The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

I stumbled across this shirt at Ranger Up the other day, and it struck me that the men we are most likely to associate with modern day knights, SEALs, SAS, etc. are distinctively unchivalrous.  That is to say that the military aspect of chivalry (separate from the kneeling and picking up women’s underwear aspect of chivalry) no longer describes our concept of an elite warrior.  From the description:

A lot of people forget that there was a time when archaic codes of warfare lived on modern battlefields. It’s hard to believe, in our time, when unconventional warfare has become a very conventional concept, that soldiers used to operate with this mentality. Many WWII leaders, both allies and axis, fought with overly-romantic notions of frontline chivalry. It can be tough to win when you’ve created rules that work against you. Enter the Special Operations Executive AKA The Baker Street Irregulars, AKA The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Military. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

  1. Pingback: The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare | @the_arv

  2. Wayne says:

    Not following the rules is considered to be ungodly lawlessness in a righteousness-guilt based ethical system, such as Christianity. But in a power-based ethical system, such as what the military, Feminism, and now the Democratic Party has adopted, mindlessly following the rules, while putting faith in the goodwill of others to do the same, is a gesture of foolish self sacrifice and stupidity.
    The times, they are a changing…

  3. Dalrock says:

    Wayne, are you saying snipers like Chris Kyle are ungodly because they don’t fight like “gentlemen”?

  4. JRob says:

    Properly trained, equipped, and led swinish and brutal armies historically win. As our military is led further into LaLaPCFemLand along with Western culture at large, can we actually keep our enemies from laughing at us?

    Our group discussion (Numbers 31:19- ) began because of a vomit inducing flyer included in the Sunday bulletin of a local church a friend attends.

    https://militarybiblestick.com/resources-for-churches/

    Scroll down to “Bulletin Inserts” and download the November Giving Challenge flyer.

    Excellent post.

  5. Big20s says:

    Life 101, 1st lesson:
    When a woman drops her underwear, picking them up should be the last thing on your mind.

  6. Lost Patrol says:

    “I’d like to have two armies: one for display with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, staffs, distinguished and doddering Generals, and dear little regimental officers who would be deeply concerned over their General’s bowel movements or their Colonel’s piles, an army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country. The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflage uniforms, who would not be put on display, but from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught. That’s the army in which I should like to fight.”

    ― Jean Lartéguy

  7. honeycomb says:

    Submarines were thought of as “cowardly weapons”. Sinking passenger ships .. laying of mines .. etc.

    https://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/ww1/section4/

  8. Lexet Blog says:

    Until we started using them.

  9. Lexet Blog says:

    What’s interesting, that in Christianity, there was some form of common agreement as to what was “too far” in warfare. Of course that took hundreds of years to perfect.

    Meanwhile in the east… not so much.

    That is why we can’t fight effectively against terrorism. In warfare, the team with fewer constraints wins. This “good guy white knight, freedom always wins” bs is just bs.

    The most effective military ever fielded was the United States Army between 1863 and 1945. For Two wars we adopted total warfare, and left a mental impression in our enemies, which deterred any future conflict. We declared that in war between nations, civilians are sometimes fair targets. Our bombing campaigns was new age siege warfare.

    Now we just piss off locals by insulting their society and giving them our madness as a model.

  10. Dalrock, your question, out of no where, about Chris Kyle demonstrates exactly what Wayne said, which is the transition in the ascendant value system, i.e. the effective ‘ethics’. You focus on getting your personal guilt calibration right rather than getting our lives on earth right. The base get carte blanche, somehow, and no good deed goes unpunished. What a world to create by abdication.

  11. Vektor says:

    They take your children and make you an indentured servant. The time for chivalry is long gone.

  12. I can think of several mutually exclusive items that might legitimately come to mind before picking up the garter, depending on the circumstances and the woman in question.

  13. There’s a distinction still between the laws that govern warfare between nations (and that the U.S. clings to even in irregular “anti-terrorism” campaigns) and both the ruthless pragmatism of jihadists and the naïve romanticism of “Gentlemanly” (or “Marquis of Queensbury”) fighting from the Civil War era.

  14. Dalrock says:

    @‘Reality’ Doug
    I see now that I misread Wayne’s comment. I’m not sure I follow the rest of your comment, but I’ll take a fresh look at it tomorrow.

  15. I guess it depends when you start watching the movie?
    World War II with German and Axis forces against the Allies in the 20th century?
    The Hussars versus Napoleon’s forces in Russia early 19th century?
    The American Revolutionary War of the late 18th century?
    Maybe the 6th century Chinese warring states and the Zhou Dynasty?

    So called “unconventional warfare” tactics, often referred to in our recent times as “guerilla warfare” is actually extremely old, and was not rare at all, but very common and often highly effective.

    For centuries men of all nations have become sadly very familiar with such unromantic, “cowardly”, and unchivalrous tactics of warfare. If only using armed civilians, paramilitaries, irregulars, paid off opportunistic mercenary soldiers, lures and ambushes, raids, hit-and-run attacks, etc. had not been so damned effective against larger, less-mobile and more traditionally structured armies.

    Today such tactics are incorporated into the “new conventional” warfare strategy. Nothing conventional or gentlemanly about it anymore. Not if you want to win it, or at least not lose it.

  16. They Call Me Thom says:

    Agincourt was won by the army that used archers, even though archers were supposed to be ‘bush league’ in medieval warfare. The Trojans were in the habit of odd-footing against opposing infantry, stepping back to a strong foot position as the opposing forces stepped to their weak foot position. Athens took hostages in the Peloponnesian Wars. Sparta allied with the Persians for a navy to compete with Athens’ in the Peloponnesian Wars. If I remember right, Marathon was won by reinforcing the wings and thinning the center of the infantry line, to set up a situation that exposed the opposing infantry’s flanks. Cannae was won by either a center that happened to collapse, or deliberately retreated, leading the Roman legions in to position for being flanked.

    War has never been gentlemanly. Not in the classic tales of the west or those of the east.

    Ulysses would not take captive a Trojan that surrendered and could offer a healthy ransom in The Iliad. Liu Bei betrayed Lu Bu, shortly after Lu Bu had gotten Jin LIng and Zhang Fei’s armies to withdraw from the field in a battle where they otherwise would have defeated Liu Bei in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

  17. Pingback: The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare | Reaction Times

  18. But in a power-based ethical system, such as what the military, Feminism, and now the Democratic Party has adopted, mindlessly following the rules, while putting faith in the goodwill of others to do the same, is a gesture of foolish self sacrifice and stupidity.

    Traditionally, at least, the military didn’t just mindlessly put faith in the goodwill of their enemies. The (usually implicit) agreement was “You follow the rules towards us, and we’ll follow them towards you,” which incentivised both sides to not be too ruthless. Where one side broke the rules, the other considered itself under no obligation not to do the same. E.g., in the Battle of the Bulge, German soldiers would sometimes disguise themselves as Allies in order to get the drop on their enemies. Those who were captured would be summarily executed rather than being kept as POWs.

  19. A Portuguese Man says:

    @JJGriffing

    Oh really?! What’s the difference then, pray tell?

    So the Baker St. Irregulars is just pragmatic, ranger-up warfighting “to win”. But bringing down the WTC is a despicable act of terrorism. Sure, it’s always “terrorism” when ours are the victims, and “pragmatic fighting” when the victims are others.

    Yet, how many victims have these “pragmatic fighters” have caused in the way of retaliation and retribution from Germans for what they correctly viewed as terrorism and flagrant violations of warfare laws?

    We know that, at some point, the Germans were executing 30x Jews for each German officer assassinated by means of terrorism. Were they wrong? Perhaps. But if any civilian can be a combatant, then what’s the difference?

    But we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys, you’d say. That’s why you have no allies, I would reply. You’ll notice once you start losing. And, at some point, you will lose.

  20. Patrick Brehon says:

    It is not their husbands women need fear but their sons.
    I lead their sons, yes in the very military.

    As for chivalry; reciprocity is an Iron Law of humanity.
    In war or marriage limits must be observed by both parties.
    The women tossed all the rules and dare us to reconquer them, so we should.

    One final note; we’re the most decent soldiers walking. War is never decent but we are easily the most decent military afoot. We do of course win the battles, we simply cannot make them white liberals who vote social democrat as the condition of peace.

    As for whatever you dream of Dalrock this commenter said it best “You focus on getting your personal guilt calibration right rather than getting our lives on earth right.
    The base get carte blanche, somehow, and no good deed goes unpunished.
    What a world to create by abdication.”

  21. Hugh Mann says:

    There are real ethical issues with behind-the-lines type stuff. You can’t take prisoners, you have to stay hidden, maybe you have others with you, so what do you do when some totally innocent civilian stumbles upon you by accident? The answer’s not very nice.

  22. Jason says:

    I can’t cite the specific scripture, but somewhere the Apostle (John?) speaks against “doing evil so that good can result”. He refutes both the specific accusation against him and the principle as well.

  23. Wayne says:

    Dalrock,
    Your OP approches the conundrum that is faced by Christians in waging spiritual warfare in this world, as well as competing in the SMP. “Nice guys finish last”, etc.
    Christ asserted that His kingdom is not of this world. Nevertheless, we do have Old Testament examples of when the Israelites conducted warfare, apparently using power based strategies. However, it seems that whether they won or lost all depended on the nation’s collective righteousness before God. Also, my intuition tells me that a righteous man should have more confidence to face conflict, and that this would give him an edge in the struggle.
    I suspect there are no clear answers.
    As for Chris Kyle, I am hesitant to cast judgement on any man engaged in warfare or in a life-or-death situation. The context matters greatly. But strictly within the righteousness-guilt based ethical system, any breach of protocol done to achieve one’s own ends at the expense of others, would be considered dastardly. But in a power based system, this would be par for the course.
    Military action is taken between opposing countries in order to defend or assert dominance. The power-fear based ethical system is most effective for this purpose, and that is why it is employed by militaries, even to the point of guerrilla warfare. In this system, essentially, “might is right”. Similarly, in a state of war, defeating the enemy and staying alive to write the history books would arguably be a higher priority than remaining guiltless, and so individual guilt is assumed as a cost of war. At the other extreme, conscientious objectors are typically those who cannot break their conscience free from the righteousness-guilt based ethical system, even under threat of death or court-martial.
    BTW, I enjoy reading your blog. Thanx~!

  24. Oscar says:

    The great-granddaddy of “ungentlemanly warfare” is Gideon.

    At the Lord’s instruction, with only a ragtag company of 300, he scared the crap out of a combined force of Midianites, Amalekites, and Arabs (“as numerous as locust”) in the middle of the night, deceived them into thinking they were surrounded and infiltrated, and in their confusion, begin killing each other. See Judges 7-8.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+7&version=NKJV

    “All warfare is based on deception.” ~ Sun Tzu

    “You ever read the Book of Judges? That’s FM f***ing 1.” ~ crusty old NCO whose name I don’t remember

  25. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Wayne

    Dalrock,
    Your OP approches the conundrum that is faced by Christians in waging spiritual warfare in this world, as well as competing in the SMP. “Nice guys finish last”, etc.
    Christ asserted that His kingdom is not of this world. Nevertheless, we do have Old Testament examples of when the Israelites conducted warfare, apparently using power based strategies. However, it seems that whether they won or lost all depended on the nation’s collective righteousness before God. Also, my intuition tells me that a righteous man should have more confidence to face conflict, and that this would give him an edge in the struggle.
    I suspect there are no clear answers.

    I think there are two sets of issues here. One is a serious discussion of right and wrong, sin and righteousness. As Hugh Mann notes above there are serious issues with behind the lines operations. The movie Lone Survivor depicts such a scenario.

    The other issue is a romanticized & stylized view of warfare that makes for great entertainment, enthralls young men, and allows the ladies to most easily pick out the super alpha from among the chaos. In the latter view warfare is really a friendly sporting competition with lethal weapons; gladiators have a great romantic appeal especially for young boys and women.

    I would put chivalry in the latter camp, the stylized view of warfare that makes for great fight scenes in books and movies. There is still a need for a serious discussion on rules of war, but it isn’t about scoring style points.

  26. Liz says:

    Some US bomber crews wore jackets with “Murder Inc” written on them.
    Murder Inc was the nickname given to the Boeing Flying Fortress B-17F, assigned to the 508th Squadron, 351st USAAF Bombardment Grp, 8th Airforce.
    At any rate, it wasn’t a good jacket to get captured in.
    I don’t think there has ever been a “clean” war. That’s hagiography. But some sides were better than others and the US was far better than most. The reason the Germans ran to US lines when it was time to surrender,, if they could make it. They know what the Russians had in store for them.

  27. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Muslim convert Sinead O’Connor is now an anti-white racist: https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/sinead-oconnor-muslim-new-name/

    the famously outspoken and troubled singer has quickly caused more controversy, declaring: “What I’m about to say is something so racist, I never thought my soul could ever feel it. But truly I never wanna spend time with white people again (if that’s what non-muslims are called). Not for one moment, for any reason. They are disgusting.”

  28. Oscar says:

    Dalrock said:

    In the latter view warfare is really a friendly sporting competition with lethal weapons; gladiators have a great romantic appeal especially for young boys and women.

    I would put chivalry in the latter camp, the stylized view of warfare that makes for great fight scenes in books and movies.

    That is correct. Ironically, medieval manuals taught all kinds of dirty fighting tricks.

    It’s a good thing to place limits on the cruelty of war, and it’s not a coincidence that Christian nations did so, but Chivalry is for tournaments, not for combat.

  29. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    Ironically, medieval manuals taught all kinds of dirty fighting tricks.

    It makes perfect sense. Moderns did the same thing with Medieval fiction that the aliens did with a goofy Sci Fi TV show in Galaxy Quest. We mistook entertainment and fantasy for history. We were seduced by the story we wanted to believe.

  30. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    Mixing medieval history and fiction with Galaxy Quest is comedy gold!

  31. “In warfare, the team with fewer constraints wins.”

    This is common knowledge that is total horseshit.

    Not every lack of constraints actually helps. The Germans could have held Eastern Europe, but they were so chaotic and ruthless that they alienated true potential allies. In the ME, the more chaotic and insane ISIS and others are, they actually create defectors and cripple their own ability to wage war.

    It’s not about “no rules”, it’s about what actually works. Even the rules of Europe were by agreement and if one side blew them off, the other was allowed to as well.

    When you read Roger Trinquiers’ work (the guy wrote the literal book on counter insurgency, people forget the French actually won the Battle of Algiers but I digress), you don’t see chaotic “no rules” ruthlessness. You see moral and philosophical justification for some of the oldest tactics of warfare.

    The reason we lose is less because the other side is tough and ruthless, but more that our rules make no sense for actually winning

  32. Scott says:

    One time I told one of my soldiers that she had to stay late because we needed to catch up on some filing and she refused on the basis that it was an unlawful order.

    Just like nazis ordering her to put people on cattle cars.

  33. Take it from someone who’s played a trillion bazillion video games:

    There’s no hard-and-fast rule about “least restraints wins.” It is, as Jordan Peterson is fond of saying, a multivariate problem. What if you have more restrictive ethics but better training? What if you’re more numerous, but the enemy never directly engages you and just bombards from over the sea/mountain, and retreats whenever you chase?

    Somewhere on Death Row is some dude with no restraints. He is “losing” compared to my three-yr-old nephew, who is basically harmless but has more allies. He is also losing compared to my neurotic, chronically-sick, sometimes-employed shut-in uncle, who nevertheless has raised five wonderful children and has a ball playing with his grandchildren.

    Reality is not constructed for easy summarization.

  34. Scott says:

    A trillion bazillion roger that.

    All the answers to life’s most perplexing conundrums are found in video games

    I don’t actually play any myself, but that’s what I heard n stuff.

  35. Lost Patrol says:

    Rules of war, the long version:

    http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LOAC-Deskbook-2015.pdf

    The short version:

    “War is cruelty. You can’t refine it.”
    ― William T. Sherman, Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman

  36. The Question says:

    Maybe I’m misinterpreting it, but this appears to be a fight between “chivalrous” egalitarians controlling converged space and feminists seeking to preserve female-exclusive space.

    The whole message from feminists seems to be: We wanted to destroy you, not join you!

  37. jeff says:

    Lexet Blog,

    I hate to break it to you, but the “War on Terror” is not real. How do you fight a war against a word? It’s like the idiot wife of Reagan… “War on drugs”. Nixon… “War on Poverty”.

    We have fought unconventional warfare in many jungle settings and won. It’s the politicians and politician commanders who lose the war for the boots on the ground infantry or Spec Ops.

    The war on words can be won, but it takes brutality to win. George Bush was a schill. Most of those terrorists on the planes were Saudis. He pretended like Saddam Hussein was harboring and aiding OBL, which was false. The CIA knew it and so did the military. We attacked Iraqis and Afghans? That’s like if when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor we go after India because they traded merchandise with the Japanese.

  38. Of course Sherman would need to believe that, being what we would now call a war criminal. He’s also wrong, we’ve been refining war ever since Cain knocked Abel’s brains out.

    My only point is that if ruthlessness was all it took for victory, we may as well all become pacifists because we will lose. We’re lucky it’s not. ISIS is wiling to use deliberate mutilation of true innocents (and far worse) and we’re not. So give up? Start committing actual atrocities?

    Or, alternatively, use the same tactics that you find in everything from the Deuteronomic code to Wingate and the Special Night Squads. You don’t have to be evil just because your enemy is. We do need to get rid of rules that make no moral or practical sense. They may be more brutal than what we’re doing now, but it’s not actual chaos. It’s not actually “no rules”. The point isn’t to be tougher than the other guy by itself, it’s to bend him to your will.

  39. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    jeff: He pretended like Saddam Hussein was harboring and aiding OBL, which was false. The CIA knew it and so did the military. We attacked Iraqis and Afghans?

    Israel wanted Saddam taken out. Remember how Saddam was paying $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers? But why take out Saddam when you can have the U.S. do it for you?

    Our Mideast wars are largely at the behest of Israel. Israel does not want secular Arab strongmen organizing modern armies. Israel prefers a chaotic and divided Arab world, full of primitive Muslim tribal in-fighting. Better they should fight each other than Israel.

    This is why the (Jewish) American media was so apoplectic over Trump’s 2016 “America First” statements. They worried he would cease fighting wars for Israel. And it’s why the media calmed down each time Trump bombed Syria.

    As an added bonus, these Mideast wars are driving Muslim refugees into Europe.

  40. TMAC says:

    Practically speaking, imminency of defeat governs almost all rules of engagement.

  41. Pingback: Don’t confuse entertainment with history. | Dalrock

  42. Wayne says:

    “It’s not about “no rules”, it’s about what actually works.”

    Pragmatism, not justice, is the core strategy of the Power based ethical system.
    Another perspective that should be considered, is the distinction between individual and collective power or guilt. Men like Kyle may very well be righteous as an individual, but when they don the uniform of a soldier, they act as an agent to the state, and exercise the power thereof.

  43. info says:

    To take a look at how Ancient Warfare was conducted one needs only to look at Alexander’s actions during his conquests:

    Often consisting of the menfolk get killed off and the women and children sold into slavery. Thereby wiping out that city.

    ”so what do you do when some totally innocent civilian stumbles upon you by accident? The answer’s not very nice.”

    Luckily we have the tranquiler gun to stave that off. And techniques to knock out people.

  44. info says:

    @Lost Patrol

    Indeed. Since war is cruel enough then its best to avoid unnecessary cruelty.

  45. info says:

    @GreenMantlehoyos
    ”This is common knowledge that is total horseshit.

    Not every lack of constraints actually helps. The Germans could have held Eastern Europe, but they were so chaotic and ruthless that they alienated true potential allies. In the ME, the more chaotic and insane ISIS and others are, they actually create defectors and cripple their own ability to wage war.”

    Indeed. Unnecessary cruelty always ends up with blowback. As with any wanton act of violence. Violence however ugly it is a tool to be used properly and skillfully like a surgical knife.

    Warfare is never truly clean. But neither is making it even more dirty also good either.

  46. Anonymous Reader says:

    info
    Unnecessary cruelty always ends up with blowback.

    In the modern world. Other times, not so much.
    In years to come? Well, it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future….

  47. info says:

    @AR

    Dont think God doesnt see what is done in secret for innocent blood cries out to him.

    I believe cruelty was paid back and has been paid back all throughout history. Testified also by the mouth of the Old Testament prophets.

  48. Anonymous Reader says:

    info
    Dont think God doesnt see what is done in secret for innocent blood cries out to him.
    I believe cruelty was paid back and has been paid back all throughout history.

    Your belief is in the realm of theology and not history. Thus you have moved the goalposts, did you expect no one to notice?

    Example: Ghengis Khan did not destroy Persian cities in secret. Nor was there ever any blowback from the Persians to the Mongols. Guess why?

  49. wodansthane says:

    The first rule of Marine Corps Combat is: “If you are going to a gunfight, take a long gun, plus all of your friends with long guns”.

  50. info says:

    @AR
    And look what happened to the mongol empire.

    The black plague put an end to it and the various peoples had their revenge on the mongols. Especially those who would make up the Ming Dynasty.

    Although one has to wonder how many of those tales of genocidal atrocities truth or fiction.

    As for goal posts. Theology and history does intersect because God acts in history.

    Even if all ones enemies are destroyed God will have his revenge on the wicked nations.

    As for “things done in secret” that was a mistake.

  51. info says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    ”Dont think God doesnt see what is done in secret for innocent blood cries out to him.”

    What I was supposed to say is: even if such cruelty is done in secret innocent blood cries out to him.

    ”Example: Ghengis Khan did not destroy Persian cities in secret. Nor was there ever any blowback from the Persians to the Mongols. Guess why?”

    Fear maintained by the Aura of invincibility. Hence why ISIS atrocities were able at 1st to scare away Iraqi Soldiers at 1st. Until it was shattered by the battle of Kobane and they ended up with intractable enemies who subsequently multiplied with a burning hatred of them as well as causing many defections. Likewise you are certainly correct that since pretty much everyone in the Persian Cities who didn’t surrender were dead or enslaved for being useful. There can be no blowback from the dead or those who have been broken in spirit.

    And as I argued above. God doesn’t forget and avenges even if one succeeds. If not those that are destroyed others and those from one’s own group. Internal division and destruction where brother kills brother as in the later mongol civil wars are one of God’s way of avenging the innocent.

    https://biblehub.com/bsb/judges/9.htm

  52. Anonymous Reader says:

    @info
    The term “blowback” is a modern one, it is not found in the Bible. It is commonly used in terms of humans interacting with other humans. The attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001 were widely discussed as “blowback from US Middle Eastern policy”. You are blurring categories and/or shifting goalposts all over the field rather than just admit that you thought imprecisely and/or wrote unclearly.

    When you claim that there is always “blowback” for acts of cruelty, you are making a testable assertion that doesn’t even pass the most cursory review of history. I’ve already demolished it with a single example, there are many, many more.

    Now, we could discuss the Hague and Geneva conventions of war in the context of modern, i.e. post-Westphalian culture but it looks like you would not be up to that task. Oh, well. Suffice to say that the rules of war we still have in the West may well be cultural artifacts that in no way are universals either of time or space. This might have some serious implications well before the year 2050.

    Frankly, I’m not going to argue theology with you. No doubt some other man will be ready to nitpick over your interpretation of some Bible quote or other. That is an endless rabbit trail, you are welcome to follow it but I won’t be joining.

    Suggestion: stick to theology or history. Attempting to blur the two can lead to all sorts of problems, and errors, such as “Jesus is coming next Tuesday at 2:23PM GET READY!” etc. which has a poor track record to say the least.

  53. info says:

    ”When you claim that there is always “blowback” for acts of cruelty, you are making a testable assertion that doesn’t even pass the most cursory review of history. I’ve already demolished it with a single example, there are many, many more.”

    As long as the Aura of invincibility endures or everyone who are capable of fighting back is dead for the defeated groups on the ground or who surrendered as a result of the terror.

    It doesn’t have to be immediate but it does happen and not necessarily from the group that is defeated. And my chain of comments did consistently claim that God as an agent in the blowback. A form of ultimate blowback aside from agents on the ground.That’s what I meant by my original comment.

    ”Suggestion: stick to theology or history. Attempting to blur the two can lead to all sorts of problems, and errors, such as “Jesus is coming next Tuesday at 2:23PM GET READY!” etc. which has a poor track record to say the least.”

    I am not making precise predictions but looking back in hindsight which is much more likely to be 20/20

    Perhaps I made the mistaken assumption that you were also a fellow believer. Because to believe God exists is to also see his hand in history.

  54. info says:

    God is the assumption behind my statement:
    “There is always blowback”

  55. BillyS says:

    Perhaps ultimately info, but not necessarily in this lifetime. It is the whole issue of “why do the wicked prosper” that has been wrestled with for human history.

    You are right that payday will come, but it may not come in this life and it is far too easy to ignore the next one now.

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    info
    God is the assumption behind my statement:
    “There is always blowback”

    Perhaps the next time you are using your own private definitions for common words and terms you could state that in the beginning? If you are interested in actual communication that would be a good idea. Otherwise it appears you are merely being disingenuous.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.