Should we nuke Mecca?

[TimV]

There is a poster on this forum who claims to be an American patriot who subscribes to the philosophy of the Constitution Party. He wants the Constitution changed to outlaw the freedom of religion, and he wants our army to drop a nuclear bomb on Mecca.

Do any of you agree with him?

[exmarine]

There is a poster on this forum who claims to be an American patriot who subscribes to the philosophy of the Constitution Party. He wants the Constitution changed to outlaw the freedom of religion, and he wants our army to drop a nuclear bomb on Mecca.

Do any of you agree with him?

Your next assignment (after you get the Andersonville statistics) is to go back and read precisely what I said and get it right. Lying and slander are sins.

Also, I have no problem if other CP members have a diffferent strategy on winning the war. I don't know what the CP official position on winning the war is or even if they have one. Just because I am a member of the CP does not mean that I have to march in lockstep on every single issue, and to do so would be indicative of a blind loyalty.

That being said (my actual words I mean), I am not ashamed of my opinion. I believe the U.S. government should either take out Mecca or issue an ultimatum: Use a WMD on America, lose Mecca. We are at war and are under threat from nuclear holocaust by an insidiously evil enemy that is plotting to destroy us all as we speak. First rule of war: Identify your enemy and we haven't even done that. Our enemy is not "terrorism" - that is a method. That's like saying WWII was a war on "sneak attacks". Our enemy is radical Islam. That is a simple fact, and unless we deal with that specific enemy, I do not believe we can win this war. In fact, there are many people who advocate destroying Mecca. Radical islamists constitute a 5th column in this country, and it is in that context that I stated that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[GovernmentIsDangerous]

The U.S. created this enemy.

The U.S. gave those kids those "evil" textbooks everyone always talks about.

The U.S. knew Osama was planning an attack before 9/11.

Osama was a CIA assett, his name was Tim Osmand(sp?).

These are all mainstream news, yet people ignore them.

Take it or leave it, nuking mecca should not even be considered, ever.

[SWhiteman]

I don't know what the CP official position on winning the war is or even if they have one.

Constitution Party's official positions can be found in the Platform by visiting www.constitutionparty.com. The Party position is contrary to the "War on Terror." But, as TAV is not the Constitution Party, I will not comment from that perspective.

TAV's position is that this "War of Terror" is 1.) unjust, 2.) unlawful, 3.) unconstitutional, 4.) dangerous to American liberties, and 5.) dangerous to American lives.

When a King engages in unjust war, he commits the sin of unlawful taking of human life, or "murder," of the unlawfully attacked. When a King over-rides the national charter and usurps a power that belongs only to the people, he commits treason.

So, no, we don't believe that nuking Mecca is proper.

[exmarine]

Constitution Party's official positions can be found in the Platform by visiting www.constitutionparty.com. The Party position is contrary to the "War on Terror." But, as TAV is not the Constitution Party, I will not comment from that perspective.

TAV's position is that this "War of Terror" is 1.) unjust, 2.) unlawful, 3.) unconstitutional, 4.) dangerous to American liberties, and 5.) dangerous to American lives.

When a King engages in unjust war, he commits the sin of unlawful taking of human life, or "murder," of the unlawfully attacked. When a King over-rides the national charter and usurps a power that belongs only to the people, he commits treason.

So, no, we don't believe that nuking Mecca is proper.

Thank you for taking the time to state TAV's position on the War on Terror. I agree that the war is unconstitutional because Congress has not made a Declaration of War. I also believe that the War in Iraq is a waste of American lives and is unnecessary, and we should get out of there. I also believe in the retrenchment of America and pulling our troops home from the dozens of countries where they are stationed so that they can protect the "homeland." At the same time, we could close the borders, and place a moratorium on all immigration.

But, even then, it would be unsafe to assume that we will be safe from further attacks from the islamofascists who are probably already amongst us. Whether we want it or not or deserve it or not, we have an enemy who hates us and seeks our destruction with any means available -- including nukes. That, sir, is a reality that must be dealt with.

Ergo, I do not agree that the war against radical Islam is unjust in the sense that there are people who are out there right now who seek to destroy America with nuclear weapons, and we have no choice but to defend our nation against them. I do not believe it is unjust because self defense is not unjust and we are under perpetual threat of attack. In fact, I believe we are in a war for our very survival as a nation, and that makes it a Just War right there. Self-defense is biblical. I also do not believe that "self defense" means that we sit and wait for a mushroom cloud over NYC or Washington. We will either fight them or America will be no more. And if we must fight them, then we must fight effectively and intelligently (meaning we have to abandon all political correctness) and we must fight to win.

[Problems with muslims are nothing new. We fought a long-term struggle with the Barbary Pirates in the early days off the Republic.]

[TimV]

And if we must fight them, then we must fight effectively and intelligently

Then you must stay out of the decision making process.

[SWhiteman]

Then you must stay out of the decision making process.
Out of order. This must not continue.

You may disagree with exmarine on many things inside and outside of this thread, so attack (and belittle) the idea, not the author.

If you must comment on the intelligence of the opinion-holder, please do so in the context of refutation of various ideas he (foolishly) maintains. However, the immediate past post is mere name-calling and beneath the dignity of this forum.

[TimV]

True, but so is advocating the nuclear destruction of a major civilian population center.

[SWhiteman]

Whether we want it or not or deserve it or not, we have an enemy who hates us and seeks our destruction with any means available -- including nukes. That, sir, is a reality that must be dealt with.

Ergo, I do not agree that the war against radical Islam is unjust in the sense that there are people who are out there right now who seek to destroy America with nuclear weapons, and we have no choice but to defend our nation against them. I do not believe it is unjust because self defense is not unjust and we are under perpetual threat of attack. In fact, I believe we are in a war for our very survival as a nation, and that makes it a Just War right there. Self-defense is biblical. I also do not believe that "self defense" means that we sit and wait for a mushroom cloud over NYC or Washington. We will either fight them or America will be no more. And if we must fight them, then we must fight effectively and intelligently (meaning we have to abandon all political correctness) and we must fight to win.

[I trimmed your post a little. Meant to put the elipsis (...) where I did, but now forget. I did not trim the article to change the meaning.]

Thank you for the respectful, but clearly disagreeable response. I am seeking permission, and thereafter the ability, to post an old article from the Editor, John Lofton as it relates to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Generally, if I recall correctly (and if I don't, this is my thought on the matter), there is no reason to object to nukes like the left does. There is reason, however, to object to the targeting of civilians as a war-time measure. The history of Christian Just War Theory has been that you keep the targets limited to emeny combatants, forts, arsenals, &c., and legitimate military targets. I understand collateral damage, but if an American gun goes off into a crowd of enemy soldiers, and a civilian is accidentally struck, it calls to mind the horror of war. If the gun goes off into a crowd of civilians, it calls to mind that we are the horror of the war. War is the sum of all evils. It ought never be lightly entered into, may only properly be entered into pursuant to God's laws as between Nations, and one in a war, God's law still prevails and there are certain ways in which it must be conducted. Other than His standard, which is not Political Correctness, we are free from restraint in war.

Now, the problem arises when the enemy won't fight in uniforms and/or when the enemy does not use Christian tactics (which the bloody Turk would not). Also, I recognise the difficulty when members of the same religion as our enemy are within our border -- but then we need to consider if this is a religious war -- and if it is, why not admit it. I believe it is for us, since we are fighting to advance democracy, but we are fighting against one false religion (Islam) in our quest to promote another false religion (democracy). We are not fighting as "Christian vs. Muslim" in this war.

So the question is should we hold Mecca captive to "make the world safe for democracy." The world has never been in greater danger of having democracy foisted upon it at the point of a bayonette. It is this democracy that has permitted the millions of illegal aliens and Muslims into our country that will turn our nation into similar conditions as the nations of the Third World.

[SWhiteman]

True, but so is advocating the nuclear destruction of a major civilian population center.

See amended previous post. I agree with you on nuking Mecca, so comment in that regard. It will foster the genuine integrity and intelligence of this forum, and raise it to a higher level.

[exmarine]

The history of Christian Just War Theory has been that you keep the targets limited to emeny combatants, forts, arsenals, &c., and legitimate military targets. I understand collateral damage, but if an American gun goes off into a crowd of enemy soldiers, and a civilian is accidentally struck, it calls to mind the horror of war. If the gun goes off into a crowd of civilians, it calls to mind that we are the horror of the war. War is the sum of all evils. It ought never be lightly entered into, may only properly be entered into pursuant to God's laws as between Nations, and one in a war, God's law still prevails and there are certain ways in which it must be conducted. Other than His standard, which is not Political Correctness, we are free from restraint in war.

Thank you for your thoughtful response Mr. Whiteman. If it is okay, to save space, I will also trim your reply a little and reply to some of the more salient points.

So, one issue then, is what constitutes "Just War". I'm sure you would agree that we should look to the bible for guidance in this area. Joshua, on the command of God, was ordered to kill every civilian in Canaan. All were destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah. So, clearly, since God ordered it done, there are instances where killing civilians is justified. I see nothing in scripture that limits Just War to combatants. I believe that is a more modern convention. Civilians are not a detached group - they contribute to the war effort, lend materiel and moral support to their leaders, and are a source of labor as well as conscription for the armed forces. This is clearly seen in the German and Japanese populations in WW II.

In the case off Islamic civilians (e.g. the "Arab street"), they sympathize with bin Laden (many celebrated in the streets after 911), and have a generally intense hatred for America and Israel. Their clerics commonly preach murder and hatred in their houses of worship, especially in Saudi Arabia - the home of Wahab Islam. The terrorists are recruited from amongst the thoroughly indoctrinated "civilian" population (15 of 19 hijackers on 911 were Saudi civilians), and then are sent out to murder as many "infidels" as possible. This represents an ongoing "evil tyranny." Although all people are created in God's image and are equal in that respect, I do not believe that all "civilians" are equal in the sense that some populations are definitely more corrupt and dangerous than others.

WW II was a Just War. We were attacked and warred against first. We fought against two empires that were among the most murderous and tyrannous in history. Hiroshima aside, we bombed every major German city to the ground - hundredsd of thousands of German civilians died. Yet, these civilians were building ME-109's and Tiger tanks, and many supported Hitler. When Americans crossed the Rhine, there were not met by the German civilians as liberators. They were met with scowls and frowns and coldness. Were the civilians innocent noncombatants. I say no. Was the bombing of German cities justifed under Just War theory. I think it was. Jesus said, "blessed are the Peacemakers." Policemen are peacemakers and sometimes peace must be made with deadly force. Caesar had the same word emblazoned on his crown.


Now, the problem arises when the enemy won't fight in uniforms and/or when the enemy does not use Christian tactics (which the bloody Turk would not). Also, I recognise the difficulty when members of the same religion as our enemy are within our border -- but then we need to consider if this is a religious war -- and if it is, why not admit it. I believe it is for us, since we are fighting to advance democracy, but we are fighting against one false religion (Islam) in our quest to promote another false religion (democracy). We are not fighting as "Christian vs. Muslim" in this war.

To the muslim, it is Christian vs. Muslim. It's a spiritual hatred. For our part, we are fighting an evil tyranny that is out to destroy us, and it must be stopped. Let us be very careful not to cripple ourselves with biblically unfounded restraints. We cannot afford to since the stakes could not possibly be higher.

So the question is should we hold Mecca captive to "make the world safe for democracy." The world has never been in greater danger of having democracy foisted upon it at the point of a bayonette. It is this democracy that has permitted the millions of illegal aliens and Muslims into our country that will turn our nation into similar conditions as the nations of the Third World.

I agree with you here. The rationale cannot be to hold Mecca captive to make the world safe for democracy, but to make the world safe from an evil tyranny that seeks to destroy all who do not conform.

I will shut up now because I fear I take up too much space...

Respectfully submitted,

[TimV]

I'm sure you would agree that we should look to the bible for guidance in this area. Joshua, on the command of God, was ordered to kill every civilian in Canaan.

When you get a situation where the Bible seems to contradict itself, the proper method of interpretation is letting the clear verse interpret the unclear.

During the conquest of Caanan, there was a one off order to commit genocide. It was no where else repeated in the Bible, so thoughtful commentators see it as something extraordinary.

For normal situations, the Christian Theory of Just War applies. And you can't direct attacks against civilians, even if they are German and scowl at you.

I mean really, scowling is horrible, but you can't machine gun them down according to the Bible. As much as you'd like to. It's illegal and immoral.

[exmarine]

When you get a situation where the Bible seems to contradict itself, the proper method of interpretation is letting the clear verse interpret the unclear.

During the conquest of Caanan, there was a one off order to commit genocide. It was no where else repeated in the Bible, so thoughtful commentators see it as something extraordinary.

For normal situations, the Christian Theory of Just War applies. And you can't direct attacks against civilians, even if they are German and scowl at you.

I mean really, scowling is horrible, but you can't machine gun them down according to the Bible. As much as you'd like to. It's illegal and immoral.

Nowhere else repeated? Just to prove my point, here is another instance from 1Samuel where God ordered everyone put to the sword:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember [that] which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid [wait] for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1Sa15:2-3

And then we read that Samuel left Agag alive. He disobeyed the LORD.

It seems you are incorrect sir.

[exmarine]

When you get a situation where the Bible seems to contradict itself, the proper method of interpretation is letting the clear verse interpret the unclear.

During the conquest of Caanan, there was a one off order to commit genocide. It was no where else repeated in the Bible, so thoughtful commentators see it as something extraordinary.

For normal situations, the Christian Theory of Just War applies. And you can't direct attacks against civilians, even if they are German and scowl at you.

I mean really, scowling is horrible, but you can't machine gun them down according to the Bible. As much as you'd like to. It's illegal and immoral.

Please re-read my post. I didn't say that Americans should have shot the German civilians. Please stop implying that I did. My point was that the civilians were not detached noncombatants. They were part and parcel of the war effort against us. thus the razing of Germany's cities where manufacturing of war materiel was manufactured was justified.

Are we in a "normal situation"? What is that?

[TimV]

The Amalek situation was during the conquest of Caanan, just as I said.

Nice try, but no cigar.

[TimV]

Please re-read my post. I didn't say that Americans should have shot the German civilians. Please stop implying that I did. My point was that the civilians were not detached noncombatants. They were part and parcel of the war effort against us. thus the razing of Germany's cities where manufacturing of war materiel was manufactured was justified.

Whether they hated us, or worked against us in factories doesn't make a difference. The killing of them was only justified in your little world.

In the Bible, you can't even cut down a fruit tree in the country of your enemy, let alone nuke civilians.

Stop making us look stupid.

[TheSeventhStooge]

The Amalek situation was during the conquest of Caanan, just as I said.

Nice try, but no cigar.

The command to destroy the Amalekites was given from God to Moses just before Moses died, but was not carried out until the reign of King Saul a few hundred years later.

So you are mostly correct here. But the timing is off somewhat. That still does nothing to take away your point.

TheSeventhStooge...

[exmarine]

The Amalek situation was during the conquest of Caanan, just as I said.

Nice try, but no cigar.

No, it was not. What was the timespan between Joshua's battles and King Saul's battles? We are talking about a 400 year gap. Joshua - ~1425 BC, Saul - ~1025 BC. It was NOT the same campaign, it was much later.

You lost the point. Move on.

[exmarine]

Whether they hated us, or worked against us in factories doesn't make a difference. The killing of them was only justified in your little world.

In the Bible, you can't even cut down a fruit tree in the country of your enemy, let alone nuke civilians.

Stop making us look stupid.

Obviously, that is incorrect. If God ordered the extermination of entire populations, then there must be instances when warring against populations is just. If it were never the case, God would not have done it. Are you saying that what God did was unjust?

Abraham fought the first Just War in Genesis. War is a just means to stop the evil agression of evil governments and nations. Furthermore, there is nothing in the bible that disallows nukes. Clearly, you are not familiar with Just War theory at all, or Just War as it relates to the scriptures. So, I am wasting my time.

Frankly, you can believe whatever you want and I don't care. I was responding to Mr. Whiteman's post to me. Your incessant insults and coarse manner have made further conversation with you most undesirable. Just so you know - I am placing you on my ignore list, and I will not see any further replies from you.

Good day.

[GovernmentIsDangerous]

Should we nuke washington DC? Those in charge there have caused more deaths than "extremist Islam" ever will. Those in Washington are also those taking away your rights, not Osama Bin Laden.

You can now be confined without charges: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html

[Jaime]

I once said that we should nuke Mecca. It was an impassionate, yet, wrong and sinful statement. I regretted saying it and stated so to whom I made the stupid remark.

If Saudi Arabia attacks,or has launched an attack on, the uS,
if Mecca can be, on empirical evidence, shown that it is a legitimate military target and,
if there are no lesser means that would accomplish the goal,
then, and only then, should nukes be used.

This applies to any war.

[SWhiteman]

Should we nuke washington DC? Those in charge there have caused more deaths than "extremist Islam" ever will. Those in Washington are also those taking away your rights, not Osama Bin Laden.
Wow. :eek:

This brings the conversation to a whole new direction which "we" cannot entertain, because "we," by whom I mean you, me, TAV, &c., because we are not in a position to make war with our own country. We are not in a position to make war with Islam. We are not is a position to make war with Iraq. We are but mere citizens (albiet subjects at times) who must resist the tyranny of the people, i.e. revolution. Remember, our Founders did not consider the war "revolutionary," AND our Founders in 1776 were duly elected men, and you and I are not.

This conversation has gone down a few paths that are similar to taking a poll on what I had, or should have, for breakfast yesterday -- i.e., irrelevant and non-determinative. No matter what exmarine or TimV thinks the war was about, or should be about, our elected representatives have claimed that it is a war to disestablish a dictator and establish a democracy. This is the justification and we, the citizens, are stuck with it.

You all are familiar with PNAC (http://newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast.htm) and their call for war in the middle-east and social change through war since 1997. Then, look at the signers (http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) of that document and you will notice a similarity between them and the present administration. That is the unfolding policy for eternal war for eternal peace or Pax Americana which we are likely to be led into by our leaders.

So what can we do? Nuke DC? Of course not. "The sword is not conceded to individuals [singular] either by God or by the People. So if they draw the sword without orders, they are seditious, even though the cause may seem just." Stephanus Brutus, Vindicae Contra Tyrannos at Question 3.

When the King goes Tyrant, we pray to Congress, the courts or the States to intervene. When they all conspire to take away our liberty, or sit impotently on their hands winking at the usurpations of the others, "hypocrites reign through the sins of the people and by the permission of God, that these hypocrites may not be overthorwn by any device, unless the people themselves turn to God in their hearts; and that it is a task for bended knees..." [I]ibid

[exmarine]

Should we nuke washington DC? Those in charge there have caused more deaths than "extremist Islam" ever will. Those in Washington are also those taking away your rights, not Osama Bin Laden.


There is a night/day difference between defending our country and what you propose. What I propose is in defense of our country and the action/ultimatum taken would be done by our government not individual citizens. I do nothing on my own. What I have proposed has been proposed by many people.

However, what you have said here is something quite different. You should not mention such things - even in jest. I agree with Mr. Whiteman - it's just plain wrong.

[exmarine]

I once said that we should nuke Mecca. It was an impassionate, yet, wrong and sinful statement. I regretted saying it and stated so to whom I made the stupid remark.

If Saudi Arabia attacks,or has launched an attack on, the uS,
if Mecca can be, on empirical evidence, shown that it is a legitimate military target and,
if there are no lesser means that would accomplish the goal,
then, and only then, should nukes be used.

This applies to any war.

Just so I understand your position, I have a few questions please: You would not be in favor of a policy by our government of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) (that would include several targets in muslim territories) in order to prevent a nuclear attack on the United States? - an attack our own government and many other officials say is not "if" but "when" ? Do you think MAD is sinful (a proven strategy for self defense)? Do you think then that if the Soviet Union would have launched a nuclear attack on the U.S., it would have been sinful for us to retaliate in kind? Do you think it is better to receive a nuclear attack than issue a clear ultimatum that there will be certain and swift retaliation that would convince the terrorists that the price is too high? What would be your way of defending against a nuclear attack our government says is inevitable? The terrorists think we are weak - they see our pathetic political correctness and feminized sensitivities. What about the sin of not protecting an unarmed and helpless populace like ours?

When (not if) the terrorists do use nukes in our territory, you realize of course, that all bets are off at that point. All Politics, strategy, political correctness will be out the window at that point. Anything at all could happen at that point. You and I and all other Americans who live through the attack will be in survival mode. Not just the United States, but the entire earth will change instantaneously. It will be very very ugly.

May I suggest a book to read on the subject? it is called "Winning the War Against Radical Islam" by Dr. Robert Morey. You can pick up a copy on Amazon I think.

[exmarine]

Wow. :eek:

This brings the conversation to a whole new direction which "we" cannot entertain, because "we," by whom I mean you, me, TAV, &c., because we are not in a position to make war with our own country. We are not in a position to make war with Islam. We are not is a position to make war with Iraq. We are but mere citizens (albiet subjects at times) who must resist the tyranny of the people, i.e. revolution. Remember, our Founders did not consider the war "revolutionary," AND our Founders in 1776 were duly elected men, and you and I are not.



Obviously, the "we" I was referring to is the government of the United States of America. I think I made that quite clear.

[GovernmentIsDangerous]

Wow. :eek:

This brings the conversation to a whole new direction which "we" cannot entertain, because "we," by whom I mean you, me, TAV, &c., because we are not in a position to make war with our own country. We are not in a position to make war with Islam. We are not is a position to make war with Iraq. We are but mere citizens (albiet subjects at times) who must resist the tyranny of the people, i.e. revolution. Remember, our Founders did not consider the war "revolutionary," AND our Founders in 1776 were duly elected men, and you and I are not.

This conversation has gone down a few paths that are similar to taking a poll on what I had, or should have, for breakfast yesterday -- i.e., irrelevant and non-determinative. No matter what exmarine or TimV thinks the war was about, or should be about, our elected representatives have claimed that it is a war to disestablish a dictator and establish a democracy. This is the justification and we, the citizens, are stuck with it.

You all are familiar with PNAC (http://newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast.htm) and their call for war in the middle-east since and social change through war since 1997. Then, look at the signors (http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) of that document and you will notice a similarity between them and the present administration. That is the unfolding policy for eternal war for eternal peace or Pax Americana which we are likely to be lead into by our leaders.

So what can we do? Nuke DC? Of course not. "The sword is not conceded to individuals [singular] either by God or by the People. So if they draw the sword without orders, they are seditious, even though the cause may seem just." Stephanus Brutus, Vindicae Contra Tyrannos at Question 3.

When the King goes Tyrant, we pray to Congress, the courts or the States to intervene. When they all conspire to take away our liberty, or sit impotently on their hands winking at the usurpations of the others, "hypocrites reign through the sins of the people and by the permission of God, that these hypocrites may not be overthorwn by any device, unless the people themselves turn to God in their hearts; and that it is a task for bended knees..." [I]ibid

It isn't what I believe, I just want to get people thinking.

[GovernmentIsDangerous]

Obviously, the "we" I was referring to is the government of the United States of America. I think I made that quite clear.

I understood that, and I should have been more clear in my post.

[darlo]

I believe there is a commandment that says something like "Thou shalt not kill", and "love thy neighbor as thyself". Discussion ended.

[SWhiteman]

I believe there is a commandment that says something like "Thou shalt not kill", and "love thy neighbor as thyself". Discussion ended.

With all due respect, "Discussion ended" requires some demonstration of what you mean when you claim those commandments end the discussion. By "shalt not kill" do you mean there is no permissibility for war? "Love you neighbor," do you mean I must feel and emote for them, or rather does it mean that I must treat them in accordance with the law?

I am against nuking Mecca, DC, &c. but certainly we are permitted to defend ourselves with force if necessary against an aggressor, which is one point exmarine was making and a point with which TAV agrees. The question comes with 1.) what measure of force is appropriate, 2.) who is the proper party to employ the force, 3.) against whom the force may be employed (among other questions). This is this discussion, and it is not ended. So please, tell us how those commandments apply to this discussion.

[exmarine]

I believe there is a commandment that says something like "Thou shalt not kill", and "love thy neighbor as thyself". Discussion ended.

No, the discussion is not ended, because your assertion is scripturally incorrect. That commandment is directed at individuals, not governments.

Read Romans 13 - it says:

"The authorities that exist have been established by God." v.1b

"For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." v.4-5

Is Paul contradicting Jesus or the 10 Commandments? No. Governments have the authority to administer the death penalty and make war. God ordained the death penalty Himself, and he has given rulers the authority to administer it in a righteous and just manner. Self defense is one such righteous manner.

Furthermore, Jesus will plant is feet on the Mount of Olives and he will fight the nations. Zech. 14.

"With justice he judges the nations and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his [h]ead are many crowns." Rev. 19:11ff:

If fighting wars against tyrannical evil nations was against the Commandments, then Jesus wouldn't do it. With all due respect, I think you need some more study of scripture friend and how it relates to the death penalty and to war.

[exmarine]

I believe there is a commandment that says something like "Thou shalt not kill", and "love thy neighbor as thyself". Discussion ended.

Please forgive my regrettable typo: The verse in Revelation should read, "...on his head are many crowns".

I must be more careful when quoting scripture to make sure there are no typos.