SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (380435)3/27/2003 7:08:48 PM
From: JDN  Respond to of 769670
 
To any one interested. Just read this this afternoon, Personally, I support it, I felt all along we needed more ground pounders to control the area we are moving through rather then the raid concept. Jdn

WASHINGTON (March 27) - The U.S. military plans to double its forces on the ground in Iraq to about 200,000 in the next month as the United States and Britain press to oust Iraq's President Saddam Hussein, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

There are currently about 125,000 U.S. and British soldiers and Marines fighting in Iraq in a week-old war against Baghdad.

The U.S. officials, who asked not to be identified, said plans call for inserting as many as 100,000 more U.S. soldiers into Iraq by the end of April, bringing the total U.S.-led force there to about 225,000.

The officials stressed that the buildup was not new but part of a long-developed war plan.

Among the reinforcements will be the 4th Infantry Division from Texas, 1st Armored Division from Germany and 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment from Colorado.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denied on Thursday that the Pentagon had changed its war plan and was rushing in forces to make up for what critics have called a major shortage of foot-soldiers and tanks to defeat Iraq's elite Republican Guards and paramilitary troops loyal to Saddam.

''It's a good plan and it was designed in a way that forces would continue to flow over a sustained period,'' he told reporters following a hearing in the Senate.

''Every day the number of coalition forces in Iraq is increasing by one or two or three thousand people, and it is going to continue to do that -- and we have plenty of forces en route,'' he added.

4TH INFANTRY DIVISION NOW MOVING

The 4th Infantry Division was earlier scheduled to go to Turkey, but Ankara refused to agree to U.S. troop-basing and movement through the country to set up a northern front.

Instead, the first units of the division, one of the most modern in the Army, began moving on Thursday from Fort Hood, Texas, to Kuwait to join its M-1A2 tanks and other equipment. That flow will include at least 30,000 troops, including support units.

The 1st Armored Division of nearly 20,000 troops and tanks is also beginning to move to the region from Germany and the highly mobile 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment will begin to go this weekend from Fort Collins, Colorado.

Rumsfeld and America's top military officer also defended the U.S. war plans in Iraq earlier this week amid criticism from many experts who question the size and punch of the invasion force being used.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the U.S. strategy ''a brilliant plan'' that has thrust invading troops more than 200 miles into Iraqi territory -- ''on the doorstep of Baghdad'' -- in a week of hostilities.

But analysts told Reuters U.S. military leaders may have erred in using an invasion force that is too small and not packing enough armor while leaving critical forces at home.

They also questioned why ground troops were rushed into Iraq without allowing U.S. and British air power first to clobber Iraqi military targets, why Pentagon officials assumed Iraq's military would surrender in droves and why no sizable invasion force was inserted in the north despite Rumsfeld's earlier promise to ''work around'' the Turkey problem.



To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (380435)3/27/2003 9:19:56 PM
From: Kevin Rose  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 769670
 
Thanks for the reply.

First, I don't buy the argument that vast portions of the Bible are simply recounting history. The Bible is filled with historical references that are typically interpreted both literally and figuratively. Clearly, the Bible is not meant to be simply a recounting of Middle Eastern history, but an object lesson to emphasis how to live and what God expects of His followers.

The passages that I cited were meant to show that the Bible also contains portions that can be interpreted as advocating crimes against 'non-believers'. For example, I Samual 15 can be legitimately interpreted as an example of how obedience to God is more important than humanity and mercy. Saul was condemned not for failing to kill all the women and children, but for taking booty and allowing the king of the Amalek's to live. Why? Because God had commanded that everyone be slaughtered. This passage can easily be interpreted as justification for murder, even the murder of innocents, in the name of God, if God wills it. So, if God were to announce that the Muslims were infidels, and should be wiped out, you would be *obligated* to start a "holy war" against Muslims, and not spare man, women, nor child.

I'd have to say that's pretty ghastly, wouldn't you?

Ezekiel 9 is indeed a warning. It may be interpreted by some as a warning that if God marks you as a non-believer or otherwise unworthy, then it is perfectly ok for true believers to kill you with no mercy or remorse.

Both passages could and have been used as justification for historical slaughter of heretics and non-Christians. Just as the Koran can be used to justify murder, these passages can and have been used to justify holy wars and religious intolerance.

Hosea 13 indicates that sinners will cause the Lord to remove His protection. This argument was used by Falwell and Robertson as cause for the Sept 11th attacks. We were attacked because we deserved it.

The other passages are similar to the above, in that they justify the killing of men, women, and children, without mercy, if they are judged by God. These passages have also been used in historical times to justify crusades and wars between Christian factions. You may argue that they point out that God Himself made the judgement, but that has not stopped men in history from using the language and inference to their own evil ends.

Your response at this point is probably "How could I interpret these passages this way." That is *exactly* how the moderate Muslims feel when they see how the Koran has been misinterpreted by 'clerics' like bin Laden (whose education, btw, was not in the seminary, but in engineering) and the rest.

Basically, this is what has happened with the Koran. There are *explicit* passages that are contrary to the interpretation of the so-called 'clerics' of these extreme sects, as in:

[Quran 7:28] They commit a gross sin, then say,
"We found our parents doing this, and GOD
has commanded us to do it." Say,
"GOD never advocates sin.
Are you saying about GOD
what you do not know?"

[Quran 7:28] They commit a gross sin, then say, "We found our parents doing this, and GOD has commanded us to do it." Say, "GOD never advocates sin. Are you saying about GOD what you do not know?"

[Quran 49:13]"O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is Omniscient, Cognizant. "

[Quran 5:87] ... and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.

[Quran: 7:199] ......You shall resort to pardon, advocate tolerance, and disregard the ignorant.

[Quran 6:151] "...... You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."

[Quran17:33] "You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. ....."

[Quran 5:32] "......, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. .............."

[Quran 2:256] "There shall be no compulsion in religion...".

[Quran 60:8]"GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable."

[Quran 8:61]"If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient."

[Quran 4:90]"...... Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them."

However, there are those extremists who will ignore the obvious passages above, and instead twist passages that are meant for self-defense, as in this logic from one of these extremist clerics:

"Martyrdom is permissible on the battlefield, Dr. Ayoub said. Israel is clearly a battlefield, the scholars all said, because Israeli troops have evicted Palestinians from their homes and shot at children. Attacking Israelis is self-defense, which, according to the Koran, is the only acceptable justification for fighting."

Although previous passages clearly show that suicide is wrong, killing of women and children is wrong, etc, the above shows how someone has twisted logic to circumvent these laws. Crazy, yes, but clearly a secular craziness, as anyone who truly understands the *meaning* of the Koran can attest (as I'm sure you'll attest to the lunacy of how the Bible has been twisted in the past).

So, my point is, any religious scripture can be corrupted and used to justify what is clearly spelled out as sin in both the Bible and the Koran. To imply that the current crop of extremists are somehow caused by Islam, instead of geopolitical causes, is in my mind playing right into the hands of these extremists. If the Christian world accepted your view, then maybe they too would call on the Bible passages above to wipe out the Amaleks. In turn, all Muslims would be obligated to respond and wipe out the infidels.

And then we would be quoting primarily from Revelations.