Well well... CJ on the back foot...getting 'stick' from other posters besides me :) *my work is done* :)

Ok...SUNISLE you question deserves a serious answer.

You raised a specific incident, which is very difficult to argue 'for', but easy to argue 'against'. So, in one sense we are on the same page. I tend to feel the Yanks are far to quick to use massively destructive means to clean out a ratsnest of terrorists than say an incisive raid by Delta Force. Black Hawk down in Somalia might be quite instructive as to 'why' they take the 'mass destruction' approach.

From Somalia and the mouths of the Somalia Militia lackeys of Mohaammad Aideed, we learn that 'EVERYONE.. women and children all took up their weapons and shot at the Americans"

I can only say that left to ourselves, mankind is universally brutal, and without much in the way of redeeming qualities....this applies to all sides. How many times have you seen me write "All...have sinned"
"All" includes Americans, Iraqis, Somalis, and Australians etc.

We should be asking about the solution to human conflict, rather than 'how do you feel about this incident' and the solution is as I outlined above
1/ Love God
2/ Love your neighbour.

The true, Biblical Christian approach to the first "Love God" is to proclaim Gods love, and call all mankind to repentance and faith.
As Jesus said to his disciples-his very last words prior to ascending to the Father:

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

The approach adopted by other founders of religions is not the same.
When it comes to Islam, Surah 9:29 is most instructive. It is further backgrounded in hadith, where clearly (and as has been admitted to me in youtube correspondence by a number of Muslims) offensive war is supported, allowed and done in order to establish the 'religious framework' of Islam, though not specifically to force conversions directly.

Boazy: "*my work is done* :)"

If only it were true.

"Could you answer as a decent human being and not a dogmatic religous groupie?
Posted by sunisle, Monday, 13 August 2007 12:04:01 PM"

Try asking for something a little less taxing.............; like walking on water....

Ginx..... please refer to my response to you on another thread.

Notice how I approached that question of Sunisle......

1/ Admitted the problem, not taking any side.
2/ Evaluated the difficulty of assessing such things.
3/ Suggested that the source is... 'us'.

Now.. there are only a limited number of ways to discuss an issue like that.

1/ It's right and Justified. (give reasons)
2/ Its wrong and not justified. (give reasons)
3/ It's complex.. (partially right, partially wrong, reasons)
4/ After looking at all the usual solutions/reasons.. this is 'my' proposal.(give proposal)
5/ Looking at the presuppositions behind both 'its right' and 'its wrong'
6/ Scrutinizing those presuppositions for validity. (in the light of yet other presuppositions)

I just went straight to the core of the issue. "We" are the problem.

We could waste a heck of a lot of time finding 'Mr good guy' and 'Mr Bad guy' only to find that our 'good guy' today was yesterday or tomorrows 'bad' guy, which leads to my offering of "We" are at fault.

You would be quite wrong if you think I just 'trot out' religious slogans as a cop out for serious analysis.

If you have something to say, say it for crying out loud.. "I believe such and such is the answer" then we have something to debate.

Possibly it's about time we elected some Muslim Federal PMs ... oops ... I mean MPs.

This Christian fundamentalism is getting a bit ...well... hateful.

Liz,

I have an even better idea, lets lock the fundamentalists of all flavours (muslim, christian, athiest, hindu and any other religion/belief system) in a room and let them sort it out. The rest of us who are interested in working together can then move on with our lives.