MAD-TAT All Americans are probably a bit apprehensive today, the anniversary of the 9-11 the terror attacks by radical Islamic monsters. I try not to watch reruns of the atrocities complete with people jumping out of 14th floor windows to their certain death, and babies being pulled from the rubble. I do not like to watch the horrific old newsreels the liberation of death camps by US and allied forces either. But for a different reason. The piles of Skeletonized bodies Auschwitz, mans inhumanity to man, the depths of depravity that man sinks to when not guided by principles like those taught by Jesus Christ are my reason for not watching. And it’s the scale of the atrocity offends me. However the reasons I avoid watching media about 9-11 is different. I don’t want to see women and men jumping from the windows as I said, nor do I want to see the towers fall knowing thousands of innocent people are dieing being slaughtered by fire and crush injures, that some of them will be alive suffering their injuries entombed alive in the massive pile of rubble, most of them alone until they die of pain or any awful thing one cares to imagine! Then to think that this was intentional. Carried out by sub-human monsters just at Auschwitz, Dachau, or Treblinka. The only difference was the radical Muslim terrorists hide behind a perverted version of the Koran instead of a Swastika and Mein Kampf. The other reason I don’t watch the 9/11 docudramas is that I become so angry that I want to volunteer for the military (Army) reserves in the hopes of going to Afghanistan to hunt the remainder of the terrorists that were involved in 9/11 or that support those involved. I do not like to become that angry because its toxic and dangrous. Lastly the title of this thread, ie MAD-TAT means Mutual Assured Destruction To All Terrorists. The policy would not go into effect until everyone in the world knows what it is and what it means. MADTAT means if we are attacked again in an 9/11 style attack the US Military (and anyone that would join us) would support killing all of them*. No exceptions, zero tolerance, no quarter asked or given. I am takling about total warfare enhanced. I do mean total war even if it bankrupts the USA or starts WW3 we should use 100% of our military options and resources to hunt down and kill every terrorist, radical Muslim or otherwise, and those that support them, and those that aid or give comfort to them, even those that befriend them. A fight to the death so to speak. If we do not get all of them the first time around and later another snake sticks its head off, the policy world be the same cut its head off. Yes that is sick, its nasty it’s awful and I believe its necessary for our survival, you see I believe the radicals when they say they want to convert the world or destroy it. They call us the greater Satan, (Israel is the lesser Satan). I call the radicalized form of Islam the greatest threat to free people on earth in history, and should be cut out and disposed of like the cancer it is. Terrorists are a military organizations fighting a war, therefore MADTAT would be a military operation. Rev A
We do not have the economic or military resources to do what you suggest. Even if it were ethical (seriously, there are plenty of 'terrorist supporters' who are mostly just citizens who live in areas controlled by governments who sponsor terrorists), it is not actually possible to do. It's also rather unethical to engage in a war without being willing to accept surrender or quarter.
i'm all for murdering the bastards and using their guts to grease the treads of our tanks, but lets define who's a terrorist first?
Yes that is a problem. Members of non state sponsored terrorism, such would be difficult but not impossible to find. The purveyors of 9/11 were not too difficult to ferret out. If a nuclear device went off and no one took responsibility wouldnt that destroy the goal of the terrorists? I will agree that the entire thing could backfire horribly. If the terrorists felt there was no chance of them winning the struggle, or getting their way, they may decide to use everything at their disposal to destroy the target. As it stands now they are like all parasites, they do not want to kill the host, no they want to the host to live so it can change (convert) or do its bidding. However something radical must be done. I feel that the USA can not and should not change to the degree the radical Islamic want. And I believe their real goal is to convert the world to a Shari law governed Islamic theocracy. Rev A
Oh I think the resources are there but as I said we may bankrupt our nation by using them to the extent that I suggest. Maybe it would not be a good idea to use the MADTAT for anything other than a nuclear attack. If a nuclear device were exploded over wall st and another one or two a mile or so in the atmosphere, the EMP wave would shut down most communications as well as destroy electronics in cars trucks trains etc, almost nation wide. Maybe it would be unethical and immoral to use such overwhelming force, maybe not. Its not something that I say lightly, but what else can we do? I feel we are out of options. Rev A
Only if Israel attacked us in a terrorist fashion. I would guess that Israel would be our ally. Rev A
I generally agree with your hate for terrorism but you do not seem to have a good grasp of history or realistic definition of terrorism. 1) Auschwitz: The Catholic Church condoned and befriended and supported Hitler. A little talked about phase of WWII was when the Catholic Croations committed genocide on the Orthadox Serbs with full support of the Catholic Church. This is one of the reasons why that blood fued continues today. During the war in Yugoslavia .. which side were we on ? If you guessed Croatia you are correct. The side of the terrorists. 2) We have supported terrorism and befriended terrorists on numerous occasions. Suharto against East Timor and Duarte in El Salvador are examples. Suharto (Indonesia) invaded sovereign (East Timor), a nation of Islanders. Suharto had a modern army equiped and backed by the US. East Timor was equiped with sticks and stones essentially. Over a decade or so Suharto wiped out 1/3 of the population of this Island nation.. and we supported him through the whole process. Duarte committed some of the most horrible attrocities, including killing arch-Bishop Romero, Catholic nuns, and hundreds of other attrocities. His troops liked to drag children over barbed wire in front of their parents prior to killing them and do other stuff that makes the Nazi's and Saddam seem compassionate in comparison. Note only did we train his troops but also sent Duarte loads of aid and money. I think you need to better define your terms unless you want to start going after Pentagon Retirees, ex presidential and military staff, CIA .. and so on: Supporters of Terrorism should then only refer to acts of terrorism against the US and not refer to terrorism in general and not to acts of terrorism that we have supported.
We flat out do not have the money or the military muscle to do it. We could go bankrupt trying to do it and we would still fail to make it work. Well beyond the capabilities of terrorists. The threat of EMPs is also vastly misunderstood by the public. There would be problems, but not likely as extensive as commonly believed. A lot of items are unintentionally hardened or resistant to such attacks either by nature of their design or by virtue of where they're installed, but no one bothers to test everything to find out the exact degree of vulnerability. To some degree this is true, but the hard data on actual EMP vulnerability is lacking. How is nuking a bunch of random and uninvolved people a valid response to a nuclear attack by terrorists? Suppose there's a city of three million people, and two dozen terrorists there planned an executed a nuclear attack on the United States. How is it in any way justifiable to nuke that city? That's killing millions and millions of people who had nothing to do with the plan, and who could not have reasonably done anything to stop it. Military options don't make sense as counterattacks against terrorists. Militaries are intended for dealing with nations, not small groups of terrorists. There's a huge question of proportionality involved.
Perhaps you did not understand my thread? As I said in the thread ; "MADTAT means if we are attacked again in an 9/11 style attack the US Military (and anyone that would join us) would support killing all of them*. No exceptions, zero tolerance, no quarter asked or given." And all the while I was speaking of the 9/11 attack. I understand how you might have made the mistake. If you had only read the first paragraph or so it seems that I was saying all terrorists. However I meant those that attacked the USA. I will admit I was angry when I wrote it and should have taken more care. There was a reason that the Church did that and it has nothing to do with the love of Hitler, btw I am not Catholic and can say that the church throughout its history did some decidedly unsavory and awful things. Some of those other things in recent history are they helped some of the top SS and Nazi people get out of Germany by providing safe passage and forged papers and to other documents. That is a black eye on the catholic church and I am very happy that the southern Baptists didnt have a hand in it! Ha ha. However, I dont see how those facts relates to your claims that I do not have a good grasp of history or that I have a problem defining terrorism. Maybe your knowledge of history is lacking. Or maybe you think I am a mind reader, but I am not, becasue I do not know which war you are refering to. There was a series of wars fought throughout the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1995. However I can try a guess to which war you were speaking of , and you are wrong, I was on the side of the Christians, even though that idiot Clinton sided with the Muslims. However both sides committed atrocities. Yes, and? I have said that all governments are evil by default, that is why embrace the church as my ultimate authority, not the government. BTW, the USA made Ben Laden, so what? Again if you had read my entire thread (yes I know its wrong and structured in a confusing manner) When I say kill all terrorists you should know I mean all terrorists that attack the USA. That was what the thread was about. I did not mean to grab a history book that defines terrorists then mark them for death! NO I said if we (the USA) are attacked by terrorists in another 9-11 style attack we should hunt down every last one and kill them. More of the same! Please, see above. See above, the USA can not dictate the internal affairs of other nations nor the morals of other nations. Covert actions has always and will always be in the works of nations bar none. All nations are evil by default. However when someone attacks us we must begin to make them pay dearly, not just a slap on the wrist like Afghanistan. I am talking about total war total annihilation. See above. BTW I only use Nazis as companions because everyone knows who they are and their evilness. No one would say the death camps were run by nice Nazis etc. Again I said if the USA were to be attacked etc etc..I did not say we should start hunting terrorists of all flavors for no reason. MADTAT would not be employed UNTIL we were attacked in a 9/11 or larger SCALE terrorist attack. That is what I said. Next time you might want to ask me to clarify. I already knew that your terrorist is my freedom fighter! Still I dont know why you said my history learning was lacking etc Rev A
I don't think Jesus would ever call anybody subhuman, nor do I think He - who taught us to turn the other cheek - would call for war. The way Jesus would cope with terrorism would probably be more like the way Max Boon coped with it: Max Boon was seriously burned and wounded and lost both legs in the 2009 terrorist attack on Jakartas JW Marriott Hotel. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/06/28/max-boon-for-love-indonesia.html I find this man's attitude much more admirable than calling for more bloodshed. I only heard of him today when he was interviewed by AL Jazeera in a report on an Indonesian conference on how to tackle radicalism in which he took part. If the world had more of his kind it would be a better place.
Wouldn't WWIII kill more people than a terrorist attack? Just saying. Wouldn't bankrupting the US defeat the purpose? Just saying. Where they "radical Muslims"? Or a Muslims role model considering the Qur'an encouraging such behavior? Just saying.
With all due respect I am not Jesus. I agree up to a point. I believe that Jesus/God would allow a country to defend itself. If the old testament means anything there are many examples of how God conducts himself in regards to threats to the security of his people. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/06/28/max-boon-for-love-indonesia.html Yes as do I. However there is a thing called survival. If we do not stop those that are determined to eliminate Christianity and the western culture from the face of the earth we will go extinct and not survive as a culture or a religion. I do respect pacifists, however I am not a pacifist. Where does one draw the line? If pacifists ran the world what would have happened to the Jewish race? Do you think the Nazis would have ended their final solution of the Jewish race endeavor? No! Maybe I will be judged harshly by God for thinking and saying what I do. However if I acted like a lily white traditional Christian on this forum or in life while thinking and doing otherwise I would both be a liar and a hypocrite. I am not a liar nor a hypocrite. I do understand your concerns however at this time I can not meet the conditions of traditional Christianity which is one reason I do not preach, and as a substitute use the missions to witness and minister. Rev A
To be honest I wrote MADTAT our of anger and exasperation, not as a serious piece. I mean its not a well thought out piece and I could have wrote a better more realistic thread. However, surprisingly, it has served as a vehicle to discuss some problems that are important. Its not if WW3 would kill more people, its about the survival of western culture and or Christianity. I doubt that WW3 would happen and that exterminating the responsible terrorists would bankrupt the USA, its already bankrupt ha ha... Lastly the radical Muslims are those that use terror. Where are they? I would wager that we could get close enough with a ten megaton nuke to ferret them out (just kidding) The Koran does not advocate terror that is a misconception. It’s the clerics and other religious officials that interpret the Koran and issue decrees that the radical Muslims use as an excuse to slaughter innocent people. (I worded this thing strangely to keep from having to check for spelling, my sp check whacked) Rev A
No, but you brought Him up in your OP here and in previous conversations we had I got the impression the you strive to follow Him. Well, I'm sorry to tell you that in this OP you failed miserably in this task. To say that your 'political analysis' concerning the terrorist threat is exaggerated would be a vast understatement. But even if it wasn't: Did Jesus try to kill those who crucified Him or did he pray for them to be forgiven? If pacifists ran the world there would be no more war. Simple as that. It would probably be a state of affairs that comes close to Isaiah's vision: They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (Isaiah 2:4) You kind of preach on this forum, don't you? I don't know what you do in your missions, but if you want to fight terrorism, I suggest you trust in Christ, love your enemy and for example collect money to help the latest flood victims in Pakistan. That would do a lot more to prevent future attacks than any US-drones and bombs will.
Your judgment means very little to me. I do not consider your opinion important or even relevant. In addition I am only concerned with Gods judgment. In my masters (Jesus Christ) immortal words "remove the mote from your eye before attempting to remove the splinter from mine". Your incessant criticisms are like dog @#$% gnats buzzing around my ears, and you are starting to irritate me. I have tried to be nice but you seem to want some kind of confession from me that does not exist. I have already described why I wrote this thread and I have attempted to alleviate your fears that I am the devil incarnate masquerading as a minister. I have little patience for those that project the feel good I’m ok your ok cultural sentiments. They express anti-biblical clichés which claim that “a loving God” would never prosecute his anger toward mankind, even godless terrorists. I am fully aware of Jesus pacifist nature and I respect it for the time and circumstances that it was written. However today’s world is more like the time of Moses (who was a warrior which isn’t taught in many sermons!). In that age God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for many crimes (Exodus 21:12, 15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not in opposition to killing in all circumstances, but only murder. Jesus is God. I risk my soul by declaring that God would not support allowing unfettered genocide of his people or nation! God would be aghast if we sat on our weapon while a terrorist murdered every one in our sight. The same thing goes for larger examples. War is never a good thing, but sometimes it is a necessary thing. In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-1, (read murdering terrorists) war is inevitable. Sometimes, sadly the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm to the innocent is by going to war. I am sorry if you disagree but you might want to face reality some day, if so, with all due respect, start with Genesis. In the mean time, in the real world while your brothers and sisters are getting murdered in various terrorist ways you should defend yourself as per scripture. In other words do not beat all your weapons into plowshares until you are sure the enemy that has sworn on numerous occasions to destroy your entire country and its people has done the same. God isn't stupid nether am I. And its stupid to allow anyone or anything or anyone controlled by anything* to wantonly slaughter you or your loved ones, and your entire nation and religion (if they had the means) while doing nothing. I understand and even admire some types of pacifism. However taken to extremes it’s a kind of mental illness IMO. *(some of the terrorists are satanically influenced IMO) I am a Christian and I write threads and reply to posts as a Christian. If you want to call that preaching go ahead. However if you are saying I am preaching a sermon you are incorrect! I could send you a sermon and its entirely different animal. A lot of non Christians especially non believers (atheists) are baffled as to why I mention God and religion so much. They can not conceive that God is as real to me as your monitor and key pad or the president of the USA is to you. I answer in a Christian way in the same way a hard core republican would answer. I can almost guess how they will answer questions. it’s the same principle only enhanced about a thousand times. I don’t know what that gnat had to do with this thread (remember my thread?) however check with the Carter Counter County court clerk in Elizabethton TN, and you will find my church (ABOTCC) and missions (MOUNTAIN MANNA & MISSION OF THE CROSSES) listed as a non profit humanitarian entity. The church exists strictly to support the missions, it’s a office space and I was granted my first 501c tax exempt status for the church which was transferable to the Missions. The mission is an outreach to assist local needy citizens to access all sorts of basic humanitarian aid. We have an extreme need here in these mountains and the people are too proud to accept help in many cases. We also partner with second harvest food bank and donate if any funds are left over. As for international aid, yes there is a need but we take care of ours first. I hope this reply answers all your questions. Rev A
Of course like anything else on this forum my opinion isn't important. But I was under the impression that people post OP's here because they want others to comment on them. Feel free to ignore my comments, if you don't find them relevant. Very good Your master is also mine. Unfortunately this quote of His has been abused by many a Christian who didn't want to reflect on valid criticism, which is certainly not what Christ intended it for. It's an effect Christian pacifists tend to have on those who seek to justify war. I saw that you already admitted writing your OP in unreflected anger, hardly a Christian sentiment. And I certainly admired you for that confession. So why do you keep defending the nonsense you wrote? I don't even believe in the devil incarnate, let alone that it may be you. I do believe though that there's a devil/evil inside all of us, even those that call themselves ministers. It's our job to resist these tendencies to evil. Vengeance is mine speaks the Lord. Thus. I have very little patience for those who abuse the bible and His name to propagate hate and call for "total war". (By the way: did you use this famous Goebbels-phrase on purpose, or was that an unfortunate accident that should make you think)? So you, who've just called Christ your master, are suggesting that His teachings are outdated? Yes, the Lord as described in the Old Testament was a cruel and vengeful God. But already in the Old Testament he also reveals another side. For instance when David is told that he's not to build a house in the Lord's name because David has shed much blood and has fought many wars (1 Chronicles 22:. And finally the Lord revealed himself in Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. At the time Jesus taught there was as much violence and turmoil as in any other. And unlike people in Mosaic times we are lucky enough to know the New Testament. As for the larger examples you've mentioned. To compare the 9/11 attacks as horrible as they were - to genocide and the horrors of WWII either exaggerates one or diminishes the other. However, the spirit of Christ neither guided the bombing of Coventry, nor the bombing of Dresden. It is present though in that strong symbol for reconciliation, the cross of nails that is displayed in both cities (http://www.coventrycathedral.org.uk/about-us/our-reconciliation-ministry.php) Maybe you should care to have another look at Romans 3: 10-18 in its full context. It does not refer to terrorists but to all of us being sinners and it explicitly condemns the war and bloodshed we're so prone to call for. You may also note 3:8: Yet your statement that war may sometimes be necessary is worth an ethical debate. Karl Barth saw exceptional circumstances in which a Christian may stray from pacifism. Nonetheless his friend Bonhoeffer (not least because of Romans 3: suffered enormous internal struggles when he decided to take part in a plot to assassinate Hitler. I doubt very strongly though that either of these great theologians would support the notion that some terrorist attacks, however bad they may be, could ever justify a killing spree that would amount to WW III. There are far better ways to fight terrorism. Max Boon, whom I mentioned to begin with, is on the right track. You may want to call Jesus Christ mentally ill, but I won't. If I owned any weapons I hope I'd happily turn them into plowshares, because that's what He would want (Matthew 5:9: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.). In the real world while there can never be such a thing as 100% safety, there isn't a terrorist lurking behind every bush. Relax! Even if there was, military experts will tell you that you can't fight terrorists in a conventional war with a conventional army. It's sad that Bush thus increased terrorism rather than stopping it. The bible's strategic hints about loving your enemy would have been much more useful, not only spiritually but on a very practical level. They may be satanically influenced in the ways I outlined above. So is anybody who is ready to kill innocent people and falsely claims that such is God's will. If terrorist murders are answered by an equal if not bigger spree of violence Satan certainly will be pleased. I have no problems with you answering in a Christian way. Apparently our views vary quite a lot though and sometimes I feel that my religion is given a bad name by association. In such cases I like to clarify my Christian perspective on things. Not really, especially since my implied question was not about these missions of yours, but whether you would not agree that reaching out to those who suffer and might be desperate and angry enough to be recruited by terrorists would not do a great deal more to end terrorism than bombing them, an act that is likely to radicalize people even more rather than making people part with the wish to see you destroyed.
