. . . a pity Israel didn't bomb the UN headquarters instead! Yea, 'cause Jesus would want all those lefties to die, die, die.Like King David before you, Steve, you really are a man after God's own heart.
Perhaps Steve's comment was motivated by the altruistic sentiment that the world would be a safer and better place without the UN. A sentiment that is not without justification.Regardless, I don't think he meant it seriously, especially considering UN HQ is in NYC. Now, if it was in San Francisco...
You Christians have no sense of humor...
Um, did I miss some reason to think that Bazooka's post was anything other than run-of-the-mill sarcasm? Was this some kind of hillarious reverse double troll? 'Cause if it was I missed it.
Great post, great humor... U.N. peace keepers are about as effective as a PETA protest would be at a Texas barbecue!Jazzycat
Perhaps Steve's comment was motivated by the altruistic sentiment that the world would be a safer and better place without the UN.Yes, so he should joke about them being bombed to little pieces, 'cause that's good Christian humor, right?
When I hear the words, 'United Nations,' I sigh. They were supposed to be disarming Hezbollah, but by all accounts they didn't have the kit.Like the UN peacekeepers in Bosnia who had to stand by while Bosnian Serb millitas slaughtered Muslims. The UN should not have been there, because they were clearly quite unable to police any ceasefire.That said, the bombing of the UN post was a tragedy, and Steve is a bit cruel in wanting the UN headquarters bombed. Truth is, the UN is irrelevant in world affairs.How do we know? Almost four years ago, some terrorists had two airliners over NeW York, ready to be used as guided missiles. Did they hit the UN?er... no.
Steve, I couldn't agree more! All that stuff about "love thine enemy" and all is for the dogs. Pull out all the stops!
Perhaps the more, um, reasonable (and perhaps Christian) way to have made Steve's point would have been to say something of the effect that, had the bomb hit the HQ instead of the outpost, the effect on peace (when and how it will come) would have been nil.The underlying question in all of this is, of course, can you remove Islamic fascism by force? Can you kill them all? Or in fighting them, do you not draw more persons into their cause, and convince more moderates that they [Hizbollah] are on the right side of things, and that such a militia is necessary?Perhaps I'm just an idealist. I'm not a leftie in the sense that you mean it, but I suppose I see this cycle of violence as cruel in its unending circularity. Watching Munich was a beautiful narrative for convincing me of that.How many people think this doesn't just motivate the crazies further, and encourage their efforts to acquire serious weapons, as well as make those with access to such weapons more likely to sympathize with them and give them over?
The answer, Daniel is that the UN will not end war. It hasn't got the power. No one has the power. Is it okay for a state to strike back when attacked?Yes.'Can you remove Islamic Fascism by attack?' Not by attack only. We need to create the wherewithal for peace. On Monday I saw a new programme about Yugoslavia presented by Niall Ferguson. He made a good point about Milosovec, how he survived the 1989 revolutions by appealing to tribal nationalism against 'race enemies'. This is what the leaders of Iran and Syria are able to do to muzzle dissent in their own lands by thretening Israel and arming the millitants. If Islam in the Middle East cannot create strong, states democratic states, the cycle of violence is not going away any time soon.However, that state has to act correctly and morally. Even so, when we face evil and implaccable foes, to simply refrain may appear weakness and encourage attack. In the end, the cycle of violence will only stop once both sides realise that they can gain nothing by it.
So, how exactly can I tell from this point on whether or not what you write is to be taken seriously? ;-)
One way to eliminate all opposition is genocide. Kill every man, woman, boy and girl. And we have examples of this both in the modern and ancient worlds(even santioned by "God"). The theory behind it, which I reject, is that if you leave even one boy after the carnage, he may have the hatred to retaliate somehow, later in life.
I love how people complain at the way Israel is forced to defend its borders from terrorists but offer no workable response to Lebanese terrorists driving unmarked vehicles wearing civilian clothes and launching rockets at Israeli hospitals.I also find it amusing how nonbelievers suppose Christians are disallowed satire or black humor. As if Paul didn't joke about the emasculation of his enemies; as if Jesus Himself didn't joke about how Jewish prophets naturally have to go to the Jewish holy city to be killed.
My dear Loftus, how can you tell? Well, if you couldn't tell this one you must be very odd indeed.I'll admit I thought it inappropriate humour, but I still recognised it as humour.But maybe you have no sense of humour.