How should an American Christian respond to ISIS?

[Gr8hope]

Some of them dropped and ran right to ISIS. Our money and government created, armed, and financed a large part of ISIS with a CoC who was so determined to oust Assad he was careless. Couldn't have turned out worse for the U.S. or the world if it was planned that way.

 

[uafan4life]

The quickest, easiest way to deal with ISIS is to give them what they want: meet them on the ground in Syria.

They have one goal. One goal which has one signifying event and several "side effects" entailed in the fulfillment of that goal. The signifying event of that goal is a victory over the forces of the West in a battle, on the ground, in Syria.

Oh, and - in case you didn't know - some of those "side effects" which will come about during and/or immediately following the meeting of that goal are: the "death" of Judaism, the "death" of Christianity, and the eradication of every Jew on Earth. No, that's not hyperbole nor exaggeration.



This is one of those rare opportunities where we actually know the enemy's plan. And we don't seem to have the balls to take advantage of it. The attacks in Paris are all part of this plan. Such attacks will continue, in any number of Western countries including the U.S., until we meet them on the ground. That's what these attacks are about: inciting us to come to them and meet them in battle on their "holy" battleground.



If we actually were to go in force, on the ground, to them in Syria then we would actually meet them in battle. Unlike their "command" and recruiting personnel behave in other countries - running like roaches in order to fight another day - there they would not run. They would step out into the light. They believe it is God's will - and their destiny - to meet us on that battlefield and destroy us.



Yes, we would lose hundreds if not thousands of soldiers if we met them on that battlefield. However, how many lives will be lost in future attacks similar to those in Paris if we continue our current behavior towards ISIS for another four or five years?

And, no, doing so would not rid the Earth of radical islamists who see violence against us "infidels" as an acceptable option. It would, however, rid us of a large majority of the single-most aggressive, ruthless, and violent group of radical islamists we've ever seen.

 

[Jon]

The quickest, easiest way to deal with ISIS is to give them what they want: meet them on the ground in Syria.

They have one goal. One goal which has one signifying event and several "side effects" entailed in the fulfillment of that goal. The signifying event of that goal is a victory over the forces of the West in a battle, on the ground, in Syria.

Oh, and - in case you didn't know - some of those "side effects" which will come about during and/or immediately following the meeting of that goal are: the "death" of Judaism, the "death" of Christianity, and the eradication of every Jew on Earth. No, that's not hyperbole nor exaggeration.



This is one of those rare opportunities where we actually know the enemy's plan. And we don't seem to have the balls to take advantage of it. The attacks in Paris are all part of this plan. Such attacks will continue, in any number of Western countries including the U.S., until we meet them on the ground. That's what these attacks are about: inciting us to come to them and meet them in battle on their "holy" battleground.



If we actually were to go in force, on the ground, to them in Syria then we would actually meet them in battle. Unlike their "command" and recruiting personnel behave in other countries - running like roaches in order to fight another day - there they would not run. They would step out into the light. They believe it is God's will - and their destiny - to meet us on that battlefield and destroy us.



Yes, we would lose hundreds if not thousands of soldiers if we met them on that battlefield. However, how many lives will be lost in future attacks similar to those in Paris if we continue our current behavior towards ISIS for another four or five years?

And, no, doing so would not rid the Earth of radical islamists who see violence against us "infidels" as an acceptable option. It would, however, rid us of a large majority of the single-most aggressive, ruthless, and violent group of radical islamists we've ever seen.

I think one of the reasons that we don't do this is that in order to do it we sort of fulfill half their prophecy. They will then use this as a rallying call and get more to their cause. Now, I bet you are thinking, "good, we will fight them over there, win and show them their prophecy is BS." But to what end? If history has shown us anything is that religious prophecy is malleable. Misses are forgotten near instantly, hits are shown as revealed wisdom of the pophets. They will regroup, we will have to try and hold and stabilize another middle eastern country which we have been twice proven unable to do and the attacks will keep coming. Sure we'll feel better for having done something, but then what? Another Trillion on loan from the Chinese and thousands on soldiers with PTSD

 

[ValuJet]

Some of them dropped and ran right to ISIS. Our money and government created, armed, and financed a large part of ISIS with a CoC who was so determined to oust Assad he was careless. Couldn't have turned out worse for the U.S. or the world if it was planned that way.

I'm not sure that's not the plan President Jarrett has had in place all along.

 

[bobstod]

The question is asking about "ISIS," not refugees. Very different.
ISIS is made up of killing savages.

As to the refugee situation, our government does not and will not have the resources in place to properly vet them all. Most of them are young men and not the women and children you have been led to believe. I have read, don't have the link, that it takes 60 people to properly vet one refugee and their family. It takes information on the ground in an area that is ravaged by war. This is impossible and the safety of the American people is supposed to be the first priority of our leaders. They take an oath to serve and protect the United States.
I am not without feelings for the plight of those who have suffered terribly but bringing them here is not wise. Other Islamic countries should step up and take them. Not only are they forbidden to speak ill of other Muslims, they are forbidden to assimilate into our culture. Are you willing to adapt to their laws and accept their religion? It will come to that one day. It is the goal of their religion to convert the world, as it has been for centuries.
"There is nothing new under the sun."

You make very good sense. The problem I see with your post is that not all of these refugees are Muslims. There are many Christians or people of other faiths. Also, I think it might be possible to restrict the vetting to families. All the terrorists in Paris were age 31 or below. I think all but the 31 y/o were in their 20s.

Rubio is right in saying that creation of a safe zone in Syria would be a better solution. I would support that if, after study, it proved to be practical from a military point of view.

I understand that people in government are sworn to protect American citizens, and that puts them in a different category. I was seeking opinions about where an American Christian should come down on the question. I should have clarified my earlier posts to reflect that difference. It would be nice if the United States were able to act in a Christian way, but I have no aim to extend this argument that far.

 

[mittman]

You make very good sense. The problem I see with your post is that not all of these refugees are Muslims. There are many Christians or people of other faiths. Also, I think it might be possible to restrict the vetting to families. All the terrorists in Paris were age 31 or below. I think all but the 31 y/o were in their 20s.

Rubio is right in saying that creation of a safe zone in Syria would be a better solution. I would support that if, after study, it proved to be practical from a military point of view.

I understand that people in government are sworn to protect American citizens, and that puts them in a different category. I was seeking opinions about where an American Christian should come down on the question. I should have clarified my earlier posts to reflect that difference. It would be nice if the United States were able to act in a Christian way, but I have no aim to extend this argument that far.

Safe zones tend to become perpetual. That is not to say it is not the best way to go, but once you draw a line/border you have to defend it.

They have proven to be effective when we are patient and put in the necessary resources. We did that for Berlin. We have done that in Korea for decades.

They have failed when we have not. We tried that in Iraq. We actually had two lines, one for the Kurds in the north and one for the swamp in the south.

 

[uafan4life]

I think one of the reasons that we don't do this is that in order to do it we sort of fulfill half their prophecy. They will then use this as a rallying call and get more to their cause. Now, I bet you are thinking, "good, we will fight them over there, win and show them their prophecy is BS." But to what end? If history has shown us anything is that religious prophecy is malleable. Misses are forgotten near instantly, hits are shown as revealed wisdom of the pophets. They will regroup, we will have to try and hold and stabilize another middle eastern country which we have been twice proven unable to do and the attacks will keep coming. Sure we'll feel better for having done something, but then what? Another Trillion on loan from the Chinese and thousands on soldiers with PTSD

Yes, their religious prophecy is malleable. Yes, they may use it as a rallying call. And, yes, as I stated there would still be radical islamists who see violence against us "infidels" as an acceptable path. However, the vast majority of this established group would then be dead.

On the money side, maybe Europe will wake up enough to help fund the effort.
On the soldier's health side, I agree but that's a risk you take when you sign up.
On the "hold and stabilize" side - who said anything about hanging around?

 

[KentuckianaBFan]

I think one of the reasons that we don't do this is that in order to do it we sort of fulfill half their prophecy. They will then use this as a rallying call and get more to their cause. Now, I bet you are thinking, "good, we will fight them over there, win and show them their prophecy is BS." But to what end? If history has shown us anything is that religious prophecy is malleable. Misses are forgotten near instantly, hits are shown as revealed wisdom of the pophets. They will regroup, we will have to try and hold and stabilize another middle eastern country which we have been twice proven unable to do and the attacks will keep coming. Sure we'll feel better for having done something, but then what? Another Trillion on loan from the Chinese and thousands on soldiers with PTSD

Imagine them drawing us in over there and then popping a nuke--and then blaming us...think that might rally others to their cause?

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

I think Mel Gibson in "We Were Soldiers" summed it up while praying with Chris Klein in the hospital.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Some of them dropped and ran right to ISIS. Our money and government created, armed, and financed a large part of ISIS with a CoC who was so determined to oust Assad he was careless. Couldn't have turned out worse for the U.S. or the world if it was planned that way.

This is what happens when you create a power vacuum by meddling in other countries' business. Let Russia take care of ISIS. They don't believe in rules of war.

 

[Gr8hope]

This is what happens when you create a power vacuum by meddling in other countries' business. Let Russia take care of ISIS. They don't believe in rules of war.

I agree to some extent but that would mean Putin would expose Obama as the failure he is. His ego won't allow it.

 

[Jon]

Yes, their religious prophecy is malleable. Yes, they may use it as a rallying call. And, yes, as I stated there would still be radical islamists who see violence against us "infidels" as an acceptable path. However, the vast majority of this established group would then be dead.

On the money side, maybe Europe will wake up enough to help fund the effort.
On the soldier's health side, I agree but that's a risk you take when you sign up.
On the "hold and stabilize" side - who said anything about hanging around?

They need to be dealt with, damn the costs. But I have no idea what to do

To an extent I agree on the soldiers, though I think we need to work on their aftercare hard. It is a shame how many we've lost and continue to lose. 22 a day committing suicide at this point, nearly 1 every hour of every day. Lost more to suicide than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. That is messed up and it needs to be addressed asap.

If we go in, kick butt and then leave .... they'll move the goalposts on the prophecy, insist that this was just a prelude to Armageddon and then we'll have to do it again. And again, and again.

If we go in, kick butt and stay.... they'll move the goalposts on the prophecy, insist that this was just a prelude to Armageddon and then we'll have to do it again. And again, and again.

If we do nothing ... they'll move the goalposts on the prophecy, insist that this was just a prelude to Armageddon and then we'll have to do it again. And again, and again.

I have no answer here. Whatever we do, I just don't think it matters. They have to do something. They need to stamp this crap out of their midst because I don't think we can

 

[Gr8hope]

Imagine them drawing us in over there and then popping a nuke--and then blaming us...think that might rally others to their cause?

Imagine them growing in numbers and power, spreading across the globe and popping a nuke over here. The means are being set in place with the mass immigration and Iran's deal with skippy.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Tolerance, co-existence, multiculturalism, open borders...

It seems to be working well.

 

[TideEngineer08]

Meeting them on the ground works only if we are willing to fully release our military. Politicians would need to stay the hell out.

 

[Timberline Tide]

Meeting them on the ground works only if we are willing to fully release our military. Politicians would need to stay the hell out.

as well as the "press". Can you imagine today's news media covering the D-Day invasion?

 

[ValuJet]

I agree to some extent but that would mean Putin would expose Obama as the failure he is. His ego won't allow it.

I actually think that has been accomplished.

 

[NationalTitles18]

What we can't do is accept a Trojan horse of sorts in the form of refugees. Protecting the "weak" among us (those unable to defend themselves - even if only in certain contexts and venues) means keeping out threats to their safety. Compassion compels us to help others. Compassion compels us to protect "others" already among us. "Christian" is a very vague term. Are we talking the naive idealistic Christianity or the stern and stoic sober Christianity or the vengeance is mine Christianity or some combination.
The thing is, no one is going to tell you - I take that back, (nearly) everyone is going to tell you what a Christian should think and feel and do. But ever since the printing press allowed men and women to read the Bible for themselves fewer and fewer people rely on a single person to inform them how to think. That's why there are so very many different brands of Christianity and so many different thoughts even among and within these factions. So how should an American Christian react? However they feel most appropriate within the confines of civil society. In other words, you are going to have to wrestle with your own angels and your own demons to arrive at that answer for yourself. And it may only apply to you.
I have this odd philosophy that different people have different roles. That we NEED idealists. We NEED militant protectors. We NEED pragmatists. We NEED all at different times and really at all times pulling in different directions and causing people to invoke reason and justify their own stance. And at different times we NEED one OVER another. WISDOM is very much needed right now. So it is good that you are seeking answers and in a sense seeking wisdom. We should all hope and/or pray that our leaders have the wisdom they desperately need.

 

[tidegrandpa]

A CNN reporter in Turkey had the guts to ask a 'real' question for a change of the anointed one and here's the 'in charge' Commander in Chief answer he got.

The spine of a squid..............

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reporter-obama-why-cant-we-take-out-these-bastards_1064718.html

 

[64met]

A CNN reporter in Turkey had the guts to ask a 'real' question for a change of the anointed one and here's the 'in charge' Commander in Chief answer he got.

The spine of a squid..............

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reporter-obama-why-cant-we-take-out-these-bastards_1064718.html

Heard same interview and what a contrast of leaders! The french president is just about to suit up himself and our weak excuse for a leader, still thinks- Can't we all just get along?