More CPT updates

Before people write rubbish it would be a good idea if they read some of the background. So here is some to the latest status.

23 thoughts on “More CPT updates

  1. dh

    Is that why the Colonel said, “…thank you very much, about putting us in danger.” It seems he is acknowledging that they were put into additional danger than otherwise but that he wasn’t concerned about this additional danger because soldiers are already put in danger by the very nature of their occupation. I this post referenced by you I think takes what was said out of context.

    Reply
  2. DaveW

    dh,
    If you are going to quote then take a bit of context.
    ===
    Jonathan Bartley explained that Christian Peacemaker Teams were concerned about the welfare of coalition soldiers as well as Iraqis, and that is why they had categorically said that they did not want the lives of soldiers endangered through military rescue, should they be captured.
    In response, Colonel Mike Dewar exclaimed angrily: “You needn’t worry Mr Bartley about putting troops in danger. It’s part of a soldiers job to be in danger, so we don’t need your worries, thank you very much, about putting us in danger.”
    ===
    To my reading the whole is quite different to the way you are presenting the last part of the last sentence.

    Reply
  3. dh

    Still you are downgrading the fact he acknowledges the additional danger. He may personally feel it is no big deal but “…thank you very much, about putting us in danger.” makes no sense in comparison to the earlier part of the quote unless he is acknowledging the additional dangers are no big deal. My take is that it is the no big deal part but we at the same time should acknowledge the addtional dangers none the less in that even the Colonel acknowledges the addtional dangers he just thinks those additional dangers are limited and should not be worried about. However, that is his opinion in that they are in fact additional dangers.

    Reply
  4. DaveW

    H’mm maybe on this we are not so far apart. Where I suspect we differ is that I believe it is the irresponsible decisions made by our leaders. Prime Minister Blair and President Bush in particular that are putting these soliders into danger.
    We were wrong to invade Iraq, we are wrong to try to pretend that things are going well and that we have an exit strategy, we were wrong that there were weapons of mass destruction, our leaders lied about the reasons for war.
    It is those wrong decisions and lies that put lives into danger, not just soldiers but the innocent people of Iraq who are still dying in huge numbers.

    Reply
  5. dh

    So what you are saying is Saddam needs to be in power for that is what would have been the case if nothing was done. Also, more people would have no freedom. Again I’m of the belief like Patrick Henry “Give me liberty or give me death.” To say these people don’t deserve liberty from Saddam seems ridiculous to me and the addtional dangers of the War in Iraq are not the addtional dangers I’m addressing here but are necessary dangers for freedom and liberty from an evil dictator. They didn’t lie for the ousting of saddam is a legitamte reason it is just to satisfy those who support Saddam and the wimps (France, Germany and the like who were against the war because they were obtainning oil illegally from Saddam) he had to mention WMD that I believe were there.
    Again these are sidetracks from the point of what I was saying about the Colonel and how I proved my point on the context of what he was saying. Anytime people are going to misinterpret what a support of the war says I’m going to correct.

    Reply
  6. DaveW

    dh,
    I have 3 requests
    1. Stop putting words in my mouth or anyone elses.
    2. Grow up and look a little more closely at the real world
    3. Actually read the bible

    Reply
  7. dh

    To your requests I have done all three that you have stated. What words have I put in people mouths? What about liberty and freedom for people against an evil regime isn’t real world? Where in this post is the Bible referenced as part of this post? If I knew the bible was part of this post or was needed to back up my positions I would have quoted it but I felt that within my responses that was unecessary. I would have quoted the Bible but I thought this post had to do with the political and military. I could bring up support for Iraq from the Bible but I didn’t think that was the intent of the author of this post or for this particular thread.

    Reply
  8. DaveW

    dh,
    1. Lots of examples such as “So what you are saying is Saddam needs to be in power”
    2. For example you are blind to
    - the US oil interests
    - the lies about WMD
    - the reports on the lack of any WMD found
    - the papers released showing the intention to go to war with Iraq regardless of WMD and UN support
    3. You have consistantly ignored Christian history both in respect of the requirements for a Just War (the War on Terror fails on many counts, the war in Iraq has also failed) and also the longer Christian history which looks at the teaching of Christ and says that War is never just and Christians should not support it. Return to the scriptures and the words of Jesus. We have mentioned this in countless comments in the past and you have have never been able to respond to the Sermon on the Mount and the Passion of Christ and relate these to the war in Iraq. Instead you have consistantly mis-used the clearing of the temple and ignored the commands to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us.
    When you look at the real world and the condition of people in Iraq hoew can you say

    Reply
  9. dh

    Again you are sidestepping my responses from the original post. The Bible was never referred to or implied within this post and hense I never responded as such. What is the point of all of this when that wasn’t the point originally? Why are we digressing from the point of the post?
    However, I will respond like a sidebar even though I would appreciate discussing my observation of what the Colonel is actually saying without any spin: So here goes:
    Well on 1) What is the alternative? We know that if no war in Iraq occurred that Saddam would still be in power. That is real life and I don’t feel the people of Iraq deserve that. It is a know fact you can’t negotiate with terrorists or people like Saddam when learning about past hsitory with Hitler in Europe and the like.
    2) Are you blind to Frane and Germany’s oil interest and that having Saddam in power is what they wanted which was for oil? WMD? I think your final sentence within 2 is what I’m talking about and gives me a greater support for the War.
    3) My question is how can we say that the people of Iraq should have Saddam in power and continue to be tortured by him? That is what would happen if no war would have occurred. Also, the Taliban would have terrorized Afghanistan with no Karazai who supports the people as well. Reality is that the Iraqi people deserve freedom and in the past I know many Iraqi’s follow Patrick Henry’s statements.

    Reply
  10. DaveW

    dh,
    We have discussed the Colonel’s comments here and on Richard’s blog. We do not agree. Beth put it neatly in http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=2014#comment-117763
    1. As a Christian I don’t look at politics this way, nor real life. I ask what may saviour would want. As we approach Good Friday how could you imply that as a Christian I could consider either War in Iraq or Saddam as acceptable solutions. As you have done many times you totally ignore the fact that our governments kept Saddam in power and armed him for years. The alternative is not to go to war when you turn against your allies but not to ally yourself with the likes of Saddam in the 1st place.
    2. Why are you always happy to ignore what the US and UK governments have done and try to place blame on others. It is your government and mine that have lied to us as citizens and went to war on lies. Nothing I wrote supports war.
    3. Agreed the people of Iraq should not have had an evil dictator supported by the US and UK governments in the past. One who killed millions when he went to war with Iran using US and UK weapons. Look back a bit further to see how the Taliban came to power, who supported them with weapons. Look at the death toll in Iraq today. We are not reducing violence but are deeply entangled in it.

    Reply
  11. dh

    We don’t agree because you are taking away the Colonel’s words. The conclusion from you and Beth don’t make sense in light of what the Colonel. While the Colonel and I disagree as to what extent the soldiers are put into harms way, the Colonel didn’t reject the idea that soldiers are put into addtional harms way than otherwise.
    I too ask what Jesus would want and he would want to have a limited number of people suffer over a very long extended period of time than otherwise. He also would want people to not be confined by an evil dictator at the saem time. I believe God would want what would maximize the greatest benefit over the longest period of time for the greatest amount of people.
    Well to 1 what additional alternatives are there? The fact is if there was no war in Iraq Saddam would still be in power. The fact is we allied with Saddam when at a time he wasn’t torturing his people and at a time when Iraq and Iran were at war. Do you want Iran to have won the Iran/Iraq war? I don’t think so in light of what Iran is saying now. I would much rather have Saddam than the Ayatollah even though both are bad. Sometimes you have to choose between the better of two evils for I have never thought or implied war is good but in this case and others it is necessary just like when the Israelities got rid of the ite’s and when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. To me ousting Saddam as the reason to go to war shows it is not lies and legitamate in relation to the alternatives. The fact is WMD should not have even been mentioned in relation to going to war in Iraq. For me getting rid of Saddam is enough so all of the WMD talk to me are “red-herrings”.
    On 3) I reiterate Patrick Henry in light of the alternatives.

    Reply
  12. DaveW

    dh,
    Well let us be honest. Do you think Jesus would use cluster bombs and torture as the US and UK have done. When we have clean hearts and hands then we can cast the first stone.
    If we look at the current state of Iran then what about the US support of the Shah. For Iraq what about the British use of Chemical weapons back in the 1920′s.
    Violence begets violence. That is why Jesus broke the cycle of violence. That is why at the end of the day I don’t care if the soldiers are in slightly more danger (I think they are not) from the actions of CPT, because 99.9999% of their danger results from the actions of our governments over the last 100 years.
    Getting rid of Saddam has not brought peace to Iraq. People are dying every day.

    Reply
  13. dh

    I have no problem with the US supporting the Shah. The Shah was a wonderful leader that the Ultra conservative Muslims were against. I acknowledge people are dying but if we in the US had the same attitude in 1776 we would still be under British rule and if we had the same attitude in WWII we would still be under Hitler. If we sit bakc and do nothing in light of violence then the weak will continue to be trampled upon by the strong aka Saddam, Hitler, etc.
    Do you think the terrorists will stop if we stop are actions in Iraq and the like?
    I also think it is interesting that you don’t mention Afghanistan. Kabul is safe and 90% of the people are safe (90% of the people live in Kabul) and they have Karazai helping the people. While the Rahman incendent is difficult it is part of the transition and they are at least making incredible strides for their people. I believe this is what can happen in Iraq. Give it time it took 10 years to get rid of the control by the British over the US.

    Reply
  14. DaveW

    dh,
    You still fail to see that when Christians talk against war we are not giving a choice between doing nothing and going to war. CPT give a good example of a different way. Very pro-active, very much working at the causes of terrorism, very much living out the gospel. If more of us followed the example of Christ in that and other ways then yes I firmly believe that the likes of Hitler and Saddam can be defeated.
    Certainly if you consider Ghandi’s reaction to Hitler and his challenges to Christians to take the gospel seriously then very different outcomes become possible. Just as Martin Luther King junior achieved in the USA without violence.
    Violence is not the way of Christ. Working at peacemaking may be difficult but it is far far more effective than violence. Why? Because that is the only way Christ taught.
    “Do you think the terrorists will stop if we stop are actions in Iraq and the like?” Absolutely, there is a lot of evidence to show this. But it is not just the current war but the way of relationship that needs to change. If we start loving our enemies then God can do anything. But with the hardened and unloving hearts that we demonstrate at present what hope is there?
    Thank God that there are a few who understand what it means to take up their cross and follow Christ – if only more of us did that!

    Reply
  15. dh

    Did the Israelites in the OT take up Christ when God told them to destroy the ites? I believe God is the same yesterday today and forever.
    If you read history in the late 1930′s there were all of the people you mentioned who didn’t support going to war with Hitler and look what happened he continued his campaign.
    Also, why did Jesus in His last days tells the disciples to take up extra swords? Why did Jesus in a violent way threw out the moneychangers or say in a violent way “Brood of vipers” towards the Pharisees? (these aren’t value judgements in that I support the times where Jesus was violent a specific times to wake people up and for times of judgement) I also believe there are many examples of God using nations against nation for God’s judgement as well. I appreciate the US and the UK for standing up for the helpless against an evil dictator.
    I just don’t see Jesus supporting pascifism. I believe His statements were not in relation to governments “render to Caesar to Caesar and to God God” “My Kingdom is not of this world” I just don’t think Jesus was a pascifist or at least His statements can be interpreted to be made to condone pascifism. His statements were directed towards people not towards governments. He never once said war was wrong or made value judgements towards governments except in the case of Caesar’s government in that it was atheistic and pagan.

    Reply
  16. DaveW

    dh,
    Sorry but you need to get some orthodox christian teaching from somewhere, when you have read some Barth, read some of MLK’s teaching and consulted a few Bible commentaries then we can have a sane discussion.
    You could also do with learning a little history (eg to the end of WW1 to see where Hitler came from and to the failings in the Church to reject his teaching both in Germany and elsewhere). Dietrich Bonhoeffer would be a good place to start reading.
    We appear to have no common ground at present in our understanding of Christianity. I have researched my understanding at least a little in formal theological training and am confident that I am well within the Methodist Churches understanding of orthodox belief. I do not know where you get your understanding from.
    I see no point in continuing this discussion.

    Reply
  17. dh

    You need to get an understanding of history where France and the UK failed to take on Hitler earlier on thus preventing future years and additional countries inviolved in the war. I have read commentaries: Francis Schaffer, Josh MacDowell, James Dobson, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Augustine, John Mac Arthur, R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, etc. I have read Dietrich Bonnhoffer and if you remember he went underground in his attack against Hitler. Some of his actions were violent (he regretted it) but I wouldn’t have regretted it in light of the circumstance. Barth? I’m not a big fan of Barth. I would much rather listen to the above men than Barth. I have read MLK and while he didn’t support the war in Vietnam he never addressed any other war action but Vietnam. He never brought up WWII. So to say or imply he was a pascifist is a streatch. Also to say I’m not within othodoxy is a streatch in light of many, many Christian Biblical scholars who support my position as Just War. While Just War definition is different for a catholic as compared to others it doesn’t change my orthodoxy as well when reading Scripture in light of Scripture, NT in light of OT and OT in light of NT.

    Reply
  18. DaveW

    dh,
    Agreed we failed to recognise and take Hitler seriously soon enough. But that is part of my point. The rise of Hitler was caused at least in part by the way WWI was ended (so much so that with hindsight some argue we should recognise we had one world war with a pause in the middle) and by the way the Church accepted his policies regarding Jews etc. Hence the need for the confessing Church. So thank-you for re-inforcing my point that it was (at least in part) the failure of the churches to stand for peace, justice and mercy in non-violent ways that meant WWII happened.
    Ok, MLK. Did he ever promote violence as a solution? Certainly Ghandi whom he respected a great deal was a pacifist regarding WWII. I see it as a total imagination stretch to see that these two people who both renounced violence, at great personal cost against great oppression, would have supported war in Iraq.
    Ok, maybe we should review the basic definiaiton of a Just War because when I do so I cannot see how the War in Iraq can be described as a Just War by the classical definition.
    I will believe you have read commentaries and respect Scripture when you can respond to the question we have repeatedly asked you on Richards Blog.
    “Where does Jesus say violence is acceptable?”
    Give me Book, Chapter and Verse and let us do some proper exegesis.

    Reply
  19. dh

    I didn’t prove your point. In the 1930′s people DID stand for peace and on a grand scale and Hitler STILL did his attrocities. The stands for peace didn’t work. I also venture to say that there should have been an offensive military action on Hitler BEFORE Hitler attacked and we had the military to do it. Lives would have been saved and many nations would not have need to get involved. The church and many people with the war protests before WWII were the reasons for Neville Chamberlains “peace in our time” did it work?
    I have answered that question in that Jesus and God are one part of the Trinity. Where does Jesus not condone violence in light the moneychangers, violent statements against the Pharisees, telling the disciples to take up extra swords before His crusifixion and the like.

    Reply
  20. DaveW

    dh,
    In the 1930′s the Church in Germany did not stand up to Hitler, hence the split to create the confessing church which did.
    Of course attacking Hitler first would have also violated Just War precepts.
    You also did not read what I wrote about the causes of WWII being connected with the end of WWI, therefore the 1930′s were too late to affect much. Given you do not read what I have been writing let us end this part of the discussion (mind you I fully expect you to prove that you are not reading this by continuing anyway).
    Ok, so now we can get to Scripture and Theology. You vaguely throw out four things.
    1. “I have answered that question in that Jesus and God are one part of the Trinity.”
    Not really. The Trinitarian God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is God and Jesus is part of the Trinitarian God. God is not part of the Trinity, he is the trinity. As I have said before your Christology is very very low, if there at all.
    2. Jesus and the moneychangers.
    3. Violent statements agaist the Pharisees
    4. Telling the disciples to take up two swords
    Over the next days/weeks I will write separate posts examining these in detail. We can then consider the reality of Jesus a pacifist or a war monger.

    Reply
  21. dh

    I never said Jesus was a pascifist or that Jesus is a war monger. I think you will see that the God from Scirpture is at times is pscifist and at times supports war but to say God is a war monger is a total representation of God and of my position. If I gave you wrong impression from my statements I appologize.
    I totally agree that God is the Trinity that is my point they are seperate but they are same as well. Jesus, Holy Spirit and God the Father operate together and are consistent with each other over all time. To say I have a low Christology is totally wrong. I could give you Salvation by Faith in Christ alone, Jesus as the perfect sacrifice for sin, the necesity of Christs death and resurrection for atonement by making the only way by Faith in christ alone, etc. These don’t seem to point to a low Christology in my opinion. It seems weird to suggest that.
    Again I don’t believe Jesus was a war monger. I also don’t believe that Jesus was a total pascifist. He was neither for His Kingdom is not of this world. So to go into a consideration of just both options will be futile in light of Jesus being neither.

    Reply
  22. dh

    correction: when I said “attacking Hitler first” I was referring to after Czech was attacked in that at that time we had limited intelligence of his offensive operation but the military enhancement in violation of the Treaty of Versailles was a clear act of aggression in and of itself. (not that I support the Treaty of Versailles in its entirety but that nations should stand solid with what they signed irregardless of the problems of the document therein.)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>