www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall When will armed Jihad end?

Thinking about it, it occurs to me that violent interpretations of Christianity are not just a thing of the past; Ronald Reagan was reputed to hold apocalyptic views that led to a sort of fatalism regarding some of his military adventures.
And do you remember Bud McFarlane's apocalyptic Catholic novel from the 90s Pierced by a Sword , arguably the worst novel ever, which ended with Marian militias, fighting the forces of the Antichrist violently?
I have in fact spoken to many Latin and Byzantine Christians who seemed to look forward to a violent confrontation with the forces of evil.
But "My Kingdom is not of this world."
Right?
-Daniel

Those who are foolish enough to fight the devil with violence will be the first to have their bones crushed by his war machine.

So, if we make nice with the Jihadists they'll stop bothering everybody?

The people of God have always fought Just Wars. Including Fasting, Prayer, and yes violence. We have an obligation to defend that which is Holy. Whether it is physical places and things or people.

Uh, I hope you are not equating "the People of God" with the United States..

Isn't that what you just did in your previous post?

CDL

What are you talking about? I view Protestant apocalyptics and other militant Christians as false prophets.

"And American bombs are "clean", I suppose? When was the last time you saw a young Iraqi child disfigured by American weaponry? Check out the site I linked to..

I am speaking of jihadism as a modern reality. The revival of Wahhabism is directly related to American and British intelligence operations [see the book "Devil's Game", by Robert Dreyfuss], promoted and funded also by our "allies" in Saudi Arabia.
You, sir, are the one who seems brainwashed by the neocons, who are using the monster they created to scare us into support for their global corporate empire and erosion of our rights at home.
This is not to say that Islam does not have within it elements that are dangerous and violent. All religions evolve: does anyone remember the Taborites? Or the early Anabaptists? Or Simon de Montfort, who massacred villages in the name of Christ?
However, the growth of radical jihadism is for the most part a reaction against the West and Israel.
Bush and his neocon handlers have done more to make Islamism attractive than bin Laden ever did.
And you all, when you generalize about Muslims don't help matters, either.
Heck, even some conservatives [Fukayama, Buckley, etc] are seeing the light -or at least abandoning a sinking ship- but some of you are still marching blindly behind Bush & Co..."

These examples are from the distant past. Today, as we speak, Moslems are killing innocent people. Look at the Afgan man who was condemned to death because he converted. Do we Christians today burn any one at the stake because of their religous beliefs?

We "march blindly behind Bush and Co." because we want to live. Look at the killing of the Dutch film maker, the riots in Denmark, and the rest of the Moslem world over a cartoon!! Yes, someday your daughter will wear a berka because you ignored the militant Moslems and their beliefs.

Is your post directed at Iconophile? I don't quite follow your argument whoever it's addressing. President Bush nor his father, nor his father's father or grandfather, when the Wahabis and the Saudis made their pact.

CDL

Daniel,

You look at the malicious and intentional beheadings of innocent civilians by Muslim fanatics and the accidental killing of civilians by the American military during wartime and you see moral equivalence?

In fact, independent journalists, as opposed to the "imbedded", or should we say "in-bed-with", kind, report that there have been vast civilian casualties in Iraq. Of course, our government learned in Vietnam that it is unwise to report numbers of enemy, let alone, civilian casualties. Like in the first Gulf War, when we bulldozed vast numbers of Iraqi dead into mass graves, not attempting to count or bury them decently [in violation of the Geneva Conventions].
If "accidental" it is an accident caused by reckless behavior, like bombing cities.
And what does it matter, this claim that it is all a misunderstanding?
Imagine: you are standing in the ruins of what once was your house. Your child is in a bloody heap beside you. What is your reaction when the perpetrator says "Oops, sorry. It was a mistake. No hard feelings, okay?"
Now multiply that rage by tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of the victims of our bombs, of the bombs of Israel, and you have some notion of the roots of Islamic radicalization.
I am not denying the barbarism of contemporary jihadism; I am saying that it did not arise in a vacuum, that we should try to understand and admit the responsibility we carry.
And "distant" history? Like a couple of weeks ago, you mean?
Americans have short attention spans. Alas for us, the rest of the world does not.
-Daniel

So then is it fair to say that you do see a moral equivalence?

And I refer back to my first question: If we make nice with the Jihadists will they stop bothering everybody?

I wouldn't say moral equivalence, rather moral continuity.
And no, of course the jihadists would not respond to our tardy nice-playing. However, we need not make more and more jihadists by our arrogance and violence...

What's the difference?