Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

muslim_mafiaIt is no secret to BU the 911 event which occurred in New York on the 11 September 2001 has added to tensions between the Muslim and Christian worlds. The reported terrorist acts which resulted in the demolition of the Twin Towers, damaged to the Pentagon and tragically resulted in the loss of many lifes has scared world history. The act was tracked to the Al Qaeda network by the US authorities and predictably the fallout has reverberated across the world. During the last US Presidential Election Campaign the foreign policy the candidates would adopt if elected was placed under heavy scrutiny especially concerning the current conflicts in Muslim  Iraq, Afghanistan and for other reasons Iran. To President Barack Obama’s credit he fulfilled a campaign promise when he delivered a speech targeting his message at the Muslim world back in May designed to ease tension. He demonstrated courage and imagination by travelling to Egypt to do so.

Eight years later BU is not sure there has been any deflation of tensions even though President Obama has been able to benefit by being awarded a Nobel Peace prize significantly attributed to his efforts at enabling a climate which encourages peace.

It must concern President Obama now that he carries the weight of being a Nobel Laureate; the unravelling revelation in a book just released that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been fingered – in a memo obtained through Paul Sperry’s newest book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, CAIR lays out plans to place interns in the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence, and Homeland Security for the purpose of influencing policy.

Interesting indeed, so what does the future hold?

A Free Press For A Free People

‘Now we have proof’ jihadis infiltrating D.C.

Congress seizes on explosive new book based on daring undercover CAIR probe

In the wake of the sensational ACORN video sting operation by two young investigators, an even more daring, dangerous and devastating undercover investigation – this one infiltrating the nation’s most aggressive Muslim “civil rights” organization for six months – has resulted in stunning revelations about the supposedly “moderate” group, backed up by 12,000 pages of documents and 300 hours of covert video obtained during the secret op.

As revealed in a new book detailing the operation and its findings, the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is not the beneficent Muslim civil-rights group it claims to be. Rather, as indisputable evidence now shows, CAIR and other “mainstream” Islamic groups are acting as fronts for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate and destroy the American system.

Until now, CAIR has remained a powerful force in the nation’s capitol and across the country, from demanding the Obama administration stop FBI counter-terrorism tactics to compelling a school district to apologize to Muslims.

That influence, many believe, may be coming to an end, as a result of the stunning undercover investigation — which included the son of a veteran counter-terrorism investigator, who grew a beard and converted to Islam, as well as two veiled female interns.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad shakes hands with intern Chris Gaubatz, aka David Marshall, at CAIR’s national headquarters in Washington, D.C., in 2008

“Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” a WND Books publication by counter-terrorism investigator Dave Gaubatz and “Infiltration” author Paul Sperry, documents CAIR’s ultimate purpose to transform the United States into an Islamic nation under the authority of the Quran.

The book already has prompted action on Capitol Hill.

With evidence from “Muslim Mafia” in hand, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the Congressional Anti-Terror Caucus, and other members of Congress – including Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and Paul Broun, R-Ga. – plan to hold a press conference today in Washington calling for an investigation and an end to political lobbying by front groups such as CAIR.

“Now we have proof – from the secret documents that this investigative team has uncovered, coupled with the ones recently declassified by the FBI – that [radical Islamists] agents living among us have a plan in place, and they are successfully carrying out that subversive plan,” Myrick writes in the foreword to “Muslim Mafia.”

Noting that CAIR has tried to hide its strategy, finances, membership, internal disputes and much more from public view since its founding in 1994, Islam expert Daniel Pipes lauded “Muslim Mafia” for definitively exposing the “tawdry and often illegal inner workings of radical Islam’s most aggressive organization in North America.”

“The revelations in this book should both put CAIR out of business and permanently discredit the Islamist cause,” Pipes said.

Undercover

The book begins as a real-life, heart-pounding thriller, with Chris Gaubatz, the son of co-author David Gaubatz, preparing to go underground as an intern for CAIR at its Herndon, Va., office.

Astoundingly, the younger Gaubatz, posing as a bearded Muslim convert, ends up with a position at CAIR’s national office in Washington, just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol building, working alongside top leaders Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad and Corey Saylor.

Along with declassified government documents, the book unveils thousands of e-mails, faxes and internal memos that were never meant for public viewing.

Chris Gaubatz and CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper working the CAIR booth at the 45th annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America in Columbus, Ohio, in 2008

The new evidence shows that CAIR – already designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history – is part of an organized crime network in America made up of more than 100 other Muslim front groups that collectively comprise the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

“Muslim Mafia” also exposes the inner workings of the mob-like Brotherhood and explains its broader conspiracy of infiltrating the American government and “destroying Western civilization from within.”

“The evidence found in the investigation is incontrovertible,” said co-author Sperry, noting that the book has more than 40 pages of footnotes and an appendix with more than 50 pages of exclusive confidential documents.

The Brotherhood is known within Islamist circles as the “Ikhwan mafia” because of its highly organized structure, centralized control and covert operations. CAIR, reveals “Muslim Mafia,” is one part of the network of front groups, cut-outs and shell companies that shield the Brotherhood’s criminal activities from authorities.

“These guys talk about jihad and murdering Jews like the mob talked about killing – totally casual, like they were ordering pizza,” said one FBI official in Washington quoted in the book.

Some key smoking-gun revelations detailed in “Muslim Mafia” include:

  • New evidence that CAIR was launched to support the Hamas terrorist group, and has transferred tens of thousands of dollars to a group recently convicted as Hamas’ top fundraising arm in the U.S. – money that ended up aiding terrorist attacks on Israelis and Americans;
  • Internal documents showing CAIR, despite claims of cooperating with law enforcement, actively works behind the scenes to mislead and deceive the FBI on behalf of terrorism suspects – and has even cultivated Muslim moles inside law enforcement who have tipped off FBI terror targets;
  • CAIR is more closely tied to al-Qaida than previously reported;
  • CAIR claims to represent all Muslim Americans, however, it has victimized some 100 indigent Muslims in a massive fraud and threatened them when they tried to go to the media; and internally, personnel complaints reveal CAIR discriminates against Shiite Muslims and Muslim women within its own headquarters;
  • CAIR and its sister fronts are funded by foreign Muslim Brotherhood sources;
  • CAIR leaders share the Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate goal to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shariah law;
  • The Muslim Brotherhood investment in corporate America will be used to pressure U.S. companies into compliance with Islamic principles.

The book also shows radical Muslims in the U.S. are working to support Palestinian terrorists, destroy Israel, gut U.S. anti-terrorism laws, loosen U.S. Muslim immigration policies and convert Americans to Islam.

The authors explain they targeted CAIR because it helps control the “religious crime syndicate from its power base in Washington, the capitol of the same government it wishes to overthrow.”

While the FBI has cut formal ties to CAIR in the wake of its designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to fund the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the group has virtually unfettered access to Capitol Hill and continues to wield influence in the White House.

Certificate signed by Nihad Awad and awarded to Chris Gaubatz for completing his internship

CAIR, the book reveals, regularly reserves meeting rooms and prays Fridays alongside Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and a growing number of Muslim staffers.

The first Muslim elected to Congress and a de facto CAIR board member, Ellison predicted in one CAIR power breakfast he soon would be flanked by 15 other Muslim congressmen, “Muslim Mafia” notes.

Chris Gaubatz, in fact, once found himself praying elbow-to-elbow with Ellison during a Friday prayer gathering attended by CAIR inside the U.S. Capitol.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the book says, is totally in the dark about the threat, and so is the White House.

In fact, reveals “Muslim Mafia,” in the White House President Obama is hiring Muslims – including an adviser who advocates compliance with Shariah law – based on resumes solicited from Muslim Brotherhood fronts.

Meanwhile, the FBI is in conflict internally about how to deal with the Brotherhood, with some top officials in favor of maintaining outreach, while counter-terror case agents in the field strongly object, pointing to evidence the network is a factory for homegrown terror and is secretly carrying out activities hostile to the U.S.

“They’ve achieved outrageous penetration at senior levels of our government,” veteran FBI special agent John Guandolo warns in the book.

Until recently, the FBI engaged in outreach activities with CAIR, including forcing rookie agents to take cultural field trips to area mosques.

The “Muslim Mafia” authors obtained notes revealing the FBI even has offered to sponsor Muslim youth camps with the Boys Clubs of America.

A shortage of Arab linguists and dozens of discrimination suits by Arab and Muslim employees has prompted the FBI to recruit from Brotherhood-related groups, such as the Islamic Society of North America

A Muslim agent who drew national attention when he refused to tape-record a fellow Muslim during a terrorism investigation was promoted and now recruits other Muslims to become agents and linguists.

‘Hit sheets’

The book also presents evidence CAIR has prepared “hit sheets” on its critics in the news media in an effort to intimidate them into silence.

Internal memos show, for example, top officials privately met with CNN executives in Atlanta to press them to cancel Glenn Beck’s program on its Headline News network. Beck now has a highly rated afternoon show on the Fox News Channel.

CAIR’s campaign to boycott leading nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage’s advertisers cost more than $160,000, the book reveals. The authors recount how CAIR ran out of money before it could crack Savage’s most loyal sponsors.

The book also includes new revelations about CAIR’s role in the “flying imams” case in 2006 in which six Muslim leaders were removed from an airline flight in Minneapolis after passengers and crew members reported what they believed to be suspicious behavior.

“Muslim Mafia” also exposes CAIR’s secret agenda to criminalize anti-terror profiling by police and private entities.

Gaubatz is a veteran federal investigator and counter-terrorism specialist who served for more than a decade as a special agent in the U.S. Air Force’s elite Office of Special Investigations. He held the U.S. government’s highest security clearances, including Top Secret/SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), and was briefed in many so-called black projects.

Gaubatz also is a State Department-trained Arabic linguist with more than two decades of experience in the Middle East, including tours in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq. In 2003, he led a 15-man team to rescue the family members of the Iraqi lawyer credited with saving Army Private First Class Jessica Lynch.

Sperry, a media fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is former Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and former Washington bureau chief of WorldNetDaily.com.

His bestseller “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington,” is being used by the U.S. military and top law enforcement departments nationwide. Many of the numerous stories he has broken on national security and counter-terrorism have been cited by the Washington Post, USA Today, UPI and the Associated Press, among others. His columns have appeared in publications such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Houston Chronicle, American Spectator and Reason.

One FBI official quoted in “Muslim Mafia” says CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups differ from al-Qaida in that, while all share the same goals, they use different methods to achieve them.

“The only difference between the guys in the suits and the guys with the AK-47s is timing and tactics,” the official explained.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

603 responses to “Muslim Mafia In America: What Does The Future Bode?”


  1. If you love Israel Vibration say forward
    >>===> http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/category/israel-vibration/

    I’m saying it’s you
    Then you come and tell me
    That it’s me
    Then we started to fight
    How could that be right ?
    ..
    All we need is
    Perfect love and understanding
    And if we try try try
    We can work this out


  2. @ Not Saved, I never said that Chomsky advocated a massacre, that he ‘denied’ it, as your quote re Dr. Arbuthnot said, “But, they might be brought to believe that he (Chomsky) *EXCUSED* or *OVERLOOKED*

    Which he most certainly did, in so many words. Denied IT!

    NS, stop ‘splitting’ hairs, over *facts*
    For an excellent account of Chomsky’s *denial* of Pol Pot’s genocide, have a read of Steven Morris’ “Whitewashing Dictatorship,” pp. 1-35.

    BTW, Dictionary’s excellent exposition re the God ordained right of civil authorities to execute, defend, and IF necessary to use the ‘sword’ against oppressors, tyranny, etc, AND *LOVE* for one’s neighbour, OT, a truly well balanced explanation, of what he has so clearly been expressing in his earlier post, BUT, the *Leftists* and new-athiest on BU, are so mind-twisted, that they (he) are utterly unable to be intellectually honest, or rather so blinded “spiritually” as to be unable to *SEE* the truth and facts in any coherent, objective manner!


  3. Further, All that has been *OPENLY* declared by the PLO, Hamas, in their charter, article 7, Hezbollah, Bin Laden, Ah-MAD-dine-jad, et al, throughout the Islamist world, resolutely *CALLING* for the annihilation of the state of Israel, and ALL Jews, and America and other Western, democratic nations, only and idiot, whose ‘head’ IS deeply buried in the sand, would fail to recognize and accept the seriousness of what Dictionary has being trying to impress of the minds of the observers on BU.

    In the face of the real THREAT posed by these radical Islamists, in light of what they have achieved thus far, 9/11 and other vehement *TERRORIST* activities around the world, only a *FOOL* would be so stupid to deny this reality, which IS fastly approaching the door steps of many nations, and one does not even have to have any ‘spiritual’ insight into this FACT, to understand the points that Distionary has raised. Though, that, the ‘spiritual’ dynamic is the ROOT of this clash of these vastly different idologies, which is the very *APEX* of all that this playing out before our very lives, day by day!


  4. Regardless of the language, colour, skin,
    eyes whatever there is one people one god

  5. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    @Dictionary,

    You are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Christ’s instructions were unambiguous… “do not resist evil by force”… it doesn’t get any clearer than that, and to ensure there is no misinterpretation, the message is repeated over and over in reference to both personal and public ethics. It is most instructive that in a discourse such as this, not once in your lengthy submissions do you refer to anything Jesus actually said or did. In response to my submission about what Christ taught us our response to violence should be, you have written two-thousand words none of which, even once, reference Christ.

    Acts 23?!? Of course the Roman army stepped in to rescue Paul… you think they would sit idly by and let a Roman citizen be executed by the Jews… the Jews had to know their place.

    Romans 13:1-8?!? ROTFL…. Which verse exactly are you interpreting as condoning the use of violent resistance? To make matters worse, you seem to forget that it is Paul you are quoting… LOL… Paul who was in and out of jail more often than Winston Hall? Paul who was constantly on the run from civil authorities? What was Paul’s response to the persecution he endured at the hands of civil authorities? Did he resort to violence or bear arms against Nero or the Jewish High Priests? Come on… I know you can do better than that. If you read all of Paul’s writings, it becomes clear that like Jesus, he is encouraging us to confront evil with love.

    Dictionary, you are applying the same sort of convoluted reasoning here, as those ‘Christians’ who condoned the slave trade. Keep it simple… just follow Christ’s example and you can’t go wrong. Amor vincit omnia.


  6. The Hitler-Stalin Pact of August 1939 that immediately enabled the German invasion of Poland and let to the outbreak of World War II fractured the *Leftist* in Europe and America along the lines Orwell had forseen, having to do with the *appetite* for the excercise of raw power. Lefists who were first and foremost totalitarians, stayed with Stalin, even if it meant they had to be in league with Nazi Germany. Stalin had Trotsky assassinated and the most socialists who could not stomach Stalin and Hitler split away to join the ranks of European democratic socialist and labor parties.

    Moving on some seventy years from the late 1930s to yet another battle for the soul of the *Leftists* in Western democracies, A number of new characters look extremely similar to those of the 30s, at least in a broad outline.

    Several candidates for modern Nazi equivalents emerge , one of the most dramatic is the substantial parallel that emerges between the Nazis and today’s extreme *Islamists* both Shi’ite and Sunni.

    Iranian President Ah-MAD-dine-jad’s calls for Israel to be “wiped” from the the face of the Earth” are certainly evocative of the Holocaust, as set out in ‘Mein Kamp’ and then carried out. The Revolutionary Guard Corps is as close as we have seen to recreating Hitler’s Brownshirts. Tehran’s Evan Prison has been the killing field for thousand of Iranian reformers, trade union leaders, students and journalists, just as were similar locations in Hitler’s Germany, A number of demands for regional domination by leading figures in the Tehran regime have more than a faint echo of the Thousand Year Reich about them.

    The Sunni *Islamists* are tied to a powerful state in a different way. In his excellent work on al-Qaeda and 9/11, ‘The Looming Tower’, Lawrence Wright notes that, with just over 1% of the world’s Muslims, the Saudis control about 90% of the world’s Islamic institutions.

    The Wahhabi doctrine they teach, muderous with regard to Shi’ites, Jews, homosexuals, and apostates and unremittingly repressive with regard to women, IS essentially the same as al-Qaeda’s. Both seek, differing only in tactics, to move us ALL toward a world-wide totalitarian distatorship, the *Caliphate*. The Wahhabi-al-Qaeda revalry is *lethal*, but it is not a battle over values. It IS essentially a bitter fight over who should be in charge of getting ALL of US under the Caliph’s control.

    Islamist anti-Semitism is *virulent* in part because of direct links between Nazism and the founders of Islamist movement in the 30s and 40s, such a Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasseini al-Banna and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini; the latter was a collaborator with the adviser to Eichmann and Himmler in planning the Holocaust. In the 50s and 60s, Sayyid Qutb, the chief theorist of modern Islamism, put virulent anti-Semitism at the heart of that totalitarian doctrine.

    In many aspects of Islamist behaviour today, echo that of the Nazis, who are our current Stalinists? Who are today’s equivalent of those members of the *Left* in the West who embrace the Stalin-Hitler Pact and, at least until Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, happily consorted with their fellows on the totalitarian right, and made common cause against democracy and liberty?

    And why, may we ask, have a number of today’s members of the far *Left* taken a path that they have instead of following the noble example of Orwell?

    Throughout the twentieth century, the Westen *Left* supported one totalitarian killing machine after another. Prominent intellectuals from George Bernard Shaw to Bertolt Brecht to Susan Sontag venerated mass muderers such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh, habitually excusing their atrocities, while blaming America, and even the victims, for the
    crimes.

    After 9/11, when the *Islamist* death cult made itself the West’s new worst adversary, history repeated itself. The *Left* once again gave its affection to *Mass Muderers* and heaped its scorn on America and the West. The only difference this time around was that the Left’s favorite *murderers* were waving not the red flag of proletarian revolution, BUT, the *Black Flag* of *Islamic Jihad*. As they did in the twentieth century, members of the political faith, like Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Tom Hayden, once again reached out to *bloodthirsty* tyrants bent on human destruction.

    And, we have, here in our midst, extended, virulent supporters, of these *Leftists* and Islamist *Jihadists* who while enjoying all of the freedom of a democratic society, HATE the very system that allows them to vent, their venom, anger and dysfuncitional mind-set.

  7. A different Anonymous Avatar
    A different Anonymous

    Wow! Micro Mock Engineer wants us to ignore those who for almost 1500 years practised everything but “love thy enemy”. Who were those crusaders, ‘inquisitionists’,conquistadors, slave traders, liberators of Vietnam, cold warriors,contras of Nicaragua etc? Probably atheists. But then …

    When the Canaanite king of Arad who lived in the Negev heard that Israel was coming along the road to Atharim, he attacked the Israelites and captured some of them. Then Israel made this vow to the Lord ” If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities.” The Lord listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah. (Numbers 21: 1 – 3)


  8. @MME, to Dictionary, who is more than capable of defending the premise of his argument, nevertheless, let us look carefully at MME’s argument in his exegesis of the Word.

    First, he says: “You are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Christ’s instructions were unambiguous, “do not resist evil by force” It doesn’t get any clearer that that.”

    Here in Matthew 5 :39, (cf. Prov 20:22; Luke 6:29; Rom 12:17; I Cor. 6:7; I Pet 3:9; Isa. 50:6; Lam 3:30),

    Jesus is speaking to His disciples, those that would be the founding Fathers of the Christian Church after Jesus’ ascension; and how they (personally, individually, and collectively) should respond when, as Jesus instructs:

    “But, I tell you, not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Matt. 5:39)

    Clearly, Jesus was contrasting the OT principle, ‘Lex talionis’ (the law of retaliation whereby a punishment resembles the offense committed), as He cited in the preceding verse ( 38). To the NT dispensation of His disciples, and by extension the Church, (the individual(s) must not respond in this manner.

    To take this, and equate it, to a nation, representative of millions of its citizens, who may be threatened by serious external attack on its very existence, is to misrepresent and completely misinterpret what was clearly intended by Jesus to His disciples, and Christians.

    Also, you obviously have failed to remember, or, simply don’t understand, that Jesus did not deal or specifically teach and instruct on many things, therefore as He said:

    “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, (The Holy Spirit) of TRUTH, has come, He will guide you into ALL TRUTH:…” (John 12a) emphasis added.

    Therefore, clearly, obviously, and according to what followed on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon them in the Upper Room, and Divinely Inspired them to subsequently write the Gospels, the Letters and Epistles, with the Gospels recording the life, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of The Lord Jesus Christ; and the the Letters and Epistles, which enunciated, articulated, amplified, taught and established ALL sound Biblical NT doctrine, which must be earnestly contended for (Jude 3) part of which IS Paul’s goverment (civil) authorities, discource (Rom 13: 1-10) and their God given right to bear “…bear the sword…” (v 4b) and his equal exhortation to “…love your neighbor as yourself…” (v.8b).

    It is therefore, folly to twist and convolute the clear distinction between these two very important teachings, and to say that any nation, must just fold its arms in ‘love’ when its soveriegn right to exist is threatened by vile, haters of peace, liberty and justice.

    If Barbados tonight was made aware of a threat from some external entity, are we in ‘love’ to just sit by quietly, and welcome them to come and overthrow us? Hardly!

    This IS precisely why it is imperative to ‘Righty Divide’ God’s Word in its proper context!

  9. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    @Zoe,

    “To take this, and equate it, to a nation, representative of millions of its citizens, who may be threatened by serious external attack on its very existence, is to misrepresent and completely misinterpret what was clearly intended by Jesus to His disciples, and Christians.”

    So if I understand you correctly, Jesus’ message was intended for his disciples and Christians, but they should ignore it when their nation is threatened. Kill or be killed… LOL. I suppose some rules can be broken if your physical well being, or that of your fellow citizens depends on it… right Zoe?

    “Also, you obviously have failed to remember, or, simply don’t understand, that Jesus did not deal or specifically teach and instruct on many things”

    … and yet you choose to ignore one of the ‘few’ things Christ did specifically teach… nonviolent resistance. He made it abundantly clear that Christians should not resist violence with violence.

    “If Barbados tonight was made aware of a threat from some external entity, are we in ‘love’ to just sit by quietly, and welcome them to come and overthrow us? Hardly!”

    ROTFL… you seem to be confusing non-violent resistance with acquiescence. I am surprised that someone who devotes so much time to studying the Bible, can’t differentiate between the two.

    The irony of this whole situation is that the Messiah was rejected by his own people, because they could not reconcile the image they held of a ‘promised’ warmonger (who would lead them into violent and triumphant battle against the Roman occupiers), with this fella who showed up preaching bout peace and love. LOL… hear dem… “what peace and love what?!? This man fuh real?!?”

    You should know better Zoe.


  10. @MME, Sir, it is you who have it all twisted and confused, you just don’t get it!

    A nation, represented by its government, civil God ordained authorities, Army, Police, etc, are there to protect its citizens, in a terribly, fallen, SIN stained world, that’s why Paul under divine inspiration, in Romans said:

    “Let every soul be subject to the governing *authorities* for there IS NO authority except from God, and the *authorities* exist are appointed by God.” (v.1)

    Exegesis: ‘Every soul’ (para psuche) As in Acts 2:9; Acts 2:43; A Hebraism for ‘pas anthropos (every man). ‘be subject to the governing authorities (To the higher power (exousiais huperchousais). Abstract for concrete. “Huperecho’ is an old verb to have or hold over, to be above or supreme, as in I Peter 2:13; “Except by God ( ei me hupo theou). God IS the author of order, not anarchy. “The powers that be” (hai ousai) “The existing authorities” . “Are ordained (tetagmenai iesin). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of (tasso), “Stand ordained by God.” Paul is not arguing for the divine right of kings or for any special form of government, BUT, for government and order. Nor does he oppose here revolution for a change of government, BUT, does oppose ALL lawlessness and disorder.

    “Therefore whoever resist the *authority* resist the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” (v.2)

    Exegesis: “He that resisteth (ho antitassomenos). Present middle articular participle of ‘antitassa’, an old verb to range in *battle* against as in Acts 18: 6, “he that lines himself against.” Withstandeth (resist) (anthesteken). Perfect active indicative of ‘anthistemi’ and intransitive, “has taken his stand against.” “The ordinance of God.” (tei tou theou diatagei0. Note repitition of root in ‘tasso’ “To themselves (heautois). Dative of disadvantage. “Shall receive judgment.” (krina lempsontai). Future middle of (lambano).

    “For rulers are not a terror to good works, BUT, to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.” (v. 3).

    Exegesis: “A terror” (phobos). This meaning in Isa. 8:13. Paul does not approve all that rulers do, BUT, he is speaking generally of the ideal before rulers. Nero was Emperor at this time. “From the same” ( ex autes). “From it” (exousia, personified in verse 4).

    “For he is God’s minister to you for good. BUT, if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the *sword* in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” (v. 4).

    Exegesis: “A minister of God” (theou diakonos). General sense of ‘diakonos’. Of course even Nero was God’s minister “to thee (soi ethical dative) for good (eis to agathon, for the good).” “Beareth” (phores). Present active indicative of ‘phoreo’ old frequentative form of ‘phero’ to bear, to wear. “But if thou do” ( ean de poieis). Condition of third class, ‘ean’ and present active subjunctive of ‘poieo’ “if thou continue to do.” ‘Sword” (marchairan). Symbol of authority as todays policemen, army, etc, carry clubs, guns, to protect and maintain order. Trajan presented to a provincial governor on starting for his province, a dagger, with the words, “For me” If I deserve it in me. “An avenger” (ekdikos). Old adjective from ‘ek’ and ‘dike’ (right), “outside of penalty,” unjust, then in later Greek, “exacting penalty from one,’

    Now, come let us reason together, if this is the God ordained civil authorities, that are necessary to keep order and control within a ‘national’ enviornment, i.e., a nation state, to punish those who violate the laws of the land, for ‘evil’ does it then, not logically follow, that the same God ordained authorities, who protect it from within, i.e., its own citizens, who brake the law, that these same authorities, would be expected, as ordained by God, to also, fight, *war* if necessary against forces from ‘without’ who plan to come and take control of a nation state, that is not their right to do?

    Or, viewed another way, if we were to take, MME, you premise to its logically conclusion, then, there would NOT be any local authorities in any country in the first place, NO Police! NO Army! Absolutely, according to your exegesis, no one, i.e., forces of any kind, to resist any civil disobedience whatsoever!

    This would be anarchy, MADNESS, in the first place!

    Think this through again, man!


  11. @MME, Further, you are confusing the Christian’s instruction NOT to personally, on a one and one, basis to avenge, someone who has done you ‘evil’ but to love that person; with the civil authorities God ordained ‘right’ to defend its national soveriegnty, against, evil, wicked intruders!

  12. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    Zoe,

    I have no difficulty with your exegesis in paragraphs 4-9 @12:41am, however the conclusions you make in paragraphs 10-12 are both illogical and inaccurate. I accept your invitation to reason together, and invite you to examine the history…

    What role did the Christians play in the first Jewish-Roman war (66 to 73)? Which side (or civil authority) did they fight for? What group of people fled to Pella 60 miles northeast of Jerusalem in 66C.E. on the eve of the first Jewish-Roman war, and why? What role did the Christians play in the second and third Jewish-Roman wars… which civil authority did they fight to defend?

    When you’ve answered those, can you tell me what techniques and weapons the apostles and other Christians used in their ‘war’ against the two established civil authorities of their day, i.e. the occupying Romans and the Jews?

    Again, it is ironic that during and immediately after the third Jewish-Roman war, the Jews acclaimed their warmonger leader Simon ben Kosiba to be the prophesied Messiah, renaming him Simon “bar Kokhba” (“son of a star”). When the Romans recaptured Israel three years later, they renamed him Simon “bar Kozeba” (“son of disappointment”)… ROTFL. Of course, the Christians refused to go to war for either side.

    I am not sure why you believe that nonviolent resistance would lead to anarchy, but the phrase “oh ye of little faith” comes to mind. If you take my premise to its logical conclusion, countries would still have local authorities… think it through Zoe, I’m sure you can figure it out.

  13. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    “@MME, Further, you are confusing the Christian’s instruction NOT to personally, on a one and one, basis to avenge, someone who has done you ‘evil’ but to love that person; with the civil authorities God ordained ‘right’ to defend its national soveriegnty, against, evil, wicked intruders!”

    Zoe, you and your cohorts are corrupting Christ’s message. There are no ‘convenient’ escape clauses… the message is simple, direct and applies whether it is in self-defense, in defense of your neighbor or defense of a nation… don’t live by the sword… the meek shall inherit the earth, and the peace makers will be called the sons of God.

    This concept of peace making brandished by you “new age” Christians is alarming, as is the distinction you make between instructions to be followed ‘personally’ and nationally’. I suppose you also believe that it is wrong to covet your neighbor’s property, but ok to covet your neighboring nation’s right? ROTFL


  14. zoe only a fool would blindly believe the
    official stories from governments
    regarding 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan,
    Lockerbie, Global Financial Crisis etc.

    No one is asking you to believe anything
    but you should always question and
    challenge everything you are spoon fed.


  15. Moderators:

    It seems I need to further note on a piont or two. Pardon.

    +++++++++++++

    MME (and Zoe — thanks):

    First, a contradiction exists when A and NOT-A, A being in the same sense, are implied or asserted.

    So, I think you would do well to note the contrast I made between inappropriate application of the lex talionis to being personally waspish, and the duty of the civil authority to defend the civil peace.

    Background: lex talionis was an OT rule (similar to other ANE law) that punishment should not be either in gross excess of the crime or the proverbial wrist-slap. ONLY an eye for an eye (and not a wrist-slap for an eye for the “favoured” either) in short; a principle that is still highly relevant.

    ARGUMENT: In the then oral traditions of the elders — eventually, codified and elaborated as the talmud — as popularly misapplied, it was being used to “justify” being waspish and resentful. So Jesus issued a corrective, showing the personal context:

    >> Matt 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’45 5:39 But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer.46 But whoever strikes you on the47 right cheek, turn the other to him as well. 5:40 And if someone wants to sue you and to take your tunic,48 give him your coat also. 5:41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile,49 go with him two . . . >>

    The first is on response to a gross personal insult. The second, to a threat of court action. The third, a response to the oppressive colonial law that gave Roman soldiers the power to compel passersby to carry their packs (~ 60 lb) for 1,000 paces, or a mile [in the original sense].

    In each case the point is that one is not to be waspish, if one is to be a disciple, but to go out of the way to preserve the civil peace. (Working for correction and reform of an unjust order is an entirely different matter, and it is a plain pattern in both OT and NT; not to mention a lot of subsequent history down to today; even in this very blog thread.)

    This is a very different context from addressing those who are enemies of the civil peace, on the part of those who have a responsibility under God to defend that civil peace. (It is worth noting that you, MME, have resorted to loaded language: FORCE may be legitimate or excusable under certain circumstances, ranging from force of argument to force of law to force of financial pressure [e.g. a boycott], to force of the sword. VIOLENCE, by contrast, has to do with violation, i.e. in context it is the unjust use of force — a moral question. Issues of justice, due proportion and likely consequences of alternative actions are all involved here. And in that context, it is plain that the civil authority is specifically commissioned by and accountable to God to defend the civil peace up to and including the sword; setting the context for and limits of our duty of obedience to civil authority.)

    MME, you will further note that I gave you some very specific concrete contexts [Ac 23 and context] and associated writings in a major NT Epistle by the Apostle to the nations [so commissioned by the risen Christ and acknowledged by the College of apostles and elders, formally, in AD 48 in the first Church Council], from 57 AD. Those contexts highlight how we must mark the distinction between personal issues and defence against enemies of the civil peace, including rulers gone bad. (And using a court hearing as a set-up for murder is about as bad as it gets. The Jerusalem authorities c 57 AD, sadly, were in a bad way, so bad that pagans were doing better. A sad implicit commentary indeed on Rom 2:16 ff. And since a good part of Ac was composed in and around these events, you can be sure Luke had the issues of Rom 2 and Rom 13 in mind here. [In short, I am giving life-situation setting of text information to guide our reading and understanding, thence reasonable and informed application.])

    In Ac 21 – 23, we see what the later reformers called interposition in action.

    First, a mob in the temple murderously pounced on Paul on a slanderous false accusation. Roman soldiers posted in the next-door Fortress of Antonia for such an eventuality — a sad commentary on the spiritual state of the nation at the time! — intervened.

    They then wished to use the lash to extract the truth [note the callous abusiveness]; but backed off on the plea of Roman Citizenship. (Protection of citizens, residents and visitors became an issue of reform in later times; sadly it is relevant down to today. How just is it when a Guyanese worker– after delays with processing “as usual” — is expelled on a day or two notice or less, unless s/he pays a bribe?)

    This then led to a preliminary hearing — notice how the initial slanderous accusation was apparently forgotten, nor were the false accusers made to pay the penalty under OT law [you got the punishment you would have inflicted by perjury . . . via lex talionis!] — that broke down in disorder after Paul sharply retorted to an order that he be slapped, which triggered a “how dare you rail against the High Priest.” Note Paul’s apology. The hearing broke up, and led to the murderous plot on pretext of a follow up hearing. (This has a lot to do with the establishment of proper procedure in courts and the principle that violation of procedure is so serious that it can issue in acquittal.)

    On the plot being detected by a relative of Paul — probably NOT a Christian, but feeling a sense of family obligation, and responding to natural justice — the tribune (more or less, battalion commander: cohort of a legion 600 men plus attached auxiliaries) sent Paul to the Roman provincial capital, with a considerable fraction of his command as escort. (in short, he feared an uprising of considerable size and split his command, holding a significant reserve in Jerusalem and sending two centuries plus more than matching auxiliaries on an intervention to remove the flash-point personality and bring him under roman jurisdiction as was his right as a Roman Citizen.)

    Note, Paul is not responding to a suit for his tunic here, but a slander against his life. His responses are in due proportion to the seriousness of the issue. So, we can see that lex talionis — the principle of due proportion in law — has its proper role; despite much careless dismissive rhetoric.

    And, all this brings us back to the point on this side issue: defence of the civil peace (which protects us all) is not the same as refusing to be waspish in personal relationships or minor matters at law, or even petty oppression.

    When matters rise to the level of needing to defend the civil peace from determined enemies, the civil authority is God’s sword bearer. And, should one authority fail and turn abusive and enemy of the peace, other authorities are in turn bound to defend the civil peace, including by acting with the public when that is necessary. Thus, also, when we come to polities that are strongly influenced by a Christian presence, this does not disappear.

    So also, we must recognise that Christians can be called to be teachers and principals in schools [the sword is usually not needed there . . . ], or policemen [who sometimes need to be armed, up to the level of being paramilitary], or soldiers or sailors or airmen, or officers, or civil servants, or lawyers or judges or statesmen. All of these are different degrees of civil authority, and in appropriate contexts have to use force of varying kinds in defence of the civil peace and justice. In that context, they are not to be waspish, vindictive, corrupt, negligent or unjust.

    Back on the main point of the blog thread, WHAT HAS BEEN EXPOSED ON 12,000 pp OF DOCUMENTS (AND 300 hrs OF VIDEOTAPE) IS A MAJOR PLOT OF SUBVERSION AND SUBJUGATION UNDER AN UNJUST SOCIAL ORDER, IN THE NAME OF RELIGION/GOD — ONE THAT IS TO BE IMPOSED GLOBALLY, ACCORDING TO THE JIHADISTS.

    So, force at the first level of public exposure and invitation of investigation and legal action under civil and criminal law, has been applied.

    I therefore find it interesting that in reacting above, there has in general not been an addressing of the substantial points made, but rather distractive exchanges. that tends to support the point that the expose is credible on the merits, so distraction is being used to divert attention.

    That, sirs, is enabling behaviour, for evident enemies of the civil peace in our civilisation.

    Onlookers, I think we need to think very very carefully indeed on that.

    De Dictionary


  16. PS: MME, in both cases [66 ff and 130+] we see unjust rebellions in a context of much abuse, and on the part of polities that were well out of order. Christians, a persecuted minority by that time — on both sides [Nero’s garden parties lit by tarred Christians were happening by about 65 AD, he having gone fully mad by then (maybe in part due to lead water pipes, pottery glazes and sauces) . . . ] — had no business trying to defend a non-existent civil peace. Instead, in an oppressive culture, they sought to be a counter-culture of peace. (And in later centuries, as the Roman state disintegrated from within, members of the public were to increasingly turn tot he Bishop of the local church as a means of just arbitration. [Of course, this too eventually led to serious church-state problems.])

    PPS: Kiki, I supsect neither Zoe nor I are exactly “blind” on official or conventional wisdom stories. If you look above you will see that I said on the 9/11 that as a first step of due diligence at the 101 level one should address the generic sources here and here. (Why: If your theory cannot address Wikipedia in today’s world — i.e. if you cannot at least show why you “correct” the Wikipedia view, on what evidence — it is not ready for prime time yet. This, of course, makes no presumptions that Wiki is right! But, it often is, save on topics where the ideological biases that dominate it show up most blatantly, spoiling what would otherwise have been a great effort.) Have you? Can you tell me, on what evidence, that there is good reason to infer that this was not a decapitation strike by Bin Laden et al against “The Great Satan,” intended to further the global Jihadi cause, and perhaps to make a plausible claim to be an emerging Caliph of the Umma, maybe even the Mahdi himself, with Black Flag armies in close association? Can you show us that the jihadis have not composed a framework in which Islam is being used as a religious context for global conquest and subjugation under their version of Islamic law, a la what was happening in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime (or have we forgotten that too?)? And/or a la what has been going on in Iran, where we just saw the stealing of an election and the murder of passersby of protests? Now, multiplied by a game to acquire nuke warheads for already existing missiles and suitcase nukes for suicide bombers, that is nearing end game while the West plays at diplomatic niceties? In short, neither blind acceptance of official party-lines nor equally blind blanket dismissals are good enough. But, there is a pattern of evidence that has to be addressed on its merits.


  17. PPPS: Moderators, pardon this link [onlookers do not go there unless you have a strong stomach], but I think we need to understand the mentality we are here up against on the part of the tyrants oppressing the Iranian people and especially the women of Iran.


  18. Truly, “out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, You have perfected praise.”

  19. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    Dictionary,

    If all of that logical gymnastics you and Zoe engage in helps to ease your conscience then so be it… but you are fooling yourself if you believe Jesus and his disciples would have fought any war on behalf of any of the civil authorities of their day, whether they be Jew or Roman. This should be abundantly clear to anyone who reads the the accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings, and is familiar with the response of early Christians to the several wars fought between the sovereign nations in which they lived.


  20. MME:

    Sadly, another distractive irrelevancy.

    Jesus and his apostles were a specific circle with a specific calling. That these were not civil authorities nor sought to be civil authorities is irrelevant to the duty of civil authorities under God — and thus as his servants (whether they explicitly recognise that or not; cf here Rom 1 – 2 and Ac 17 as well as Rom 13 where Nero — admittedly before he went utterly mad — is the servant of God principally in view) to protect the civil peace, or the possibility that in Christian influenced polities (or even pagan ones a la Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah), Christians may be called to serve as statesmen or relatively junior officers as far down as teachers and police officers.

    And, I have taken time to patiently outline that, step by step, complete with relevant linked detailed discussions.

    I would appreciate it if you were to look at he serious issues, on the merits, putting up a serious alternative with a sober assessment of its likely consequences. (Rom 1 provides a pretty good summary on what happens when a polity runs out of control and tries to dethrone even the basic knowledge of God accessible to the natural mind and conscience. resemblance to early imperial Rome was NOT coincidental. Nor is resemblance to early C21 Western culture.)

    De Dictionary

  21. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    Dictionary,

    Why are you skirting around the issue… your ‘escape clause’ is that “Jesus and his apostles were a specific circle with a specific calling.”?!? ROTFL… so their actions and the example they set don’t apply to the rest of us? They were a special case? LOL

    I suppose the Christians who fled to Pella on the eve of the first Jewish-Roman war, were also a “specific circle with a special calling” whose actions don’t apply to us. It is clear to me that you and Zoe would have stayed and fought tooth and claw against the Romans for the rights of the sovereign nation of Israel. I thought you were a Christian… but it appears that you are in fact a Hypochristian.


  22. @MME, You are way ‘out’ in your exegesis of Scripture, because, also, language presupposes ‘logical’ distinctions! Therefore, defending God’s Word, in its proper ‘context’ is a logical endeavour!

    That Scripture interprets Scripture, IS a fundamental principle in biblical hermeneutics; which you obviously no little about!

    Again, this morning, Dictionary’s further detailed exposition, confirms the *baselessness* of your arguments, point by point; as your premise is NOT Scriptural; it is NOT logical; hence not coherent.

    Pride, MME, is a killer, especially when one has been shown to be wrong, and stubbornly refuse to accept their fallacy of faulty reasoning!


  23. @MME, Your statement, that:

    “It is clear to me that you and Zoe would have stayed and fought tooth and claw against the Romans for the rights of the sovereign nation of Israel.”

    This downright ‘illogical’ thought, certainly seals the fact, that your are unable to reason things through with any objective, rational, understanding!

    I am really very surprised at you, MME,
    surely, you can do a lot better than this!


  24. That Scripture interprets Scripture, IS a fundamental principle in biblical hermeneutics; which you obviously no little about!
    …..So because of this MME can not be right?!?
    Why do we need all of this edumacated shite to understand something as (supposedly) simple as ‘Thou shalt not……’
    Do you go for an engineer everytime you want to assemble a model plane for your son?….Cant the written instructions be enough….stupse!!

    …..’Pride, MME, is a killer, especially when one has been shown to be wrong, and stubbornly refuse to accept their fallacy of faulty reasoning…

    Spoken like a true Bible thumper.
    As long as you question your ‘belief’ system…it is pride, stupidity…etc.
    The fire and brimstone story dont scare like it used to because people have waken up to see Christianity for what it really is…..Control!!

    People like Zoe, Kairosfocus, Gem of TKI, Dictionary only serve to turn away others, who might be truly looking at Christianity, from ever embracing it due to their pompous, arrogant and condescending attitude to those who questions their ‘logic’.

    It is amazing how we have to go to ‘special’ schools, get a degree (or 6), doctorate and any other titles, to understand the words and instructions of a man and his followers who were fishermen, carpenters etc. Was all this edumacation need back then, or is this just another form of the elitist practices of Christianity?

    Keep sidestepping MME’s direct and simple questions with 2500 word biblical jargon…… I think the ones here with common sense can see who is really confused.


  25. So onlookers who is the “true” Christian, MME or Zoe and Dictionary? All three pompous as ever! The former illogical and the latter two inconsistent in relation to the instructions of the founder of their religion. Both attributes are consistent with being Christian. Tough call!


  26. Its all just another story of the usual fraud by the abusers in contempt of
    all facts and law. Such Matters should
    be investigated in Courts of Law and
    not passed around like hot potatoes.


  27. @BU FAMILY

    In the 1950s and 60s, Western Protestants tried to win Muslims to their side in the fight against Communism.

    In the late 60s and 70s, the focus became social problems.

    In the 80s and 90s, the focus was human rights.

    In the 21st century, Muslims are still stuck in social problems, and Palestine and Muslim minorities are at the heart of much of the dialogue.

    The word dialogue has suddenly become fashionable under the OBAMA* Administration, not only in appeals for installing democratic processes around the world, but also in arranging Christian-Muslim relations.

    When the University of St. Joseph formed an Institute for Islamo-Christian Studies, it avoided the term dialogue because Muslim participants felt it was a “loaded” word which might create misunderstanding.

    In 1971, Fr. Youakim Moubarac published Les Musulmans: consultation Islamo-Chretienne (Beauchesne, Paris) in which 7 Muslim intellectuals from North Africa, Egypt, Iran, and India replied to questions concerning relations with Christians.

    One respondent considered that dialogue was for the Christian conscience what cooperation was for former colonialist countries: a new language adapted to the post-colonialist situation (p. 121).

    At the Center for Strategic Studies, Research and Documentation in Beirut, where Samir Sulayman, conceives that the new world situation pits Islam and Christianity, with their heavenly laws and their system of organization emanating from a divine source, in confrontation with the Occident with its materialistic model of society.

    Thus, the aim of dialogue becomes rapprochement in order to wage the battle together.

    The Christians, he says, “attack”. They refuse the classic Islamic charges of infidelity (kufr) and deformation of their Scriptures (tahrif), they refuse to be ‘protected’ people (dhimmis) and they refuse acknowledgment of an Islamic state.

    He finds the Muslim contributions more defensive and evaluative. When the believer, Muslim or Christian, lives in a state of spiritual ardor, divine love and lofty faith in openness to God, differences between people melt away and all the manifestations of life become manifestations of the greatness of God and a loci of His grace.

    Creatures – all creatures are members of God’s family. The problem really is “we try to limit the world to our view,” as if the only problem were Islamic integrism.

    The Muslim has to realize that the world situation is as harmful for Christianity as it is for Islam. The Islamic Movement is not even 1% anti-Christian; Christians pose no problem save in Lebanon and Sudan.

    The real question is not Islam against Christianity. It is rather a human question: strong against weak, rich against poor, and North against South.

    Certain powers try to pose the problem as one between a moderate Islam and an extremist Islam. The danger is that Christian-Muslim relations may enter the international game of politics where they will be used to exploit old differences.

    The plan of any international Islamic-Christian movement is to confront “Arrogance” – political, cultural, economic, security and religious – which presses down the weak.


  28. Wow…. Mr.Blackett…..you truly are……the personification of a pendulum.


  29. moderators:

    It seems I have to address some personalities.

    Pardon . . .

    ++++++++++++++

    MME and Technician (and Anonymous):

    It saddens me to see the tone that you have used above.

    On the matter being raised, I have taken time to point out — with specific textual and situational evidence — that the NT’s ethics embrace a highly relevant distinction between personal waspishness (which Jesus targeted in the Sermon on the Mount) and the need for a society to defend its civil peace.

    Personal waspishness is unchristian, but it is equally an error, and can — if insisted on in the teeth of correction — become ungodly and unscriptural [given say Rom 13:1 – 10 as already cited and explained in wider biblical context] to counsel or imply that the civil society, if it is to be “godly” must not defend its civil peace from evildoers. Or, that civil office in a society “must” be left to those in open rebellion against God. (What then do we make of the career of a William Wilberforce, or a Thomas Foxwell Buxton, or an Abraham Kuyper — the later of whom for forty years so dominated Holland’s national life that in large part the relevant period of history was his biography? A man who — starting as a parson — founded churches, newspapers, trade unions, universities, political parties and eventually was prime minister?)

    Similarly, when we take in the wider Biblical evidence (and Jesus states in that same sermon that he came to fulfill the law not to overthrow it . . . ) we can see a rich tradition of prophetic call to reformation, and a history that where rulers go bad enough, there are grounds for not only interposition on particular decisions, but their removal. Indeed, in the biblical tradition a polity does not hold an absolute right of existence; as, the nations are God’s tenants on the earth. So, there comes a time when a particular nation — including Israel — comes under God’s judgements, whether by way of consequences of determined sins, or by way of a word of correction and call to reform, or if there is stubborn insistence on folly, applicable degrees of destruction.

    Doubtless, these are painful words, and it is not with any pleasure or claim to be a know it all that I am driven to state the evidence as I can see it on its merits. Especially, given that our own nations in the Caribbean fall under them, and may be treading in some cases on very dangerous grounds. (How do you think God looks on the murder rate of some of our Caribbean countries? The corruption of too many of our power elites in business, education and government? The increasingly coarse and sensual television and radio programming or popular music? A church that is ever so often divided in counsels, caught up in quarrels on minor matters of doctrine, while tolerating a shocking degree of worldy-spiritedness in members and leaders? Etc? )

    So, how must I now respond to statements like: >>pompous, arrogant and condescending attitude to those who questions their ‘logic’ . . . >>?

    How, indeed, but:

    a –> To note, that to point out, step by step, relevant facts and appeal for drawing responsible conclusions on the full balance of relevant factors is not arrogant or pompous etc. (Observers, note that there was not a response on the corrective merits to what I gave previously, but instead consistently a dismissive attack on the person through projecting bad attitudes by way of accusation. That may just be telling us something significant about where the actual weight of the case on the merits lies.)

    b –> Now, to highlight that in logic contradictions obtain when one states or implied A AND NOT-A is a fact of logic, not of condescending in attitude.

    c –> To in — the context of a claimed contradiction — then adduce the relevant contexts and bring out that there is a relevant distinction between personal ethics [one must not be waspish] and the charge to defend the civil peace as a duty of the civil official is to point out a significant and highly relevant distinction. (One BTW with a very long tradition. Let us recall that sometimes we see a contradiction not because one is actually there, but because of an error in our thought. E.g. it seems contradictory to say that one can stand at a single point on the earth’s surface and be due north of London, Bridgetown and Miami. But if we shift our point of view and recognise that there is a North Pole at the top end of our terrestrial ball, at once the apparent contradiction vanishes.)

    d –> To then point out that the alternative view as presented has not brought to bear the full balance of the evidence and to also highlight that if one counsels or implies that which undermines the protection of the civil peace one has some measure of responsibility for the consequences of such teaching is a statement of the duty of true and sound, balanced counsel as applied to the context. Recall, the balance is that we should not be waspish, we should go the extra mile, we should respect legitimate authority from the teacher to the Queen, the civil officer has a duty to protect the civil peace, when a leader goes wrong, other leaders are duty bound to act in defence of justice, and that if a leader cannot be corrected he should be removed by responsible authorities and the people, with the general election being a specific mechanism for doing so peacefully. And, that in this context the force of words, the force of boycott, the force of the court of law, or the force of the sword are all instruments of force that must be judged on principles of justice and defence of the civil peace. Each of these points has been drawn out of a biblical context by well known principles of inductive study, and each has been put in an overall pattern of civil peace. Which of these is an error or a contradiction to the Bible or is unsound in general? On what specific grounds? If I am wrong, kindly show me on the balance of the evidence, and I will happily correct my error. (But, kindly, if you do not have a well considered correction, having done your own research, do not then resort to unfounded accusations of bad attitude.)

    e –> Nor is it irrelevant to point out that Jesus and his apostles had a particular function and calling in civil society, so — in response to someone above — that they did not seek or hold civil office does not lock out Christians from such office. Especially given the pattern of biblical precedents.

    f –> To point out that in the circumstance of the Christians of Judaea c. 66 AD or 130 AD, BOTH sides of the wars were persecuting the church, is a matter of fact not speculation. In such a context, to form a counter-culture of peace where one is excluded from a civil order gone shockingly bad, is a reasonable response. (Remember James the Just — leader of the Jerusalem church — was murdered by leaders of Judaea in 62 AD, after decades of trying to live as an acceptable messianic sect within the general circle of Judaism. [It should be noted that it was not just Christians who protested that act of judicial murder.])

    So, i invite correction.

    But also, let us not forget he principal issue of this thread: there is a serious question of a clear and present danger tot he civil peace of our civilisation, coming from a particular faction within a particular religion; which other groups in that religion denounce. (In the past we have had similar threats coming from factions within the institutional church, but hey were restrained after centuries of struggle informed by precisely the pattern of teachings I have summarised.)

    So, now, can we deal with the matters on the merits, rather than on polarising or dismissive personalities?.

    De Dictionary


  30. @Technician
    “Wow…. Mr.Blackett…..you truly are……the personification of a pendulum.”

    It is part of my intellectual as well as philosophical dexterity…

    But thank you anyway!!!

    As you may be aware, a cloud of religion can be condensed into a drop of philosophy…

    I apologize for being a Cartesian dualist…

    As a presumed monist, or a believer in a single substance, I am approvingly flaunt the Aristotelian idea that the soul is the form of the body – but also believes that agency and our ability to make things happen, requires some kind of eruption from outside the physical order into what would otherwise be the causal ordering of events in the universe.

    In simplistic language – “you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”…

  31. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    “you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”
    ————–

    Actually Terence, that’s not true… you will catch more flies with vinegar than with honey. A drop of dish washing liquid in a bowl of vinegar is a potent fly trap. 🙂

    Anonymous@11:44am… that was a timely intervention. Just goes to show that shit (talk) will attract even more flies than either honey or vinegar. ROTFL


  32. @MME
    “Actually Terence, that’s not true… you will catch more flies with vinegar than with honey. A drop of dish washing liquid in a bowl of vinegar is a potent fly trap. :-)”

    In this instance (within context of the debate) you can win people to your side more easily by gentle persuasion and compliment than by hostile confrontation.

  33. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    Dictionary and Zoe,

    The 2 minute video below demonstrates an appropriate Christian response to their nation’s call to war…


  34. Geez Mr.Blackett……

    See what I mean about all this pretty talk and fancy words……..

    You wasted 100+ words when the 11 at the end would have sufficed….no need to impress me man …GP does that already and he only did a year @ Foundation.

    @Gem/Kairosfocus/Dictionary….and Zoe…
    My mum always said listen to the message ..never mind the messenger.

    I always asked her, if I put clean water in a dirty glass, would you drink it?

    You all might be right, you all might very well be on the correct path BUT your attitudes does little to encourage others…..just my 2 cents worth.


  35. Onlookers:

    Observe again the resort to personalities instead of addressing arguments on the merits. That speaks saddening volumes.

    Again, if you are able to show me wrong on my examination of the Scriptures as raised [and recall, my remarks above are responsive!], I would welcome the correction. But, resort to dismissive assertions on attitudes are no help.

    Worse, I note that all of this is on very tangential issues relative to the issue of a fifth column movement in our civilisation in support to Jihadism. And, in a context where there seems to have been but little serious addressing of the issue.

    D

    PS: T, you are appealing to a poor analogy: arguments are ESSENTIALLY different from water and contaminated glasses; as facts and their implications are matters of evidence and logic tied to such evidence. the soundness of a conclusion depends on the evidence and the reasoning, not the personalities. That is why the ad hominem is a fallacy of distraction.

    PPS: MME, I draw your attention to the issue of the necessary distinction between violence and force. In that context, I call your attention to the response to Hitler, circa 1930’s; a genrally correct claim would hold for all cases, not just one view of a particularly controversial one such as whether or not the Vietnam intervention was on the whole reasonable, just and justly carried out. So, consider carefully: had Britain and France showed the gumption to seriously challenge Hitler c. 1935 – 6, his own Generals would have couped, as we now know from history: maybe up to 40 million lives saved. (You might try a reading of Churchill’s multivolume history, as a start — eyewitness testimony and otherwise inaccessible documents, including the declaration by 1930’s uni students that hey were unwilling to fight for King and country, which greatly encouraged Hitler and co. (Of course many of the same students in the end had to fight for King with backs tot he wall, and paid with their lives to hold Hitler back.) Horne’s To Lose a Battle is also instructive.) Failure to stand up to Hitler, and naively trusting attempts to bargain with him up to 1938 materially contributed to the costs of WW 2; not least he got the trucks and a big slice of the complement of heavier tanks he needed to carry out his blitzes from the Czechs, thanks to Munich. Pacifism, though appealing to us all [who would not prefer a reasonable deal on peace to a bloody, expensive and destructive war?], has a bad track record in the world of wolves like that carpet-chewing demoniac. And, coming from a country where we have seen mini-Hitlers in action, we have learned the hard way that you need strong police.


  36. @Technician, To Gem/kairosfocus/dictionary…and Zoe…

    “My mum always said listen to the message…never mind the messenger.”

    You obviously haven’t learned very well, have you?

    “I always asked her, If I put clean water in a dirty glass, would she drink it?”

    That depends on whether you are a ‘fly’ coming from ingesting bovine excrement, OR, a human being who can think logically, in the face of what is before you!

    @MME to Anoynmous, “That was a timely intervention. Just goes to show that shit (talk) will attrack even more flies than either honey or vinegar.”

    Exactly so, as we have seen here on BU!

    “To say of what IS that it IS, or of what it is NOT, that it is NOT, is true.”
    -Aristotle Metaphysics 1077b 26.

    Or, a Paul said:

    “But if any man be *ignorant* let him be ignorant.”
    I Cor. 14: 38.


  37. MME (re the video)
    Isn’t there a difference between fighting to defend one’s county and fighting to subjugate another ?

    By the way, while it may be o.k. for you to describe your “talk” as shit, I think it is a bit harsh to call Zoe and Dictionary, flies.


  38. @Dictionary, You have presented your facts, logically, coherently, without doubt or question whatsoever!

    Sadly, and unfortunately, those who oppose you with rampant, rabid attacks on your person, (ad hominem) are virtually unable to deal with, counter, or point out where you are wrong; they simply *cannot* offer this type of critical assessment, are intellectually unable to engage you, historically and biblically, plain and simple!

    For the most part, their ineptitude in such matter, is disguisting, and the level to which they stupe, is all they can really do!

    You truly have being very patient with them, giving an education that many others would glady welcome and embrace.

    Even our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was called Beelzebub, and He warned us:

    “And you will be *hated* by all for My names’s sake. But he that endures to the end will be saved.” (Matt. 10:22).

    It’s only now warming up, as you already know!


  39. @ Zoe…..

    You are such a pompous individual.
    I have learned and learned well enough to know how to live my life as it makes me comfortable. Now if it is not to your Christian standards then why should you care?
    I dont push my beliefs down your throat so why do you try to push yours down mine? Because I dont believe in what you do, what makes you any better than I am?…talk about pride!!
    My issue with you and others of your ilk is your stinking attitude as a supposed Christian. The condescending manner in which you try to dismiss others who do not share your views.
    You cry down Arab countries for lacking democratic practices, yet still the very same democratic thoughts are what you try to put down…mek up ya mind which side of the fence ya pun man!!
    I attack your attitude because it stinks!!
    You took my quote, divided it in 2 and made a comment after the first half…then you would lecture us in taking the bible out of context. You too are full of Pride.


  40. @Zoe….

    ……’If I put clean water in a dirty glass, would you drink it?”

    From where I stand…..the Word is the water…..and you are the dirty glass!!


  41. @GEM,

    “Observe again the resort to personalities instead of addressing arguments on the merits. That speaks saddening volumes”

    ++++++

    And you conveniently avoided the questions posed directly to you. That too, speaks volumes.

    For the benefit of “onlookers”, I will expand on them further and await the response, if any.

    – Was the invasion of Iraq illegal, that is in breach of International law ?

    – Is preemptive invasion of countries necessary for “defense”?

    – Do you accept that the US commits war crimes in Afghanistan, notably when bombing villages with innocent people ostensibly to target ‘taliban’?

    – Do you accept that Israel committed war crimes as charged by the UN in the latest excursion into Gaza?

    – Do you advocate for the invasion of Iran?

    – How do you propose to stop the funding for Islamic expansion from Saudi Arabia?

    ++++

    “……but rather distractive exchanges. that tends to support the point that the expose is credible on the merits, so distraction is being used to divert attention.”

    That is a leap that you choose to make but it is a non-sequitur.

    Perhaps you are suggesting that MME and I are part of the muslim mafia.

    Knowing the dubious publisher of the book and THEIR AGENDA, the response is appropriate. They are far more meritorious sources to evaluate the dangers from the Islamic religion than this author or this publisher.

    ++++

    “But also, let us not forget he principal issue of this thread: there is a serious question of a clear and present danger tot he civil peace of our civilisation”

    But we have had nothing from you on the “serious question”.

    Only charges and projections that others have their “head in the sand”.

    And wonder why you have are charged with being pompous?

    If the cap fits……..

    +++++

    “……had Britain and France showed the gumption to seriously challenge Hitler c. 1935 – 6, his own Generals would have couped, as we now know from history: maybe up to 40 million lives saved.”

    A laughably simplistic hypothesis.


  42. @GEM,

    The UN charged Israel with…..

    …a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population in Gaza.

    ++++

    Do you agree?

    Is terror an appropriate response to Islamic aggression?

    A simple answer will suffice.

    And please remember, only a hypocrite will focus on the crimes of his enemies while refusing to acknowledge his own.

  43. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    “By the way, while it may be o.k. for you to describe your “talk” as shit, I think it is a bit harsh to call Zoe and Dictionary, flies.”

    ROTFL… you show great compassion for your opponents Anon… very Christian-like… there may be hope for you yet. 🙂

    … at least I didn’t call anybody a dirty glass… LOL Technician.

    “MME (re the video) 
Isn’t there a difference between fighting to defend one’s county and fighting to subjugate another ?”

    Yes Anon, there is… but Christ’s advice was that nonviolent resistance is the best defense. He provided us with several examples of civil disobedience as alternatives to violent resistance. Your enemy may be able to take your life, but he cannot take your soul.

    “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” John 14:27


  44. MME (some thoughts with sleep approaching),

    I am sure about having a life, my jury is still out on the existence of a soul however.

    I am not sure how I am going to “disobey civilly” with a suicide bomber!


  45. Moderators:

    Pardon a reply on specific points.

    +++++++++++++++

    NS:

    First, I note that — from your dismissive “laughably simplistic hypothesis” — you appear to be ignorant of the historical testimony of Hitler’s surviving generals, that active coup plots were repeatedly in train in the context of his early adventures, and had he discredited himself, they would have overthrown him; especially at the time of the Rhineland re-occupation,but right up to the actions against Austria and Czechoslovakia. (Note that a 1934 attempt to intimidate Austria was blocked by MUSSOLINI’s sending troops to the Brenner Pass. The inept British and French politicians then managed to drive Mussolini into Hitler’s arms! And, they failed to act in good time until Hitler was able to put in nasty field defences on the Rhine front, locking the door against a realistic offensive in the West by 1936; as the horrors of the Somme and verdun were uppermost in the minds of the Pols of Britain and France. That is what freed him to act in the East against Austria, Czechoslovakia and then finally Poland.)

    The closest a plot came to success — they actually continued on through the war years, among the Wehrmacht’s [army] senior officers, and in the secret agency Abwehr [Admiral Canaris, the head of Abwehr was in effect a volunteer spy for Britain] — was in July 1944. For, after the Normandy invasion, there was an attempt to blow him up in a meeting as the trigger for a coup that would have then asked for an armistice and peace. Let us just say that the fact that Field Marshall Rommel was forced to commit suicide by the Gestapo over his links to it and that the famous theologian Dietrich Boenhoffer’s execution was in part connected to it, should tell you a lot about what was going on behind the scenes.

    As to the notion that one may simply dismiss as unfounded and biased allegations, 12,000 pp of evidence [documents indisputably produced by CAIR and intended to be destroyed but diverted to serve as evidence in discovery] and 300 hrs video from inside CAIR that are now making their way into official investigations [those camera phones are real dangerous!], in a context where several court cases have convicted leaders of CAIR of terrorism and/or terrorism financing related charges, and the organisation itself has on considerable evidence been deeply implicated in terrorism financing in the name of relief of suffering, that is itself strong evidence on what is happening with those who would use ad hominem, motive mongering dismissals. Worse, on the associated evidence that there is such a thing as militant, Mahdist Jihadism with a global conquest ambition, there seems to have been a studied silence.

    Beyond that, NS, you have now mainly provided further distractions by way of controversial issues, designed to polarise through stirring up strong feelings; rather than clarify a serious matter of the morality of the defence of the civil peace. This was the secondary issue that I engaged in fair detail because of its inherent importance and the degree of misunderstanding that so often prevails.

    So, I will reiterate what I have drawn out of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures above, as a summary of what the ethics of the defence of the civil peace entails within that worldview:

    >> . . . we should not be waspish, we should go the extra mile, we should respect legitimate authority from the teacher to the Queen, the civil officer has a duty to protect the civil peace, when a leader goes wrong, other leaders are duty bound to act in defence of justice, and that if a leader cannot be corrected he should be removed by responsible authorities and the people, with the general election being a specific mechanism for doing so peacefully. And, that in this context the force of words, the force of boycott, the force of the court of law, or the force of the sword are all instruments of force that must be judged on principles of justice and defence of the civil peace. >>

    Now, can you show me on the evidence that this summary is wrong in material part, either on the scriptures or on the ethics?

    As already noted, such came up in the context of another issue: the original post summarises that a recent private investigatory initiative has — through an internship in an Islamic Civil rights organisation — turned up 12,000 pp of evidence and 300 hrs of videotape, that show the particular organisation, CAIR, to be a fifth column institution for Jihadism. In that context, it has been pointed out that he Jihadist faction of Islam on its readings of Q 9:5 and 29 etc, as well as relevant Hadiths, is in the process of seeking to subjugate the world militarily, starting from the wider Middle East. The cases of Iran and Afghanistan have been adduced by way of example of what they would likely do if they held power, especially to women and non-Muslims (or even Muslims that do not agree with their faction; whom they neatly label apostates).

    In short, the balance of the thread on the merits is clear, for those who are inclined to seek “that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not.”

    Now, you raise a string of further issues above, which are largely distractive and controversial. Many of the themes in them, were actually already dealt with above, including your remarks on Israel in Gaza.

    I will note on that case by way of example: the UN commission on human rights is largely led by states that are indisputably principal global violators of same. Its framing of Goldstone’s mandate spoke of Israel as “occupying Power,” which is simply false, and the rest goes downhill from there.

    In fact — though, given the undeniably horrible nature of war events will happen that are just that, and may be criminal (why courts martial exist . . . ) — the plain public evidence is that Israel took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to protect innocent life in the teeth of the abuse of humans as shields, children and underage teens as soldiers; who — when killed in action — were duly added to he “civilian” and “child” deaths lists. this is not only a matter of self-interest, but is a point of declared principle for the relevant authorities in Israel.

    No previous power, for instance has ever taken the step of phoning individual families and warning them of a forthcoming bombardment. And, this, in response to a deliberate bombardment of civilians for years amounting to thousands of rockets, sharply accelerated at the time of the Israeli retaliatory strike. A bombardment that we find nowhere the faintest trace of interest in the said commission to seriously address; so long as it was Israeli civilians on the receiving end. (Note too, how the bombardment has now effectively stopped. No prizes for guessing why.)

    On the controversies surrounding the current theatres of operation in the slow-burn world war in response to Jihadism, we should note that Iran has just stolen an election by its own people that would have apparently reversed the course of pursuit of global reach nuclear weapons. We therefore have clear evidence from the past few months that the people of Iran as a whole are not in sympathy with the ambitions of their Jihadist masters and oppressors. So, I am in favour of liberation struggle support, by relatively peaceful means if possible: financial and informational support, technical support, serious sanctions etc. If necessary and possible, limited strikes may be necessary to cripple the emerging nuclear weapon capacity, before we wake up one morning to hear of cities destroyed by suicide nuclear attacks. And, yes, that is pre-emptive, but in the context of a pattern of violation of solemn agreements on which Iran accessed the base technologies for what it is doing. By way of comparison, had France and the UK acted decisively when Hitler sought to re-occupy and militarise the Rhineland, he would have been stopped at a far lower cost than the up to 40 millions than the subsequent war in Europe and Africa cost.

    On the rest, it is inevitable in wars that the innocents will die, especially where one party uses them as shields. That is part of the horror of war, and it is part of why we have to be so careful to weigh up the realistic alternatives; on the gruesome calculus of lives lost now on this option vs lives lost later on other alternatives; e.g. through nuclear suicide bombing campaigns.

    This is to be distinguished from willful murder of civilians or the like, which has occurred in isolated cases, and has resulted in courts marshal and suitably long sentences, comparable to what such murder etc would have led to in civilian courts. So, the insinuation of immoral equivalecy by asking a loaded question on “terrorism” in response to Jihadism, raises serious questions on the level of your analysis, and may point to even more troubling questions; on turnspeech rhetorical tactics.

    As to the Iraq campaign, my observation is that a state of war existed in and around Iraq since 1990 – 91 [ever since Mr Hussein’s unprovoked invasion of Kuwait and implicit threat against Saudi Arabia], and the relevant ceasefire agreements — not peace treaties — were plainly grossly violated for the 12 year interval of reduced active operations; which never ceased in face of said violations. Mr Hussein, a brutal dictator who rose and reigned by mass murder and military attacks on his neighbours, asked for what he got. And that is not to excuse where those on the other side may have done or said things that were wrong: civil officers and opinion leaders will all account to the Supreme Judge for their actions and words.

    Which is why we should not be eager to step into such onerous shoes, or lightly toss off propagandistic talking points on one side or the other. For, we too will stand before the Supreme Judge; including on our attitudes to and words about civil authority.

    Good day

    De Dictionary


  46. PS: Just up on BBC, so here is JP on the Israeli response to Goldstone. Note Dershowitz on Goldstone on how his report is being used. So also French FM on Israel vs Iran.


  47. as Not Saved said…..’only a hypocrite will focus on the crimes of his enemies while refusing to acknowledge his own.’


  48. PPS: Dershowitz summarises, comments on and cites from an interview with Mr Goldstone, in the just linked:

    >>. . . the report itself barely criticizes Hamas. Indeed, the summary – which was intended as a press release – is replete with condemnations against Israel but never once criticizes Hamas. Instead it gently criticizes “Palestinian armed groups,” as if to suggest that these were vigilante grass roots killers who were not sponsored by and doing the work of Hamas. The text of the report devotes infinitely more space to condemning Israel than it does to condemning Hamas or even “Palestinian armed groups.” It is not surprising, therefore, that the resolution of the UN Council, which is intended to briefly summarize the report, would focus its attention on condemning Israel. Goldstone, who is a savvy and experienced international diplomat, had to realize this when he signed onto the report. The crocodile tears he is now shedding, in claiming that the resolution “saddens” him, is simply another example of him talking out of two sides of his mouth.

    Goldstone did the same thing when he told The Jewish Daily Forward “that his group had not conducted “investigation,”but rather a “fact-finding mission” based largely on the limited “material we had.” Since this “material” was cherry-picked by Hamas guides and spokesmen, Goldstone acknowledged that “if this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.” He emphasized to the Forward that the report was no more than “a road map” for real investigators and that it contained no actual “evidence” of wrongdoing by Israel.

    That is certainly not what the report itself says. The report repeatedly accuses Israel of war crimes and other violations of international law. It concludes that Israel “violated” the law and that these violations “constitute a grave breach.” It does not qualify its accusations the way Goldstone now seems to – at least when talking to Jewish audiences. >>

    Sobering words.


  49. Onlookers:

    Above T links a story that in effect tries to justify/minimise Mr Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991, by pleading >> Nationalism in the modern sense was largely unknown to the Arab world until the middle twentieth century. The maneuvering of powerful families and the interests of colonial powers often defined spheres of influence . . . >>

    In short, Kuwait did have a separate internationally recognised identity than Iraq (one that dates at least to C 18 BTW), and Mr Hussein did invade and seek to threaten the neighbouring Saudi Arabia.

    I suggest that T take the Wiki 101 test: here and here. (Recall, one is not at all assured that Wiki is right, but one had better have a solid corrective, or one is not ready for prime time; given the ubiquity of Wiki, which has now so prevailed that Encarta has just quit the field..) Then, he may ponder on his implied attempt to justify the actions of a murderous dictator, by the very criteria he asserts against others above.

    Finally it is now plain tha this thread iof discussion has passed any popint of beneficial return, save that it provided an opportunity for those who wish to seriously address the ethics of defence of the civil peace.

    Good bye, then.

    D

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending