Sunday, March 16, 2008

Who Would Jesus Bomb?

Originally published by Political Grind - August 20, 2007

"Who would Jesus bomb?" My neighbor's bumper sticker poses this loaded question or, more precisely, issues this provocative challenge. It is, of course, meant as an admonishment, an indictment aimed at those of us who supported the war in Iraq, those of us who, after decades of not responding to the escalating Islamic terrorists attacks against us, finally, after the horrors of 9/11, said, enough is enough and decided to fight back. Its obvious purpose is to shame us, to demonstrate how, once again, we are on the wrong side of the moral equation. Not only are we immoral, they tell us, but we are also sacrilegious.

There are, however, a few problems with this equation. The vision that this startling question conjures up is of squadrons of American B-52s carpet-bombing the poor people of Iraq into submission. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of bombs that are being used in this conflict are those ubiquitous, cheap but effective IEDs, the jihadists' favored weapon of choice. And these deadly homemade (or increasingly Iranian-made) bombs are being used daily against us and our allies and innocent Iraqi civilians.

Of course, they say, if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place, none of this would be happening. Let's consider this argument for a moment. If we had not invaded Iraq, if we had succeeded in confining the war to Afghanistan, can anyone seriously doubt that the mujahideen would be coming in droves to Afghanistan to wage jihad against us there, just as they came there to fight the U.S.S.R. in the 1980s? We would be the same infidels fighting the same jihadists, for the same reasons, only we'd be fighting them on different soil. And, incidentally, Saddam Hussein would still be adding to his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, ruthlessly murdering his own people and threatening his neighbors.

However, this still leaves us with that disarming bumper sticker question. And although of course its highly speculative, the answer must surely be that Jesus wouldn't bomb anybody. Indeed, if he followed precedent, he would allow himself to be captured by the enemy, imprisoned, tortured and finally executed. He would do this because that is his role; his divinely ordained role was, after all, to become a martyr, history's preeminent martyr. But should this be our role? Are we all preordained to be martyrs? I don't think so. There are many lessons to be learned from the example of the life of Christ; however, lessons on how to conduct a successful war may not be among them.

Perhaps the question should be reframed. How about, "Who would Muhammad bomb?" Muhammad was, after all, a consummate warrior who was in the business of making martyrs, not becoming one himself. Here, the answer seems pretty obvious; all you have to do is read the Koran. Muhammad would bomb the infidel which, of course, is you and me. He would do this because that is his divinely ordained role.

Whether we like the idea or not, we must face up to the fact that we are presently at war and we cannot allow ourselves to be made to feel guilty for defending ourselves against a murderous enemy obsessed with our destruction.

Voted by GOP Hub

Voted by Fox News at Gop Hub


  1. BeeJeesuss!!!

    Superlatives fail this mission. You have outdone yourself, Roger, and outdone me as well. I congratulate you on the creation of a perfect blog post, in content and execution.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. "Welcome to Radarsite
    Please feel free to leave your comments, your opinions are valuable to us. Obscenities, personal attacks, and anti-American rants will of course be deleted. I hope you enjoy your visit and return often. -- Roger W. Gardner, owner and editor of Radarsite."

    I don't know how much clearer we can be. No anti-American rants. Period.

  4. Churchill's ParrotMarch 16, 2008 at 10:42 PM

    Distinguishing pacifism from Christianity requires a mental aptitude no longer cultivated in today's minds. And thus "Jesus is a Liberal." The offensiveness and ass-headedness of this statement (and pompous knock-offs such as "Who would Jesus Bomb") is so staggering as to render one virtually incapable of countering it.

    We find some clarification in the following however: "History for Losers" - .

    It begins with a quote from that notorious mental midget, Mr. George Orwell:

    “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one.”

    The "Jesus" arguements used to condemn today's war efforts, could just have easily been used to condemn those of WW2 etc. But perhaps, people knew better at that time?



  5. Thank you both Ben and Charlie.
    Pacifism is, perhaps, a good defense against other pacifists -- but against Islamists and other Fascists it is hopeless and suicidal.

  6. "Who would Muhammad bomb?"

    They would never ask that question because they are sniveling cowards.

    None the less there was that incident when Jesus got really pissed at all the folks who turned his fathers home into a market.

    I suppose an answer to a stupid bumper sticker like that would be another one, how many babies would Jesus kill/abort?

    I'll bet he'll suddenly be yearning once again to be free from Christian indoctrination.

    Lefties yearn for the old testament when they are at pains to point out the similarities between Islam and Christianity and how we're just the same. But they suddenly discover the new testament when it comes to badgering Christians to turn the other cheek, funny how they yearn for some religion in the public sphere then.