Dallas Morning News May 13, 2004

This Is The Enemy

Vile Image Shows World Why We Fight

The image you see here depicts an al-Qaeda terrorist brandishing the severed head of American hostage Nick Berg as a trophy of war. This is who the enemy is. This is what our nation is up against.

We have chosen to obscure Mr. Berg's face. But it is important that our readers see in as much detail as reasonably possible what the Islamists have done to an innocent American civilian. It's important because this is the fate al-Qaeda and its allies intend for every one of us in the West, and for the many Muslims who oppose their plans. (Though Arab media have generally downplayed this atrocity, it's actually more important for the world's Muslims to see what is being done in their name.)

Presenting this photograph, which was taken from an al-Qaeda-affiliated Web site, is important because of the power of image to shape public opinion. Shocking photographs have driven the Abu Ghraib prison atrocity story, which has now become a national crisis of confidence in this nation's civilian and military leadership, and the mission in Iraq. If we show you images of Abu Ghraib abuses, and of soldiers' coffins at Dover Air Force base because we think you should know the truth about this war, then we should show you this image, too.

Publishing this photo in no way justifies what happened in Abu Ghraib, nor does it lessen America's responsibility to bring those responsible for perpetrating those acts to justice, and to atone for those wrongs. It is meant to bring perspective to events in Iraq, to refocus the nation's eyes on the larger picture of the war against radical Islam, and its stakes.

Nick Berg was but the latest victim in the terrorist war on civilization. Al-Qaeda doesn't intend him to be their last. To paraphrase British Prime Minister Tony Blair, al-Qaeda members killed one, but if they could have killed 100,000, they would have rejoiced in it. Look at the photo of what they did to this young Pennsylvanian, and understand that this is why we Americans fight, however imperfectly, and that this is why we dare not lose faith in the justice and necessity of our cause.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2004

Answers

Nick Berg, the Abu Ghraib mess, the fallen US soldiers, the fallen Iraqi soliders and innocent civilians, these people beg the question what was this all about in the first place? Was it a crusade against Islam? I certainly hope not, for that is not the place of government, it certainly was described as a war to do away with WMD but that was just a lie. So what is this all about? What have we accomplished? A free Iraq? A terror free world? A captured Saddam? The Genocide continues, the torture continues and the terror is worst than ever.

I really am trying to understand the reason for war. Please just give me the reason we went to war. The justification for the death of my brothers and sisters.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2004

Dear Brother I am sorry that my opinion differs on this thread. What you do not see is the sterile television captions of smart bombs hitting their targets. You hear of Shock and awe but what you do not not see is the innocent lives (thousands of them)who disappear when the target is destroyed. Every time an Iraq tank was destroyed 3 to 4 Iraq people were in that tank and burned to death. The world never got to see the awful and awsome deaths suffered by the people of Iraq thanks to the awsome fire power of the United States and the world did object. What did the President of the United States do. Told the World and the United Nations he ws going alone if necessary and to those who would not support him they would now see a new relationship with the United States. Nick Berg is a victim like others who are in a hostile territory. That is war. Thank God for the other man who broke out and ran to freedom.

Iraq never started this war with the United States. That is a fact that cannot be argued.What has become different is the refusal of those of a different culture to just go along with the United States.

I posted my concerns before the war broke out that this would lead to long term problems for the United States because they do not understand Muslims and it appeared this administration did not care. Bringing democracy to the Middle East has been a goal of the United States Government for many years and the U.S. is still paying the price for it. Who was instrumental in establishing the Shah of Iran? When the Shah of Iran was thrown out by Muslim fundamentalists he was replaced by the Ayatollah. What did America do. It invested time money and assets with Sadam.

Now after finding no WMD and a country in kaos and ruin the U.S. is now turning the control of certain areas over to whom, the Generals of Sadam. After decrying Sadam for using poisonous gas on his people (which the U.S. Government did on Blacks in the South as well)the U.S. now has to deal with a fully framented Iraq with tribal warring factions ready to be at each other again.

The price of all of this is the unnecessary loss of life, both American and Iraq. The real enemy are those who have distorted information to create the case which the President articulated as the predication for war. Is it the business of the United States to just go into countries and claim they represent a threat to America and then begin destroying them? Vietnam was supposed to be the lesson the United States vowed would never happen again.

Will the U.S. take responsibility for all that goes wrong after June 30th? More lives may have been killed by the U.S. in Iraq than at the World Trade Center. What is the point? When will this end? How many more lives for a purpose that does not exist? There are no weapons of mass destruction. The world now sees that. The U.S. began this and they must now end this. We all want this to stop.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2004

It will end when the threat has been removed or we are defeated. There is no middle ground. Unfortunately the enemy has our number, and the world's in one respect: Hit them and they'll run. Bill Clinton did from Somalia, Spain did from Iraq...

They see our weakness lies in our left wing, and they're succeeding with you. If we lose the war it will be because of the left and it's witting, or unwitting alliance with the enemy.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2004

RP,

Get off of this web site and do not return! You are not wanted. BYE! SO LONG! ADIOS!

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2004

RP,

I tend to agree that the left is our weakness. The left in the country tends to be Godless, and conformed to a philosophy which has no apparent fear of the Lord God Almighty. Abortion, Homosexuality, Same Sex Marriage, Radical Feminism, Elimination of God from public schools, buildings, etc., and a host of other things that clearly identify them as the enemies of God. Now of course this is not to say that every left leaning person is Godless, but that the left agenda is so. As such, the left is blind to the fact that the war is not against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms, and that if they are not on God's side, they are enemies no doubt, and aid those who are also enemies. Our cause, though imperfect, is what it is. The Lord has raised us up for this purpose. No one should doubt that despite our misgivings and reservations, the universe is unfolding as it should. So Christian, be at peace. Those who do evil, let them continue to do so for their destruction is at hand.

In Christ

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2004

Whoa Ron. What do you mean by the term radical feminism (this is not a rhetorical question) and why are you including it your listing of godless activities?

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2004

It's interesting to note that nobody in this thread has mentioned the discovery of Sarin and other mustard gas by Army troops today. Well, I suppose in the name of "balanced discussion" I'll assume that role. I look forward to reading how the spinmeisters will respond to this discovery in the Road to finding WMD. QED

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2004

Dear Prof. QED I have just warmed up my first piece of Humble Pie. I have seen the news and concur that the chemical weapons are there in Iraq. Your point is well made that balance should be in this discussion. I believe this may be the first sign of a possible vindication for the President.

I am saddened by the Political tones coming of this discussion as I am neither Democrat nor Republican. Same sex Marriages on the television last night was both disturbing and difficult to watch. For all of the media on the celebrations I saw little of the opposition of the Churches. Is the enemy also in our back yard?

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2004

Brother Gibson,

As you can imagine, this is a most difficult topic, so I'll try to handle it delicately.

Radical feminism views women's oppression as a fundamental element in human society and seeks to challenge that standard by broadly rejecting traditional gender roles. Radical feminists believe that society forces an oppressive patriarchy on women, and seeks to abolish this patriarchal influence. This, in my opinion, constitutes outright rebellion to that which God has ordained, and carries with it myriad consequences - individual and societal - as do all things that are hostile to God's Will. I am used to being alone in this view, yet, cheerfully invite views to the contrary.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2004

I also heard and read about the discovery of the Nerve Agent Sarin. Believe me, as it has been said, if this is a significant case, then it will explain our going against the United Nations, and beginning this war. But,and I quote, "Washington, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reacted cautiously to the news, saying he preferred to wait for further testing before commenting on the significance of the discovery."

One of the reasons I enjoy reading this AME Site is because the people who participate are well versed in religious, and political topics. I suspect there was no mentioning of the found sarin because it is not enough information for anyone to jump to conclusion.

I don't know who the spinmeisters are, but I'm sure the people on this site did not respond because there is still not sufficient information that merits discussion.

I hope it is a discovery to the road to WMD. I'd like to know there is a reason why so many have lost their lives.

In Christ, Carmen

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2004

Here is an excerpt from an article from the Guardian regarding the "discovery."

Two soldiers were treated for "minor exposure to nerve agent", according to the military, but it was not clear how seriously they were affected. The sarin was contained in a 155mm artillery shell, one of the more common devices used in the past year for roadside bombs.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said the shell appeared to be of a type of which the Iraqi regime claimed to have destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war. He said it was unlikely that the insurgents who planted it knew it contained sarin.

The explosion happened a "couple of days ago," he said.

The shell was old and a "binary" type, in which two chemical components are mixed before the agent is produced. The shell was originally intended to be fired from a heavy artillery gun.

UN weapons inspectors knew that Iraq produced significant quantities of sarin as part of a broader chemical weapons programme. But the majority of the chemicals and the warheads were thought to have been destroyed by the regime or by the inspectors in the early 1990s.

According to the last UN inspectors' report in January 1999, 16 sarin warheads were destroyed by the inspectors from 1991-93. Hundreds of other "aerial bombs" that contained sarin components in a binary form and 122mm rockets containing sarin were also destroyed.

The inspectors said they could not be confident that Iraq had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. Yet in the past year, the Iraq Survey Group, which has led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, has failed to produce any evidence of any banned chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

David Kay, who led last year's hunt for weapons of mass destruction before stepping down, said the sarin was probably left over from the 1980s, produced either during the Iraq-Iran war or before the 1991 Gulf war.

Carmen, I am with you I hope it is more than this to justify the lives destroyed.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2004

There are two primary problems with feminism.

1. The Word instructs women to submit to their husbands (since this is on feminism I won't go into the Word's instruction to husbands). There it is. Wives, submit. Not submit if he's Godly, not submit if he does his part. Submit to your husband.

Don't muddy the waters by bringing up spousal abuse, let's keep it simple. He's in a bad mood and tells you not very nicely to clean up the kitchen. Or you want to take some classes and he tells you to forget it. He likes the money your lousy job brings in, and doesn't care if you hate it. Can you submit?

What feminist can hear this command to submit without getting absolutely furious? Not many (any?), because the spirit that drives them is not the same Spirit that inspired Paul to write the command.

That Holy Spirit understands alignment, order, and the Jezebel spirit of rebellion. He understands how a wife can win her lost husband to Christ if she'll submit. That's more important than her comfort, her dreams, or her desires. His eternal destination is at stake.

2. Feminism promotes abortion. That shows it's root is not from God. It comes from the Molech spirit of murder and child sacrice. What Christian can align himself or herself with these spirits?

Unfortunately many do out of ignorance or rebellion.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2004

Whoa, this is confusing. Re the discussion on feminism further up the thread.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2004

Thank you RP for once again demonstrating the sorrow of ignorance. Your silly rant on feminism was simply moronic. Congratulations you've managed to become more insipid than I would have thought possible.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2004