The official " will israel do it " discussion

[Dave70968]

So since Al Quds soldiers have been captured in Afghanistan fighting with the Talib against U.S. forces we would be justified in attacking Iran?

Did Iran sanction the action? What were we doing there in the first place?

The law doesn't permit an aggressor to claim self defense when he started the fight in the first place. It's also fallacious to claim a right to attack a nation because a few of its citizens acted against ours. Prove A) that Iran started the fight, and B) that it supported the operation against us, and you'll have an argument.

 

[sanjuro893]

You're picking and choosing. If you believe that it is a "Prophecy," you're saying you believe it. I'm merely asking why you believe it. If you believe it because "it's in the Bible," then surely you believe the rest of the Good Book. If you reject other parts, then I think you owe us an explanation of how you would use the Bible to set national policy--including committing our troops to combat, war, death--in some cases, but reject other parts. I, for one, would love to hear your selection criteria.

Can you please save your personal problems with how he interprets the bible to a more appropriate venue like instant message before you get this thread locked?

 

[uncle money bags]

You're missing the larger question: why were we over there in the first place?

We need to get the hell out.

I agree it is time to leave, the civilian leadership is not committed to the fight and that is costing lives without a goal being attained.

We were there in the first place to kill the enemy and prevent them from making war. If we are not going to see that through then all of the nation building COIN crap is a waste of time and people.

 

[plissken]

Dave, If I were going to tell anyone how to choose, it would be to start with the New Testament. The New Testament brought about the new covenant with God through Jesus Christ. Seriously, if you are personally searching, start with the New Testament.

 

[jcizzle]

Leviticus 19. Post a picture of your beard, and swear that you never wear blended shirts, or admit that you don't hew strictly to a literal reading of the Bible.

I believe YOU are the one picking and choosing. The examples from Leviticus and Deuteronomy are Old Testament Law for which (in believing the literal meanings) Jesus fulfilled and therefore voided. The Ezekiel chapters are a Prophecy. Still yet to be fulfilled.

One is a law and one is a prediction. The law you are using is an old law at that so at one time, yes, that's the way it literally was. However, Jesus fulfilled all of that crap for us with a new law based on love and a relationship with God rather than ritualistic legalistic crap.

You've just been schooled.

 

[uncle money bags]

Did Iran sanction the action? What were we doing there in the first place?

The law doesn't permit an aggressor to claim self defense when he started the fight in the first place. It's also fallacious to claim a right to attack a nation because a few of its citizens acted against ours. Prove A) that Iran started the fight, and B) that it supported the operation against us, and you'll have an argument.

So prove that Iran sent their elite guards unit to help the Talib. Does this mean that barring Ali Khamenei actually admitting to us that the Iranians were there at his direction then we are without redress?
I don't believe wars are fought like that any more. I don't think we should wait around for an Iranian official to declare war on us, and I would never expect them to. This is how they fight us, because they are smart enough to know that we will kill them in a 20th century style war.

 

[jcizzle]

Never said you wrote it, just that you advocated it. You continue to dodge the question: do you advocate the whole Book, or not? If not, how do you choose?

The whole collection of 66 books. Including the parts where the scriptures you mention have been already fulfilled but the prophecies haven't.


I'm on Fire tonight. Bam!

 

[David2012]

You've just been schooled.

We need a emoticon of Hank from the cartoon series 'King of the Hill' drinking a beer and saying, "Yep!"

 

[Dave70968]

Dave, If I were going to tell anyone how to choose, it would be to start with the New Testament. The New Testament brought about the new covenant with God through Jesus Christ. Seriously, if you are personally searching, start with the New Testament.

I am not searching, and I was waiting for this argument. You refer to the New Testament; as it happens, I quite agree with you that the New supplants the Old. That said, you refer to the Old (Ezekiel) as an argument. Do you find it convincing? If so, my question stands; if not, why do you refer to it?

Apologies for the deferral of my next response; I'm for bed. Rest assured that should this thread remain open in the morning, I will respond in full to any questions posed of me (and if I miss any, I invite all to call me out on such). Before I recess for the evening, though, I offer a clear statement of my position:

I do believe in the forgiveness-oriented posture of the New Testament. I do not believe that we should be using any religious text as the basis of governmental policy. I believe the Founders would agree with me ("no religious Test," etc. Art. VI, Paragraph 3). I believe that using any part of a religious text--especially a supplanted part--as an excuse to go to war, sacrificing our own brave young men and women, for a cause that is not our own--read that as "against an enemy that has not directly attacked us"--is folly. I am not prepared to consign our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to the grave because an ancient text which very few claim to follow in its entirety says so.

Again, I shall answer any questions asked of me; until the morrow, sleep well.

 

[berettaman]

I'm not totally sure they have to hit Damascus right now. Just a little support for the opposition forces in the form of stingers and rpgs and Syria will have it's hands full at home.

I agree and everyone is forgetting about the Golan Heights,you have to cross that hurdle before you get to israel.
and if you listen to obamy he's said go back to the 67 borders WTF?=doing the arabs dirtywork and allow israel to be wiped off the map.yea hes pro israel all right.