--and they've know those for decades at this point. That makes intelligence gathering much, much easier. Intelligence garnered from a source twenty years ago is still good today. And the Hamas operating areas are not closed, as is North Korea, for instance. There's no DMZ to deal with.

The physical area of operations for Israel is tiny. Easy to monitor, easy to strike from home ground to target within a very short period of time when a target is identified. The US can do that too when the when the operational space comparably small, as US forces did with drone assassinations in Afghanistan. A small problem and small operational space also worked to the favor of the US when searching for Saddam Hussein. US military intelligence on the scene was able to trace all the members of Saddam's tribe and family and concentrate surveillance on those individuals.

So basically, once you account for the huge difference in the scale of the problem, Israeli successes are impressive...but not awesome. But the problem for the US is worldwide in scale and scope.

osama bin laden would disagree that we cannot assasinate.

 

[RDKirk]

osama bin laden would disagree that we cannot assasinate.

It took two decades of effort to finally get to Osama bin Laden. We even missed him at least twice, and only got him the last time through a bit of serendipity.

I'm sorry you didn't grasp my post.

You seem to think the US can reach out and assassinate anyone anytime at will. No, the US cannot do that.

 

[createdtoworship]

It took two decades of effort to finally get to Osama bin Laden. We even missed him at least twice, and only got him the last time through a bit of serendipity.

I'm sorry you didn't grasp my post.

You seem to think the US can reach out and assassinate anyone anytime at will. No, the US cannot do that.

I never said the words "at any time."

please re-read my posts.

I said that assassination is easier than war and that it should be preferred. It saves money and lives. the CIA is in control of intelligence operations including the killing of osama bin laden. They are very effective at what they do. But if you disagree with what I said, you would in essence be agreeing that starting a war is more moral than simply assassinating an individual, or at worst in the case of an invasion or nuclear war, bombing the entire city of an enemy's capital. Versus spending billions in dollars in mobilizing tanks and infantry and mobile units into foreign soil, risking both the lives of our men and risking our machinery.

 

[JackRT]

I never said the words "at any time."

please re-read my posts.

I said that assassination is easier than war and that it should be preferred. It saves money and lives. the CIA is in control of intelligence operations including the killing of osama bin laden. They are very effective at what they do. But if you disagree with what I said, you would in essence be agreeing that starting a war is more moral than simply assassinating an individual, or at worst in the case of an invasion or nuclear war, bombing the entire city of an enemy's capital. Versus spending billions in dollars in mobilizing tanks and infantry and mobile units into foreign soil, risking both the lives of our men and risking our machinery.

In WW2 the USA proposed assassinating Hitler but Winston Churchill vetoed it. I think he was right. When we go out to fight monsters we had best be careful that we don't become monsters ourselves. In the late 60s I met a man who operated as an assassin in Viet Nam --- he went in to an area to take out a specified target. He could not live with what he had done and committed suicide. I understand that is now becoming a problem with drone "pilots".

 

[createdtoworship]

In WW2 the USA proposed assassinating Hitler but Winston Churchill vetoed it. I think he was right. When we go out to fight monsters we had best be careful that we don't become monsters ourselves. In the late 60s I met a man who operated as an assassin in Viet Nam --- he went in to an area to take out a specified target. He could not live with what he had done and committed suicide. I understand that is now becoming a problem with drone "pilots".

so it is far better, to kill thousands than to kill 1?

 

[JackRT]

so it is far better, to kill thousands than to kill 1?

That is what it comes down to isn't it? To murder or to murder?

 

[timothyu]

so it is far better, to kill thousands than to kill 1?

Churchill had the right idea, as far as leadership thought. If you give society the idea that wiping out any unscrupulous leader was ok, there soon wouldn't be any leaders left.

 

[RDKirk]

I never said the words "at any time."

please re-read my posts.

I said that assassination is easier than war and that it should be preferred. It saves money and lives.

Those blanket statements make it sound like you think it's a common alternative. My point is that it's not.

the CIA is in control of intelligence operations including the killing of osama bin laden. They are very effective at what they do.

Actually, the military did that, not the CIA. Also the military made the two earlier attempts, not the CIA. As for the CIA being "very effective at what they do"...well, you wouldn't think so if you knew how often they've botched it. More often failed than not.

But if you disagree with what I said, you would in essence be agreeing that starting a war is more moral than simply assassinating an individual, or at worst in the case of an invasion or nuclear war, bombing the entire city of an enemy's capital. Versus spending billions in dollars in mobilizing tanks and infantry and mobile units into foreign soil, risking both the lives of our men and risking our machinery.

No. I'm not arguing it's more moral. I'm arguing that assassination is not easy, usually not possible.

 

[createdtoworship]

Those blanket statements make it sound like you think it's a common alternative. My point is that it's not.



Actually, the military did that, not the CIA. Also the military made the two earlier attempts, not the CIA. As for the CIA being "very effective at what they do"...well, you wouldn't think so if you knew how often they've botched it. More often failed than not.



No. I'm not arguing it's more moral. I'm arguing that assassination is not easy, usually not possible.

but you being a simple soldier in the military I am sure would not know the exact details of the osama kill mission. Nor the in's and outs of military intelligence, I would assume. but I could be wrong. See as you guys are sounding, it's not the difficulty of the assassination, it's that you are killing. Or rather murdering. But as an alternative you justify murdering tens of thousands. Which is why I am confused.

 

[createdtoworship]

Churchill had the right idea, as far as leadership thought. If you give society the idea that wiping out any unscrupulous leader was ok, there soon wouldn't be any leaders left.

wow, so I guess my greatest fear is correct here, you actually believe a war is more moral than a simple assassination. Neither are good things, but we as christians are to do the most moral thing possible given the situation. If it came down to losing a city due to a dirty suitcase nuke that someone smuggled into the US, or an assassination of the leader of the terror cell. You would assassinate yes, or would you let him murder thousands? Because that blood would be on your hands to, you would be an accessory to the murder.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is what it comes down to isn't it? To murder or to murder?

yes, see my last post for more clarity.

 

[RDKirk]

In WW2 the USA proposed assassinating Hitler but Winston Churchill vetoed it. I think he was right. When we go out to fight monsters we had best be careful that we don't become monsters ourselves. In the late 60s I met a man who operated as an assassin in Viet Nam --- he went in to an area to take out a specified target. He could not live with what he had done and committed suicide. I understand that is now becoming a problem with drone "pilots".

The US doesn't have an issue with taking out a leader in war if it's possible. Back in WWII there was still a lot of naivete on a lot of issues. Did you know that prior to WWII, a leader being discovered to have had his intelligence keep track of another country's navy was considered an act of war?

I can guarantee you that the US would have killed Ho Chi Minh if it had been possible. I'm sure of that because the US has admitted to sending Special Forces to kill other North Vietnamese high-ranking officials, when it appeared possible.

And I was part of the effort to find and target Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf war. If we'd found his RV, we'd have put a Tomahawk on it.

What becomes a problem for drone pilots is three-fold.

One is that up until very recently, drone pilots were fighter pilots. They became fighter pilots because they dreamed of flying airplanes. And at this point, the Air Force hasn't shaped its career paths to make a fighter pilot who has been diverted into the drone program competitive to pilots who have actually been flying planes.

A second part of that problem is that, yes, a moral man does find it hard to continue zero-risk killing. Drone attacks are different from what the military has done before, and I felt a bit of it in the Persian Gulf war. Historically, either war killing is done on a playing ground where you have a significant chance of being killed, or on a playing ground where you are totally remote from seeing who you may or may not have killed.

As one Vietnam war close-air-support pilot told me, "I never saw anybody I shot at. I just put the 'pipper' on the coordinate they told me." That was true of bomber pilots: Just press the button where you're told to drop the bombs. You never see the death. You never know the victims.

So war killing until now was a matter of either being in a kill-or-be-killed situation or being totally removed from it.

Drone attacks, though, mean you see the man you kill. In fact, you have probably been surveiling him for some time. You know his wife by sight. You know how many kids he's got. You've seen him kiss his wife goodbye. You've seen him hug his little girl. And when you're told to kill him, he won't know what happened. You weren't put into a kill-or-be-killed situation, nor was it a completely removed and anonymous situation.

I caught a bit of that in the Persian Gulf war when we got back bomb camera film of targets I'd designated and I could see men running for their lives from the attacking aircraft, diving into a bunker--not realizing it was the very bunker I'd marked for destruction. And so, yeah, I got that "I killed that guy" chill time and again. The pilot didn't see him, but I saw him.

The third part is that with drone warfare, it becomes a military habit. Pressing the "smite" button becomes military routine. At first, it was the head terrorist--so he deserved smiting.

But then, the military has to do what it does. So after a while you're going after the second in command. And then by the end of the year, you're hitting the guy who drops the nephew of his third cousin off at the masjid. And there is almost always "collateral damage." The wife you'd been watching as she hung the laundry to dry. The kids you've watch playing day after day.

I remember about a year after the Persian Gulf war, one of my troops had one day identified a "possible military truck park" a number of trucks in a particular area of Iraq near an oasis. The next day, that spot was a charred mass of truck rubble.

These days an oasis is like a major truck stop. It's got a motel, some kind of store, a restaurant, a mosque, et cetra. Everyone and anyone stops at an oasis. People hold weddings at the nearby oasis. And Bedouins these days drive trucks.

So when my troop saw that the "possible military truck park" he'd reported was charred rubble the next day, he looked at me and said, "But we didn't know for sure what that was."

 

[JackRT]

Drone attacks, though, mean you see the man you kill. In fact, you have probably been surveiling him for some time. You know his wife by sight. You know how many kids he's got. You've seen him kiss his wife goodbye. You've seen him hug his little girl. And when you're told to kill him, he won't know what happened. You weren't put into a kill-or-be-killed situation, nor was it a completely removed and anonymous situation.

And as often as not the drone took out his wife and family and perhaps a few bystanders as well --- and a whole new generation of people who hate us is created.

 

[timothyu]

wow, so I guess my greatest fear is correct here, you actually believe a war is more moral than a simple assassination.

I said that was a leaders viewpoint. They know their own days would be numbered otherwise.

 

[createdtoworship]

The US doesn't have an issue with taking out a leader in war if it's possible. Back in WWII there was still a lot of naivete on a lot of issues. Did you know that prior to WWII, a leader being discovered to have had his intelligence keep track of another country's navy was considered an act of war?

I can guarantee you that the US would have killed Ho Chi Minh if it had been possible. I'm sure of that because the US has admitted to sending Special Forces to kill other North Vietnamese high-ranking officials, when it appeared possible.

And I was part of the effort to find and target Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf war. If we'd found his RV, we'd have put a Tomahawk on it.

What becomes a problem for drone pilots is three-fold.

One is that up until very recently, drone pilots were fighter pilots. They became fighter pilots because they dreamed of flying airplanes. And at this point, the Air Force hasn't shaped its career paths to make a fighter pilot who has been diverted into the drone program competitive to pilots who have actually been flying planes.

A second part of that problem is that, yes, a moral man does find it hard to continue zero-risk killing. Drone attacks are different from what the military has done before, and I felt a bit of it in the Persian Gulf war. Historically, either war killing is done on a playing ground where you have a significant chance of being killed, or on a playing ground where you are totally remote from seeing who you may or may not have killed.

As one Vietnam war close-air-support pilot told me, "I never saw anybody I shot at. I just put the 'pipper' on the coordinate they told me." That was true of bomber pilots: Just press the button where you're told to drop the bombs. You never see the death. You never know the victims.

So war killing until now was a matter of either being in a kill-or-be-killed situation or being totally removed from it.

Drone attacks, though, mean you see the man you kill. In fact, you have probably been surveiling him for some time. You know his wife by sight. You know how many kids he's got. You've seen him kiss his wife goodbye. You've seen him hug his little girl. And when you're told to kill him, he won't know what happened. You weren't put into a kill-or-be-killed situation, nor was it a completely removed and anonymous situation.

I caught a bit of that in the Persian Gulf war when we got back bomb camera film of targets I'd designated and I could see men running for their lives from the attacking aircraft, diving into a bunker--not realizing it was the very bunker I'd marked for destruction. And so, yeah, I got that "I killed that guy" chill time and again. The pilot didn't see him, but I saw him.

The third part is that with drone warfare, it becomes a military habit. Pressing the "smite" button becomes military routine. At first, it was the head terrorist--so he deserved smiting.

But then, the military has to do what it does. So after a while you're going after the second in command. And then by the end of the year, you're hitting the guy who drops the nephew of his third cousin off at the masjid. And there is almost always "collateral damage." The wife you'd been watching as she hung the laundry to dry. The kids you've watch playing day after day.

I remember about a year after the Persian Gulf war, one of my troops had one day identified a "possible military truck park" a number of trucks in a particular area of Iraq near an oasis. The next day, that spot was a charred mass of truck rubble.

These days an oasis is like a major truck stop. It's got a motel, some kind of store, a restaurant, a mosque, et cetra. Everyone and anyone stops at an oasis. People hold weddings at the nearby oasis. And Bedouins these days drive trucks.

So when my troop saw that the "possible military truck park" he'd reported was charred rubble the next day, he looked at me and said, "But we didn't know for sure what that was."

thank you for your service, my father was a sergeant major in the marine corps, buried in arlington. I respect those who risk their lives for others. Please don't be offended by the view I propose that shrinking the military makes fiscal and moral sense. It's nothing against you personally.