John 8:7
2006-09-02 05:13:52 · 13 answers · asked by beast 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Hey Jack: Wake up! If the bear is running at you, the bear is attacking you. Pre-emptive means that you strike before being attacked.
2006-09-02 06:07:37 · update #1
That's ridiculous. I'm not a Christian but even I know that quote goes something like "Let ye who are without sin cast the first stone"??? Does that sound like it's condoning preemptive attacks on human beings??
2006-09-02 05:17:53 · answer #1 · answered by carpediem 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
so...um...did all you brainwashed conservatives know that there has been several times that Bush has come out and said that there was no connection between saddam hussein and 9/11 and that there were no WMD? Did you know that Iraq did not violate UN Resolutions? The claim is that he wouldn't allow inspectors in. When Bush originally said that, the inspectors were in Iraq searching, and had been trying to tell the world that there were no WMD. Then a few days later, he ordered the inspectors out of the country because he was going to attack.
I know it's difficult for you Republicans to store much of anything in those tiny brains of yours, but try to remember...and if you can't...go look up the newspaper archives! Pick your newspaper...and remember to always check the corrections page for a few issues after the one that you are reading, because during that time, there were a lot of claims made by the press, backing up the President, but they realized soon after that Bush was lying to them so that had to print corrections.
It's funny how people that hate and want to justify war and murder always take some little line out of the bible (or the QuRan for that matter) out of context. Like this idiotic question. Or one I heard the other day where Jesus commanded his disiples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword...but when you actually read the verse and the verses before and after, you see that Jesus said that, in order to fulfil the prophecy, they needed to have a sword or two with them when they went to Gethsemane. The disciples said that between them all there were two swords, and Jesus said "that will be sufficient". This did not in any way infer that murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (for no reason other than where they happened to have been born) is acceptable. They also like to talk about Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple...The Bible only says that he overturned their tables and weilded a whip...but he didn't beat those people or kill them...he just scared them out of the temple.
There is no Christian Commandment that justifies war. Especially a pre-emptive war against a virtually unarmed nation.
2006-09-02 12:43:42 · answer #2 · answered by corwynwulfhund 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Pre-emptive only means before a known activity can occur. If you see a bear in the distance running toward you, then you know the bear's intentions are to harm you. You raise your weapon and fire. That is pre-emptive. If you wait until the bear gets there and has caused you harm, that is not pre-emptive and in most cases results in your serious injury or death.
We spy on our enemies to know when the bear is charging. That way we know whether or not to raise our guns and fire. If we wait, we will be hurt much worse or possibly destroyed. Our enemies are dangerous. Do not make the mistake of thinking we do not have enemies OR that they are not dangerous.
2006-09-02 12:45:18 · answer #3 · answered by Jack 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I'm sorry I missed the part were we acted first. If you are referring to Iraq, it was attacked again because it failed to meet the conditions of the cease fire signed after the Gulf War. Iraq started the Gulf War by invading Kuwait, so no pre-emptive attack there. If you are referring to Afghanistan then it was attacked because the government supported and harbored the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. We responded to an attack on the United States. Any other examples you want me to explain to you just let me know.
2006-09-02 12:20:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
no its based on what the british did in in the 1800s when a part of canada was going to be attacked
2006-09-02 12:55:09 · answer #5 · answered by Dan B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if you believe that our government is without sin, and I don't. Jesus' whole point was that nobody is without sin and therefore nobody should pass judgement on others. That's one of the reasons why I oppose the whole "might makes right" philosophy.
2006-09-02 12:30:20 · answer #6 · answered by ConcernedCitizen 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think what Jesus was saying that you should not be in too much of a hurry to condemm someone because you are not free fom sin either. In other words you must be pure before you can condemm some one else. He wasen't saying you could kill them, only condemm them.
2006-09-02 12:21:41 · answer #7 · answered by Tinman 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nope..
Pre-emptive strikes are the conservatives unappreciated efforts
to prevent Islamofaschist terrorists from attacking liberal cities.
If we just let them take out NY & LA & SF then we might get a little more understanding from the liberal dems....
2006-09-02 12:21:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
I believe it says "he who is without sin should cast the first rock and I shall smokith it"
2006-09-02 12:17:30 · answer #9 · answered by geetarpicker04 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think its more likely based on prudent self defense.
2006-09-02 12:24:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋