Friday, November 06, 2009

How many more?


gemoftheocean said...

Sorry, can't crystal ball gaze -- but as long as the west isn't reproducing itself by having more children, and the radical Muzzzzzlims are on the march and producing 4-6 little jihadists a piece, it will continue in one form or another for a long time.

They are trying to outbreed us an kill us. They attack us from the outside, and will continue to attack within western borders as long as they can get away with it while the PC idiot liberal crowd holds their cloaks for them while they kill Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn't submit to "Allah."

[And the Maltese can get another word for God, as far as I'm concerned. My God isn't called "allah." I don't care WHAT The scholars say -- I don't believe in their "god" and they don't believe in mine.\]

Political correctness in not calling a spade a spade is what has been calling the shots. Recognize the enemy. It's not "radical jihadists" it's ISLAM. Period.

nickbris said...

For whatever reason we got involved we are there,our soldiers are doing the job and laying down their lives,they have been told it is for their country.They do not question these ORDERS but they are doing the job for which they are paid.

They are fighting a fanatical enemy who do not wear any recognisable uniform and do not abide by any civilised rules of warfare,they cope with this to the best of their ability and trust that their Government knows what they are up to.

To pull out with the job unfinished would be a betrayal of the trust which they put in their leaders and Government.

If we do decide to call it a day then we have to put the clowns who ordered the operation on TRIAL for declaring an illegal War.

Bill of L.A. said...

When the West once again has confidence in its civilization, the greater tide will turn. I'm not holding my breath.

gemoftheocean said...

We can try to kill them over there, or fight on our own soil. I prefer breaking up THEIR stuff over there, than them flying into buildings and attacking public transportation system here.

For once Nickbris and I agree almost 99%. [I'd love to see Zero SWIMNG for not providing the troops with what they need.]

The only point I disagree with Nick on was that it was NOT illegal. But let's get the bastards NOW, or make it much messier later, when these hydra headed jihadists overwhelm us and it will be too late. We need another victory at Lepanto -- and even bigger one. At lesat THEN the Christian west was united.

shadowlands said...

I was pleased to see a huge Cross being erected in Afghanistan yesterday, by our boys, in preparation for Remembrance Sunday. I am glad the BBC chose to show this. The Christian faith is being re acknowledged publicly through the terrible suffering and loss of life. May the souls of all fallen soldiers and victims of war rest in peace. God grant us peace, in our own hearts and through this, to flow out to others. Amen.
'Where sin abounds, how much more shall grace abound'.(Romans 5:20).
You can believe that last sentence utterly,cos it's God's Word, and He never lies and His Words come to completion, they never pass away.

Michael Petek said...

First, there's no question of it being for us an illegal war, as it's under the auspices of the UN Security Council.

Second, there's no question of it being just for the enemy, because their aim is to impose globally the political order of a false religion, and they are convinced God will send them to hell if they don't. Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of war by other means; al-Qaeda/Taliban are waging it as the continuation of blasphemy by other means.

The bad news comes from the fact that Clausewitz also said that will is the paramount factor in war. The enemy's will is reinforced by total religious conviction that eternal salvation and damnation turn on their willingness to fight; ours isn't. Western secularists would convert at once to Islam if under threat of death, as they can see no eternal consequences in denying secularism.

So they can fight us in their country or ours for a thousand years. Secularists on the other hand . . .

bernadette said...

I support Michael P's comment. The Iraq war was a very different situation.

The Afghanistan war is much clearer. As a Catholic, I may not accept Pacifism as an acceptable position to adopt. We are called to defend the weak and vulnerable, even if it means loss of life.

We must remain in Afghanistan for as long as it takes.

And this is a very unpopular stance to take. The Liberal Left-wing political Catholics do not like it one bit...

epsilon said...

What absolute distortion of christianity! Why do Americans / Brits think they still have any right to lay down the law elsewhere, especially when huge numbers of their own children are being aborted or neglected.

The western military out there are not fighting for christianity - they're cannon fodder to protect the power of a tiny western elite who despise the true christian message.

Hatred of anyone is not christian behaviour.

God forgive these so-called catholics whom you allow to spout such vitriol on your blog, Father.

**They** are fanatical? Whose country is it? Who's imposing a corrupt government on them after fraudulent elections which were supposed to suddenly provide democracy? Who has spent billions on propping up a corrupt government on them? What proportion of those billions was spent on giving British military personnel adequate protection?

Bill of L.A. said...

The Muslim world is only doing what comes naturally. Nature abhors a vacuum; we in the West have created that vacuum.

On the apse of the altar of the Basilique de Notre Dame d'Afrique in Algiers is an inscription: Dame d'Afrique priez pour nous et pour les Musulmans ("Our Lady of Africa, pray for us and for the Muslims"). Good words, these.

Mrs Proudie said...

Thank you for raising this Father and allowing the opportunity for bigots to reveal themselves openly.

I suggest you put up a post condemning Capital punishment in order to draw out yet more bigots and then block them all permanently from your Blog.

Have your say! Elsewhere...

Moretben said...

I'm with epsilon. Well said.

Fr Ray Blake said...

So am I.

Please don't expect me to censor people, it would mean I would have to read the rabid ravings of the rabidly raving.
Regular readers know precisely which regular commenters use this blog for their therapy sessions - best ignore them, I do.

Michael Petek said...

Epsilon says:

"Why do Americans/Brits think they still have any right to lay down the law elsewhere, especially when huge numbers of their own children are being aborted or neglected."

St Paul said:

"Magistrates bring fear not to those who do good, but to those who do evil. So if you want to live with no fear of authority, live honestly and you will have its approval; it is there to serve God for you and for your good. But if you do wrong, then you may well be afraid; because it is not for nothing that the symbol of authority is the sword; it is there to serve God, too, as his avenger, to bring retribution to wrongdoers."

I'm with St Paul on this one.

epsilon said...

A question for Michael P: How did the UK, a tiny blob on planet earth, come to build up political and economic control over a quarter of the world’s population on a quarter of the earth’s landmass over a period of a few centuries, to the point where it now (even though it has “given up” control over a lot of these countries) has the world’s sixth largest economy, is a nuclear weapons state and has the third highest defence spending in the world (though not for the benefit of military personnel on the ground), and nearly 30% of its own children are living in poverty, 35% of whom are children living in severe poverty, not to mention the number of those aborted?

How did they become so powerful? Did they go bearing gifts to all those far flung countries? Or was it with killing machines?

Despite all that meddling by Britain around the world, Afghanistan was not even part of the former British colonies, so explain to me why the British are fighting in Afghanistan!

“So if you want to live with no fear of authority, live honestly and you will have its approval...” !!!

On whose authority did Britain invade a quarter of the world’s land, and continues to further invade?

Please don’t quote the Bible to justify American and British aggression in oil-rich countries or countries that might be useful to lay oil pipelines for the convenience of the capitalist elite.

As a matter of interest, if we’re so concerned about oppression, why aren’t we sorting out places such as Zimbabwe?

Michael Petek said...

Sed contra, epsilon, sed contra!

The British Empire was built up in many different ways, sometimes by conquest, sometimes by diplomacy, sometimes by trade, and occasionally by accident of war. Britain never set out to conquer Gibraltar and Malta, but these places ended up in the British Empire according to the fortunes of wars fought for other reasons.

Britain became powerful first because of her position as a trading and seafaring nation, and secondly because she was the first industrial nation.

Her land forces have traditionally never been large, especially when compared to the mass citizen armies of Napoleonic France and, later, Germany. Britain's military power has always been naval.

The manner in which Britain ruled India is particularly remarkable. This was done largely by acceptance of legitimacy on the part of the Indian Princes, reinforced by the assumption by Queen Victoria of the title of Empress of India. The last Empress was of course the late Queen Mother, and I remember a conversation I had shortly after her death with an elderly Indian lady who spoke of her affectionately, as we might speak of our own monarch.

Why are the British fighting in Afghanistan, and by what authority?

First, the constituted civil authorities - whether British or not - are ministers of God for the common good, for public justice and for the maintenance and restoration of international peace and security.

Second, the United States was attacked on 9/11 by terrorists acting under the control and direction of the de facto Taliban/Al Qaeda regime in Afghanistan. This regime was in control of most of the country as a belligerent in a civil war. The legitimate government of Afghanistan, represented at the United Nations, held only the north east of the country and was reinstated by the US/NATO invasion.

The attack on 9/11 was undertaken with intent and purpose to cause the US to submit to Islam (Bin Laden said as much afterwards) and to implement its political and social order. That in itself is blasphemous, because Islam is a false religion and because nations must worship God only by the Catholic religion. (The Catholic religion is not meant to be imposed by force, and all others are not to be imposed at all.)

Third, in what concerns international peace and security, Curia Securitatis locuta est.

Fourth, why not Zimbabwe? Actually, it would not be illegal or immoral to depose Mugabe. But anyone who has read Clausewitz knows that when you wage war you must do it according to the nature of war.

Finally, when you talk about aggression, get your definition right:

Aggression means the use of armed force by a State against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of another State, but does not include the use of force consisitent with the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security.

In other words, it doesn't include the use of force such as the United Nations could authorise under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Moretben said...

Michael Petek

St Paul is not inviting you, or anybody else, to sign up for the office of Scourge of God. Don't you understand that?

You'd think by this point we'd have learned some lessons about proof-texting Scripture in support of "righteous" violence, oppression and revenge, but apparently not.

epsilon said...

Michael P:
“The manner in which Britain ruled India... the late Queen Mother, and I remember a conversation I had shortly after her death with an elderly Indian lady who spoke of her affectionately, as we might speak of our own monarch.”
British rule accepted by Indian princes!! Just as the Saudi princes have their deals with the US of A right now!!
Random anecdotal evidence of willing Indian subjects!! I listened to an Irish priest eulogise about the great British empire at Mass today too - that doesn’t obliterate the atrocious behaviour of British military on Irish soil over the centuries including several occasions when they ploughed into defenceless civilians and massacred them on the spot.

“Why are the British fighting in Afghanistan, and by what authority? ...restoration of international peace and security.”
The UN have been proved to be powerless against the dictates of the United States of America – just look at their record on Iraq!
“United States was attacked on 9/11 by terrorists... regime in Afghanistan. This regime was in control of most of the country as a belligerent in a civil war. The legitimate government of Afghanistan... was reinstated by the US/NATO invasion.”
The attack was by Saudis – but all air traffic was grounded except that the ONLY people allowed access to the air in America immediately after 9/11 were – yes – the Saudi elite.

“The attack on 9/11 was undertaken with intent and purpose to cause the US to submit to Islam (Bin Laden...)”
Ah yes! Bin Laden the disaffected son of the Saudi capitalist elite, already working hand in hand with their capitalist counterparts the Bush Snr / Bush Jnr et al US elite, who already had their military base in Saudi Arabia ready to control the oil rich middle East. So, far from the 9/11 attack being a bolt out of the blue for Muslim world domination it was a reaction to Western meddling in countries that have never invaded Britain or America.
For once, stop looking at history only through a British lens and at least acknowledge that the story from the other side of the barrel of the gun might be a little different, Michael!!

Michael Petek said...

Epsilon, you're not being at all coherent.

To come to the point as to by what just cause and legitimate authority the US and UK, and the rest of NATO, have their forces in Afghanistan.

They have legitimate authority as sovereign states, because these have by nature the power of belligerency.

As to just cause, the Taliban regime was, as a belligerent in a civil war, engaging Afghanistan's state responsibility in aggression against the USA on 9/11, for the chain of command and control of its agents (irrespective of their nationality) terminated in that country.

As for myself, I don't care what their grievances are or were. As soon as their religious beliefs in the forum internum entail their manifestation in acts of terrorism and war, my grievance against them is that they assent to a false religion and therefore ought to be put down by force if necessary.

epsilon said...

Michael P - let the Holy Father guide you - check out what he has said only last week:
"Iran is a great nation that has eminent spiritual traditions and its people have a profound religious sensibility," the Pontiff said, and he underlined the "urgent need" to establish harmonious relations between believers of different religions. This, he said, will serve to "build a more human world, more conformed to the plan of God on creation."

To this end, the Pontiff praised the meetings held jointed by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Organization for Islamic Culture and Relations: "Contributing to seeking together what is just and correct, those meetings allow all to progress in reciprocal knowledge and to cooperate in the reflection of great questions that affect the life of humanity." VATICAN CITY, OCT. 29, 2009

Crux Fidelis said...

Gem, do you know any Muslims? I know a few and none of them fit the descripton you give.