A study by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations showed that the United States dropped 23,144 bombs on Muslim-majority countries Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia in 2015.Like I trust the CFR, as in the NWO (New World Order). But anyway.
A commenter: "They hate us for our freedom." Irony: Americans are terrified military-age Muslims might come to the USA and bomb us. Meanwhile thousands of our military are over there and actually dropping thousands of bombs on them.
A Protestant minister, rightly trying to stay above left vs. right in American politics: The interesting thing is that all the Republican candidates think Obama hasn't bombed enough. In other words, no force is too extreme to defend "American interests" no matter how small. And these same candidates want your Christian vote. Am I the only one who things something just isn't right about all this?
A quotation from General Eisenhower: I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.
Ted Cruz, maybe trying to sound Trump tough (the mainstream candidates either don't understand Trump's real appeal or think it's beneath them): We will utterly destroy ISIS. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but we're going to find out.
To be fair, General LeMay, from the same big war as Eisenhower, talked of bombing Vietnam into the Stone Age, which we didn't but could have. That was interesting; a different war, one that General MacArthur wanted President Johnson to back out of. (I think we should have stayed out of World War II. It wasn't like the movies, what we were being told we were doing, defending ourselves. Helping the Soviets win was stupid.) It may have been a liberal crusade for a noble cause, trying to stop Communism from taking over the world (back when liberal meant something a little different in America, before the Sixties culture war; it could include social conservatives such as Catholic Democrats and was very anti-Communist), or as some say of Korea, it may have been political theater at the Koreans' and Vietnamese' expense (yes, the jerks who wrote "M*A*S*H" may have been right), not a matter of our national security but attempted shows of force for the Soviets and the Red Chinese in places that weren't dangers to us (so we wouldn't risk blowing up the world in a nuclear holocaust, and why we didn't flatten Vietnam). The John Birch Society was split on Vietnam.
Anyway, a lot of this is American political theater, the right displaying the healthy response of caring about and thus trying to defend your own people (and we really don't want to import some cultures; yes, we're "discriminatory" and "judgmental" about dangerous things) while the left virtue-signals its righteousness with leapfrogging loyalty (fake universal brotherhood, a ripoff of Christianity) by romanticizing the Other (exoticism) and hating their own people and trying to replace them, thinking they'll remain in charge, of a grateful, "diverse" populace (the outcry about "white privilege," really a weapon against conservative whites, not self-criticism, though they pretend to be humble). "Patriotism is for dumb proles in flyover country and is probably racist." Invade the world vs. invite the world.
The right's probably getting played. Violent reprisal on ISIS' turf is exactly what ISIS wants. And they don't give a damn about the "nice" Western liberals. Military-age Muslims are coming in, thinly disguised as refugees, and shooting us. Bait.
The Sixties-bred left isn't the real peace movement. (And actually they can be bloodthirsty: Maoists, and people like Bill Ayers trying to kill our soldiers at home. He should be hanged. They're weirdly nostalgic about World War II, helping the USSR win, one of the world's top killers.) Catholicism is, while of course not being pacifist.
The pastor above is correct to risk sounding like the left in order to criticize the right. Just like Catholic third-way intellectuals criticizing the individualism (selfishness) of the market. (But the market has improved life so much overall: make a product that benefits mankind and creates jobs as much as it has and we'll talk; we don't want to go back to nasty and short pre-industrial, pre-capitalist life like we might fancy.) The church has always condemned the targeting of civilians, including at Hiroshima and Nagasaki; it is a war crime. Even the Sixties-infected (thanks indirectly to Vatican II) Catholic liberals such as the Berrigans had a point criticizing our doomsday nuclear weapons. Cardinal Ottaviani wanted Vatican II to condemn those nukes. The end doesn't justify the means, but such seems a necessary evil like war itself, the only way to get the most dangerous bully to back off. (Our most successful weapons: never used! I've personally thanked a retired "boomer" submarine captain for his service.) Is it a sin to thus bluff about sinning?
I'm anti-war, pro-military, pro-cop, pro-gun, and pro-life. Defend yourself and defend the most helpless people.
The nonviolent answer to ISIS: don't invade; don't invite.
The pastor: I think Jesus says something altogether different about inviting and welcoming.
Christian altruism doesn't require suicide. The Assyrians in Sweden, a people ISIS is martyring in their homeland, support the Sweden Democrats. They came to Sweden to get away from people such as the Muslim "refugees." Don't invite. Pushed against the wall, our duty is to fight (defending the pastor's wife and children as well as the true faith) as at Lepanto and Vienna.