Question, and it's a good question to ask when Jesus died on the cross, those three days that he was gone, that he was dead, where was he? Now, there isn't really a definitive verse for everyone. I think there is. I think that really with every major study, every issue that is pertinent to us, there is at least one passage to turn to. I think there are several here, and I think those several combined make the point. There are some, for whatever reason, who might disagree. I think they feel as though they might be succumbing a little bit to a certain more charismatic side that has a negative or at least an unbiblical view of Jesus and where he went. But the question's got to be, though, and here's the question I'm going to ask you guys. Why did Jesus have to die? Now, let's think about this for a second, because we need to understand what was happening prior to the cross. What was the state of man, and even more specifically, what was the state of mankind who had placed their faith in God, who were followers of God? In other words, mainly faithful Israel, and those who had come along. Obviously, the majority of Israel was not faithful, but what was the state? What was the status of man? And let's think about the atonement, which is very important, because what we have under the old, we see under the new, except we see better elements. We have a better high priest, we have a better scapegoat, and we have a better perpetuation. And so what we saw under the old was made better under the new with Christ. And there's a question that needs to be asked to understand where Christ was, but more to the point, why Christ was wherever he was. Because we need to understand that God doesn't just do things just because when he does something, when something happens, there is a reason for it. Not as though these things are just happening just because, well, there is a because there's a reason for it happening. So the question that I tend to ask people are these questions.   Was it necessary for him to hang on the cross and to shed his blood? Well, every Christian is going to say yes. Now, when we ask the question, why is that necessary? Well, that's where more discerning Christians are going to be able to step up and say, yeah, I know why he had to die in that manner. One, it says curses the one who hangs on the tree. That's Jesus. But also in the violent, horrific sense that he died to shed his blood. Why was it was it necessary that he died? Sure, it was necessary. Why?  Namely, in order for us to be atoned, namely, there needs to be this shedding of blood. Remember, God is the one who determines what will satisfy his wrath, what will atone for sin. And there are three key elements to this atonement. The first element is there needs to be a covering. Two, there needs to be a cancellation of debt. Cover, cancel, and then because of that, it brings about the third element, which is this reconciliation. The whole point of the atonement is that there would be reconciliation. I want you guys to remember that key point. And so what we what we see here under the old covenant under the law, how God has prescribed atonement is that it will be done by way of the blood. So because of that, it is necessary that there be propitiation made, in other words, a blood sacrifice for him. So it was very necessary for Jesus to die in that manner. As a matter of fact, even more so because he also takes on the other role, which is to be the scapegoat. When John says, look, the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the world. Jesus is playing that part as well. And so Jesus needed to one, take the place of sin, which is why he was on the cross. He is on the cross to take the place of sin. He sheds his blood in such a fashion in such a way, a violent horrific way. And because that was what God had demanded a blood sacrifice and Jesus paid that. Now, the next question, though, and I'm pretty sure many Christians, many of you guys will get that point and even understand that point. The second question is, was it necessary after, would it have been sufficient for Jesus to just have only died? Because in just dying, he would have met the other two elements of the atonement, which is to carry the sin debt and to pay it. But was it necessary for him to not just die, but was it necessary for him to be resurrected? Was it important for him to be resurrected? Well, the answer is, we'll all say yes. Now, here's where we might struggle or some might struggle to find the answer. Yeah, it's necessary, but why was it necessary for Jesus to be resurrected? Well, Paul does answer this question. Let's go to it briefly. He speaks about the need of a resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15-14. Let's go put on the screen. And if Christ had not been raised, then our preaching is in vain. For faith also is in vain. Moreover, we are found to be false witnesses of God because we testify against God that he is raised. That he raised Christ whom he did not raise if, in fact, the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless.  And those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. That is also an important point. We'll come back to that point that he just made about verse 18. Those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hope in Christ in this life, we are of all men to be most pitied. In other words, this resurrection does a couple of things. One, it gives validation to our faith, to our hope that God was pleased and that he also conquered death. So this resurrection is also our hope as well. Even when he's speaking to the people, they said, yes, I know that when they're speaking to Lazarus' sister, she says that, yes, I know that my brother will rise in the resurrection. So there's this hope, there's this belief that there will be a resurrection of us from the grave to be with the Father forever.  But now here's the question that leaves a lot of Christians scratching your head. And this is going to take us into our question. Is it necessary? Was it necessary for him not to die? We get that. So we know it was necessary for Jesus to die and then for him to be raised to be resurrected. But what about the ascension? What was the point of the ascension? Was it necessary for him to ascend to heaven? We'll say yes, but is it a yes that we say because we know it's right? We just don't know why it's right. Why was it necessary for Jesus to be resurrected? And that takes us to the point that we are here today for. Where was Jesus during those three days? Now, many people might disagree with what I'm going to say, but I'm going to give us biblical proof to show this. The fact of the matter is no one in the history of mankind, prior to Jesus's death, bear a resurrection and then ascension, no one had gone to heaven. No one had ascended to heaven.  You're thinking you're saying, wait a minute, what about Elijah? What about Enoch? The Bible says about Enoch that he was no more and he was taken up. The same would be said about Elijah where the chariot comes down and he was taken up into heaven. The question is, was he taken so far up that he made it all the way up and eventually made it to where God was? No, he was not. Now, reading those passages in Genesis as well as in 2 Kings, that would be sufficient for us to say, okay, yeah, we believe that they have gone to heaven, but they did not because we're going to read a passage that Jesus makes, which nullifies that and we cannot have a contradiction. Jesus makes a statement in John chapter 3 verse 13. Speaking of salvation, he brings this point up. Now, Jesus speaking to Nicodemus about what it takes, what's required for us to be saved and how we get there. And then he brings this point in in the very middle of it. He says, no one has ascended into heaven. This word, no one. Guess what guys? Even in the Greek, this word, no one literally means no one. He says, no one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, that is the Son of Man. So, the only one according to Jesus who has ascended into heaven is Jesus. Well, that makes sense since Jesus is God. Well, then where in the world is Elijah and where is Enoch? Well, to be taken up into heaven, the same word for heaven that we think of where God resides is also the same word where we're used for the atmosphere for the sky. So, simply put, for example, Elijah was taken up into the sky. Well, then now we've got a question. We've got a question. Now, they didn't really answer the question as to where was Jesus, but just to make it a point while we're getting to this point, no one had ascended, not one person. Well, why is that important? Well, there was no way for them to go to heaven. There was no mechanism, no means whereby they would go to heaven. And even at Jesus' death and burial and resurrection, still there was no means by which mankind would go to heaven. Jesus' death, his burial and resurrection, was not sufficient for them to go to heaven. That was simply enough for us to be atoned for and to conquer death. That part is good enough. But what good would it do for us to be Christians? To be able to live forever, never have to worry about going to hell, but always separate from the Father. Because remember, his job was to reconcile us. And that just hadn't happened. And so what he's going to do is, he is going to reconcile mankind to heaven. Now, Jesus makes a statement. He makes a statement, and I understand why some people will take this to mean that when he died, he went to heaven. But he's also going to say something else, so it's going to nullify that point as well. Jesus says in Luke 23-43, he says, he says, truly truly I said to you when he's speaking to the people on the cross who place his faith in Christ, who says, will you remember me when you enter into your kingdom? Well, notice what he says as a matter of fact. Let's back up. He says, and we indeed are suffering justly for we are receiving what we deserve. He says, and he was saying, just remember me when you come into your kingdom. Notice Jesus didn't answer him back word for word. Jesus, I come back and say, I will remember you this day in my kingdom. Know what he's saying instead was, today you will be with me in paradise. So the question then is, where is paradise? Well, I believe paradise is in heaven. However, the better question, not is where is paradise, the better question would be where was paradise. That's the more pertinent question. Wait a minute, Cory, do you mean to tell me paradise has shifted locations? I do believe so, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, because if we think about it, is it possible that the Tree of Light has shifted locations? That's possible. We believe that as well. So leaving paradise in one place and moving, that is not an impossibility. As a matter of fact, we're going to see that's probably what happens. Now, before we get there, Jesus tells us exactly where he is going to be. Jesus says, speaking about his death, where he's going to go. Remember, he's speaking to these Jews, and I don't know why I made this super enlarged, but in Matthew 1238 he says, then some of the scribes in Pharisees said to him, Teacher, we want to see a sign from you. What does he say? He says an evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign. Well, none will be given to you, except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was in three days and three nights in the belly of the sea, the belly of the monster, so will the Son of Man, where will he be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth? So Jesus is explaining to him that he will be in the heart of the earth. They take that to be in the grave. That part they do understand. Now the question is, is this the physical grave? Well, we know he's going to be in the physical grave, but we also can probably believe that he's going to be in another place of the grave, where the dead go. Now, the question is, where do the dead go at death? Well, remember we're talking about a different dispensation prior to his death, resurrection, and ascension, and then after. There's a passage, or there's a statement that Jesus makes in this parable that he gives, and we believe the parable is pretty exact in terms of what happens. This is obviously the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and notice what he says in Luke 16. He says, Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed up in purple and finally and joyously living in splendor. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gates covered with sores. Now we know the story. He died, Lazarus died, and then so to the rich man. Now going to verse 22, notice what he says. Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom. Now, there are a lot of folks that will lead us to believe or believe that Abraham's bosom is the same as paradise. And I want to keep going. Let's see what statement Jesus makes, because it seems to be there's a place for the dead to go, and it's awful close. He says, In Hades, he lifted up, speaking of the rich man also, died and was buried in Hades, in the grave in Sheol. He lifted up his eyes being tormented and saw Abraham from far away and Lazarus in his bosom. And so apparently this rich man could see at that time where Lazarus was. Are you all tracking with me? Now notice what he says. Verse 24, And he cried out and said, Five Abraham have mercy on me and sin Lazarus, so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue for I am angry, angry, I'm starting to agony in this flame. Notice what he says here. He says, I remember during your life, you received your good things like wise Lazarus, bad things. Look at verse 26. And this is what I want to focus on. And besides all of this, even besides that, he says, Between us and you, there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able and that none may cross over from there to us. So where the dead would go, this abode of the dead, there was a chasm fixed between those who are righteous and those who are unrighteous. Remember, under the old, if you died, depending upon what state you're in, you're going to die in one or two states.   You love the world. You lived how you wanted to live. Hopefully, listen, I pray that if you go to hell, that you at least got to enjoy life on earth, which is what he's saying to the rich man. But then, that also doesn't negate the fact that you could enjoy life here on earth and go to heaven. Those two are not mutually exclusive. But then we see that there's another part where the abode of the dead for those who died in a righteous state, meaning that they stood justified before the Lord. Remember, according to the atonement, the old covenant atonement, a person could be in right standing if after afflicting their souls and adhering to what was required on the day of atonement, they would be in right standing with God for how long? One year. And this was a yearly ritual. Year after year after year after year after year after year. But as long as you died in right standing, you were in right standing. But there is a problem. The problem is, all it did was keep you in right standing in terms of not going to hell, but there needed to be more. But the only point that I'm making with this passage here is just simply that there seems to be this gulf, this chasm between the abode of the dead, between those who are righteous and those who are unrighteous. Now, Jesus does make a statement. He makes a point in it, well, Jesus doesn't, but Paul does, in Ephesians chapter 4. Starting in verse 8, notice this passage says, therefore it says, when he, that's Jesus, ascended on high, he led captive a host of captives. It also says, engaged gifts to men. So now, Jesus, when he ascended, he led on high captives. Who could this possibly be? Well, it couldn't be all of the believers because Paul wouldn't be there, nor would the believers that he's speaking of. So it can only refer to, remember, there are also a host of captives who will also be led on high with him. It couldn't be the unrighteous people that he led on high. It couldn't be them, the only other people that would be left would be the righteous people, those people who are in the boat of the dead who are on the other side of the chasm that the rich man wanted to get to. You know, where Lazarus is. Those are those who are led on high. Notice what it continues to say. He says, now this expression, he ascended what does it mean, except that he also had descended into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is himself. Also, he who ascended far above all the heavens, which is the atmosphere, so that he might feel all things. So what does it mean to feel all things? In other words, there was something that Jesus needed to do. There was something that was left to do. Yes, Jesus, I understand. We're asking a lot of you. We're asking you to be betrayed, to be beaten on, to be lied, spitted, all these things that you're going to endure. I know that's a lot. But then we're also going to ask you to go to the cross and bear all the sin and iniquity of mankind. It doesn't mean that all of mankind's sin will be atone for, but it doesn't mean that it will be sufficient for all of mankind. They have to place their faith in that in what you've done, though they won't.  And then ultimately to be mocked and scorned and then, as the Bible says, to have God to forsake you.  To have all this happen, we're asking a lot. But we need more out of you, Jesus. We're going to need just a little bit more, right? Well, what's left to do? Well, there's a passage that we need to get. In 2 Corinthians, many of you have read this passage, but have you read the next passage? Remember it says, Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he's a new creature. And in the world, all things become new. Remember that passage? Well, let's see what it says after that. Verse 17 is a passage that we're probably all familiar with. But then verse 18 and 19 says, Now, all these things are from God who reconciled us. Remember the whole point of the atonement is reconciliation, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against him as he has committed to us the word of reconciliation. We're not actually doing the reconciling, but we're giving the word to bring about this for people who would have faith. So Jesus's last thing that he's going to do in this earthly ministry here, really as he's leaving, is to, as he says, lead captive on high and therefore everyone else, subsequently who believes will also go immediately. You hear terms after the death, burial and resurrection that you would not have heard even of godly men who had faith in God prior. There was no such statement like this at Paul makes that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. That was never a possibility to be said under the Old Covenant in the Old Testament. Prior to the cross, you couldn't say that. Now you could. And so where has, where has kept those captives, the host of captives being taken? They have been taken up to heaven. He ascended the same one who descended is the very same one who ascended and led a host of captives up.   That's clearly heresy. Jesus had no need to be born again.  Jesus on the cross made this famous statement to tell a style which is that it is finished. And so his suffering was through at that point. There was no more torment for him to come about. The next phase of what he was doing was about to take place and he did not involve suffering or torment. We don't have that to, we don't have any biblical count to make that stick.  No he, first of all who's going to torment him? No one. Jesus was not tormented and so let's perish that thought.  Not the, now it could be also that he went to the other side of hell as well. There's a passage that people bring up. There is much debate about this passage what it means, but clearly Jesus was doing something else. Let's pause for a second in terms of him dealing with the righteous and let's also deal with him dealing with the unrighteous. This passage we're not totally sure what it means, but we do know that it took place while he was in the grave. It says here in 1 Peter 3 let's go to verse, let's go to verse 18 for Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust so that he might bring us to God having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit in which he says also he went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison who were once disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah during the construction of the art in which a few that is 8 persons were brought safely through the water. Now I won't go into and break that down because again there are so many people who have different views as to what was happening. Which souls was the only going to speak to the people that died at the time of Noah, those people who rebelled, was he speaking about demons who have been placed in chains what we don't know we do know that he did go there and we don't know what the proclamations were we have no idea all we do know is that he did go and these are people who are not marked for salvation. That part we do know and so we see him in this inhale in both the boats one dealing with the unrighteous and this could also include fallen angels again it just doesn't give us enough and so this is one of those points we have to say I don't know, not sure what he means by this and if you go to different commentaries you'll see a lot of different solutions to what he's saying here but we do know that the boat of the dead for those who are marked for heaven those people were brought up now to add further proof that Jesus had not gone to heaven to add further proof and again in case someone is joining me late when I say that he went to hell it is not to say that he was tormented that is not biblical that's not sound doctrine but to give further proof that Jesus did not go to heaven and since he does say that today you will be with me in paradise that he will be in paradise to give further validity that paradise was not in heaven at that time we do know that paradise is now in heaven why do we know that because Paul gives a statement about he knows of someone whether in the spirit or in flesh who was caught up to the third heavens to paradise well now at the point that Paul makes that statement where is paradise in heaven but at the time that Jesus is going to be in paradise it is not in heaven how do we know because Jesus makes a statement in John 2017 Jesus is speaking to Mary he says Jesus said to her because she is grabbing hold of him he says her stop clinging to me for I have not yet ascended to the father but then he says go and tell my brother and say to them I ascend to my father and your father and my God so I am going to ascend and this is him this is a future tense this is him going to this is him going to ascend he's ascending he's preparing to ascend so he hadn't done so yet and he tells Mary I have not yet ascended so it could not be that that day that he died he's in paradise if paradise is in heaven paradise is not yet in heaven and so the whole point of Jesus the death, burial and resurrection we get is the ascension that we need to now kind of put a boat on he does so to reconcile us to God now the Bible makes a statement there's a statement that's called of Jesus Jesus did not have to be born again this is why it also it matters who you listen to because there are some people that say that Jesus need to be born again because they see this phrase and this phrase is not being born again but it does say that Jesus is the first born the first born of what let's go to 1st Corinthians 15 verse 20 now Christ has been raised from the dead the first fruit of those who are asleep for since by a man came death by a man also came the resurrection of the dead so now Jesus called the first born among the dead the first fruit so he is the first to die and to also be brought up for in Adam all dies so in Christ also will be made alive but each in his own order Christ the first fruit after those who are Christ at his coming then comes the in now I won't go into the rest of that because he's kind of speaking in the ascatological order as well but he is the first fruit amongst those who are present. In other words there is nobody who will pre-see Christ to heaven not Elijah, not Moses, not E not no one and interestingly enough to think about this for a second now David also makes I want to cover this as well so we can know who or where Jesus also went David makes a statement that's also ascribed to Jesus let's go to Acts 2 27 we also know that he also went to the grave and where his soul was as well he says in Acts 2 27 he says because you will not abandon my soul my soul to Hades nor allow your holy one to undergo or to see corruption or decay so his body was physically in the grave as well as his soul in Hades he's not going to be there very long he's there for a purpose. Now think about this also after Jesus his death barrel and then his resurrection his ascension notice what we never see again prior to this we'll see people like Moses people like Elijah people like Samuel being brought up from the dead but we never see them that happening after Jesus's ascension well why is that? Well because nobody is going to heaven and coming back matter of fact could you imagine this is just me but could you imagine could you imagine someone going to heaven and then having to come back to earth what a horrible trip that would be what a horrible trip to be in heaven and then come back to earth you know what I'd rather be on earth and go to prison than to be in heaven and come back to earth and we never see that happen so after his ascension we never see Moses again we never see Elijah we never see anyone who was previously dead now being brought up why? because now they have been taken translated to a different place and so for that reason guys I think it is appropriate to see that Jesus during those days he wasn't just hanging out in the grave he wasn't just tooling his thumbs he wasn't just kind of you know let me get myself let me get some extra sleep let me get myself ready no he was taking he was doing something he was doing what was required remember this reconciliation needs to take place under the old there was the need for sin in mankind being dealt with which is what is going to happen because of the Holy Spirit now that doesn't matter to anyone who is already dead they don't have to worry about sin bothering them at least as far as we know but what we do know what we do know is that none of those people could be reconciled why? because there needed to be a mechanism how they would be brought by God and the way that's done is by Jesus leading the way being the first fruit and him leading a host of captives on high now some people again I think the bigger reason why a lot of people are bothered by the notion that he could have possibly gone to hell it just doesn't sound right doesn't feel good doesn't feel good well if that matter feels good or not we've got scriptures that say that he literally descended we've got scriptures that literally that he did not ascend after his death well if he did not ascend after his death and that it says that he did descend now there's debate as to what the descent mean well if he didn't ascend immediately then he must have descended again I think the bigger issue is that sometimes we have a tendency to overcompensate when someone says something that is so egregious on the other side such as Jesus was in hell being tormented the knee jerk response is to kick the other way overcompensate to the other side no he didn't go to hell at all well he did but again when we say hell we mean the grave we mean the abode of the dead and there was a reason for that I hope this was beneficial especially in this time as we're getting ready to celebrate what he did on the cross for us and then also the subsequent resurrection there is no greater joy that we can have than to know what Christ did on the cross for us amen now I'll go ahead for the sake of time if there are some people that have some questions regarding this if you have some questions even if you disagree we'll go ahead and take a few minutes and cover those if you want to go ahead and put some questions if you do or capital question all caps questions and let me know that you have a question go ahead and yeah quick questions go ahead and put it in and then let me know if you especially if you disagree especially if you disagree what do I think of Old Testament saints who walked you mean is death and then you see these dead people in the street walking we don't know we don't know whatever happens to those people we don't know if they turn around and die it again we have no the bible just doesn't say all we do know well we don't know but we're just using our imagination now cause could you imagine aunt and genie cudd and bow uncle Herman walking around wait a second I know you died because I buried you I was at the funeral I cried over you when you when you died you died on me $20 and you didn't pay it back I cried for my $20 and for you now you're up walking around what gift could you imagine the spectacle that that would have presented but the bible just does not say the bible just does not say what happened when they died if they died and so forth so that that's one of those head scratchers that we're just gonna find out when we get to heaven uh oh I'm trying to answer these questions and I'm gonna try to be where'd it go where'd it go where'd it go I'm trying to there it is this thing is moving pretty quickly on my on my side by the way by the way there was a statement that was made and again we didn't catch it sometimes you don't catch it when it's being said remember in Jose he makes a statement that we also see again Paul brings us up he says oh death where is your where's your where's your sting oh grave where's your victory and then it comes up again and we see this okay well maybe this is alluding to what Jesus is doing alright so now let's go ahead and answer a few more of these questions uh the title says what oh I must so I need I need to correct something huh okay let me you know what I if maybe I maybe I wrote something down the wrong way let's let's let's fix this though if I miss failed something I can I can fix and I apologize I apologize what did you say it said oh okay I see what you mean did Jesus okay you know what bam I fixed that right now thank you so much yeah that's weird that's weird I need to give me a staff to take care of that huh thank you thank you spider muck I appreciate that I appreciate that uh could of the could of Ephesians 4-8 captives be demon no here's why good question but here's why let's go to Ephesians 4 uh it says therefore it says when he ascended on high he let uh captives a host of captives well the question is going to be to where now he's ascending on high he clearly could not be taking demons on they they ain't going back to heaven he's not taking them there so it would just it would be illogical and not in keeping with with what God the sentence that God has pronounced on them they are marked for eternal destruction where they are is where they will be until they are tossed into the lake of fire so did the Old Testament saints go to heaven on Easter Sunday or on ascension they went on when they when Jesus this we're talking about when he ascended this is when they went he led them on high so good question also my question is along these lines but when Saul called up Samuel was he speaking from paradise you mean was was Samuel I'm sorry not Samuel yeah Samuel Samuel from not totally sure but where Samuel was if you ask him where he came from it would have to have been paradise paradise or Abraham's bosom the abode of the dead for those who are righteous that's the only place that that Samuel could have been and to call him up he he literally brought him up now there was obviously extreme judgment on Saul because as a matter of fact the Bible mentioned that as well as his previous in Samuel's Saul was a horrible person Saul was a horrible person but he was exactly what the people asked for they you get sometimes you get exactly what you ask for so question is the thief in heaven he would have to be because if he was in paradise with Jesus and then if paradise if what I'm saying is true and if paradise the abode of the dead is now that that group is the host that he led up he would have to also be in that number as well so that's a good question Drew so what happens after death Paul makes a statement to live as Christ dies again so from now on after death is appointed unto men once to die and then the judgment so once you die bam you're gone to be absent from the body is to be present from the Lord so once you die as a believer you immediately go to be with the father now we believe that there's going to be this pre-tribulation rapture and notice what it says in that passage in 1 Thessalonians that when Jesus is coming back who's he coming back with he's coming back with all the dead saints those dead saints that were taken up they're coming back and then they're going to get a glorified body just like us well I don't want to get into that because it's a whole other topic but no we don't we immediately face judgment but our judgment is different than what the rest of the world is going to see do you see this topic in reference to Abraham's bosom grave etc where the seventh day and yes I do I do I do as a matter of fact specifically the Catholics they you could understand where this whole issue of purgatory comes in now in true Catholic form they take it to the nth degree and just mess it up they really do we there's no one there that can be brought up that can be prayed out of there those that were there even even before Jesus death resurrection these there was no there was no hope for that your ticket was stamped before the cross now after the cross you go immediately where you're going to be forever okay so yeah but I yeah now again I do see the genesis of where they get that from but they just and maybe because it tip in typical Catholic fashion enough of them did not read the scriptures so sorry Catholics could you confirm the story of Lazarus and the rich man as a parable well let's go back to it he is stated in there was a rich man now the Bible doesn't he didn't call it a parable now in all the other parables there's no one else's name that's used is it possible this could be a parable and in this parable he's just giving someone a name is that's possible also I honestly though would not be too hung up on whether this is a parable or not because there's even in the parables all the parables bring about a truth are you with me and so I think that I would take this to be legitimate but even if it is a parable it doesn't really matter he's giving us truths in this parable speaking of namely this this chasm so what does Psalm 139 8 mean let's go to Psalm 139 8 do I have this in the Old Testament up here well if I don't I'll put it up would you say Psalm 139 8 for one second and that's because I may need this as well alright let's put it on the screen if I ascend to heaven you are there if I make my bed and she'll behold you are there that that's really speaking of and if I take the wings of dawn if I dwell to the remotest parts of the sea wherever you go God is there's no place that escapes God's eye or it takes his presence and so that's all that that really means to answer that one the wicked soul do they go to hell yes they do they go to hell until judgment yes they do at that moment hell all of this inhabitants demons Satan at that point in time will be cast into the lake of fire forever so yes and on that day we'll say man listen sucks to be you sucks to be you brother it's not not going to be a good day let's see I can't answer that because that's someone giving extra license I don't have no idea what that means he stumped Mark on Satan so when he says that he crushes his head it is it's kind of in a anthropomorphic sense it's it's it's metaphoric matter of fact if that's all that happens Satan's head that would be the best thing that he can hope for but I can't I can't speak to as to what that pastor meant so but now the good news is this though guys and this is the point the point in purpose of this is why this this is even important because when we see that God going through all these great links one to do exactly what he said he's going to do and this hope that we have because remember when Peter Peter Paul is having this discussion this was this whole issue baptism of the dead comes up and so forth but his whole point is that if there is no resurrection well then we are to be pity but there is a resurrection Jesus proved so and then our our dead saints who are now with him they've been resurrected so that's the hope that we have and if God has done all these other things this resurrection which we can't see until we actually died if all these other things have happened we have proof to know that he's going to accomplish that as well well when we say he's in the grave we take it by the way you'll see often times this term used of people who are in the grave who are asleep that means they're dead and that they have no consciousness and so even Jesus he didn't see consciousness when he when his physical body was killed are you with me so he is doing he is doing what he was called to do remember Jesus was also busy before he had taken on any flat before his incarnation so yes I think that Abraham's bosom and paradises are the same thing and I believe that's where he went okay so guys I want to thank you so much for your time I'm going to go ahead and do you think that King Saul was condemned I do believe you oh yes without question as a matter of fact the word is told that he is condemned one for bringing Samuel up for consulting this seer this medium but then also the other sins that Samuel was engaged in was this person the people chose him the people want him even though God brings him to them but that was going to be the same case with any of them but then God chooses somebody which is why we have that term a man chosen after his own heart that mean that David had the same heart that God had that's not what that meant that David had a heart of like God no a man after his own heart is a man after God's own choosing that's what that means so God chose a person why did God choose that person because again the prophecy was that the scepter shall not depart Judah well again we didn't have a king until Saul comes Saul is a Benjamin but David through that lineage is of the tribe of Judah so that's what God chose that's what God did and I think it's remarkable to go back and see how God's word just lines up perfectly just like Hannibal when he said I love it when a plan comes together even more so when God's plan come together and we can look back at his plan unfolding and coming again the only book on the planet the only book on the planet with predictive prophecy that has come true none other on the planet can make that statement not any of the Vedas not the Quran nothing can make this statement that being the case and I will see you guys on someone asked about the next Bible study every Saturday every Saturday at 11 p.m. 11 a.m. Central as well as we're gonna have a Q&A this Friday so guys I thank you all God bless you and I will see you all tomorrow


Once the messengers, along with a group of his companions, were returning from an expedition. They had gone up for a battle and then they were returning back home. So remember this would take many days to get back home. And most of it was just by foot. So as they are traveling, they overcome with tiredness and so they decided to take a small break. Tired to take a rest. So the Prophet ﷺ, this is a sunnah by the way, is like a midday nap. Not like for five hours, but just for a short nap. So in the Mi'ala ﷺ, he takes a siesta and he sleeps underneath a tree and his companions are sleeping around him. Before he does so, ﷺ he takes his sword and he hangs it over a branch on the tree. And then he lays down ﷺ and he goes to sleep. As the Sahaba are there and everyone is sleeping, a man sneaks into the camp. No one is aware. He's undetected. He comes in, comes to the Prophet ﷺ. He knows who he is ﷺ and he grabs the sword and he unsheaths it. And the Mi'ala ﷺ wakes up and he sees the man standing over him. With the sword in his hand pointed at him ﷺ. So he stands up, the Prophet ﷺ, and he addresses the man. So the man asks him a question. The first question he asks him is, Atakhafuni? The man asks him, are you afraid of me? What do you think your Prophet ﷺ's response is? La. Looks him right in the eyes, dead in the eyes. No. Imagine the courage of the Prophet ﷺ. The bravery. In today's parlance it would be like looking down the barrel of a loaded gun. And the Prophet ﷺ looks at him straight and says no. And so the man obviously, you know, has a question that immediately comes to mind. Why isn't he afraid, ﷺ? So he asks him, Mi'ala ﷺ, who will defend you from me right now? Like, why aren't you afraid?  And the Prophet ﷺ, what do you think his response is? He doesn't say, hey, man, try me. I'm the Prophet of God. Try me. See what happens. He doesn't say that. He doesn't say that. Why don't you look around? We've got hundreds of companions here. You try anything. See what they do to you. He doesn't say that either. What is his response to the Prophet ﷺ? He said, who will defend you? Who will protect you? He said, Allah. That's it. The moment he says the name of Allah ﷺ, the man's sword drops from his hand. Look at the conviction the Prophet ﷺ had just in that one word. The strength of the Prophet ﷺ's faith and his Iman, his Yaqeen, his certainty. That if Allah went to Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, he could suspend cause and effect right there. This guy's got a sword in his hand. Allah can turn it into a drop of water right then and there. And so the man drops the sword. The Prophet ﷺ reaches over and he grabs it. The man is paralyzed. He can't move. He can't move. The Prophet ﷺ grows and he grabs the sword and he points it at the man now. And he says to him the same thing. Who is going to protect you from me now? The man is like, what do you think he's going to say? He has no one around him to defend himself. No one around him. So he looks at the Prophet ﷺ and he ignores the question. He ignores the question. He says something totally irrelevant. He says, be the better of the two guys. Be the better of both of us. And so the Prophet ﷺ looks at him and he says, okay. He doesn't strike him ﷺ. And then he asks him a question. He says, He says, do you bear witness that Allah is the only one worthy of worship and I'm the messenger of God? What do you think the man's response is? No. And he says, no, the guy doesn't accept Islam. He's like, no. You think, man, this is the Prophet of war, right? He should be striking the guy down right now. What does the Nabi ﷺ do? He looks at him. He says, okay. The man says, Okay, I won't accept Islam. However, I'll tell you one thing. I will never fight you. I will never wage war against you. Nor will I ever support any group of people that ever fights against you. I promise you have my word. And the Prophet ﷺ takes him at his word and he says, okay, no problem. The man goes back to his people and he comes to them and he says, man, you're not going to believe this. What happened? I have come to you from the presence of the greatest human being I've ever met. In this hadith, there's so much to be taken and so much to be learned. But we'll lie two things. Number one, you see how to behave, how to act when you are in a position of supposed inferiority. When someone else has power over you, when you feel like, man, what am I going to do? And then on the flip side, when the power comes into your hands, what do you then do then? How do you deal with it? And not just with any other person, but the same one who was threatening you, who made you feel inferior and ostensibly weaker. How do you deal with that person? Our Prophet ﷺ showed us exactly. And today, in light of everything that is happening, we have to think, how can we bring that into our own heart? Because the Prophet ﷺ didn't look at the means. He didn't look at the asbab. He didn't look at the world around him. He looked beyond that which is Allah. He says, yeah, I have a lot of strength. I have a lot of power. But at the end of the day, that's nothing. Yeah, my companions are here. But at the end of the day, that's nothing. What can they do? It's only Allah who can do anything and everything.


Good afternoon, everyone. It's my great pleasure this afternoon to introduce Professor Tom Barfield. Just a couple of notes from the Academy. I picked up Tom's profile from the Boston University website, and I'm struck by how all of us who have these profiles have pictures of ourselves that were taken many years ago. I'm also rather jealous of Tom and anthropologists because he gets to teach courses like nomads. I don't think I could get away with that in law school. And just finally as a note from the Academy, I think we all aspire to, but few of us achieve, having written the book. I'll get into a bit of Tom's background, but he did write the book Afghanistan, a Cultural and Political History. It's required reading of all of my students in the Afghanistan Legal Education Project at Stanford Law School. It's required reading in Dr. Jalalie's daughter's introductory political science classes. It is a classic. Tom Barfield is a professor of Anthropology at Boston University and president of the American Institute of Afghanistan Studies. He's conducted ethnographic research extensively across Central Asia. He's working on things now like, what did you call it, Tom? Empires of nostalgia. You know, I am jealous being, I chose the wrong field obviously. He received a Guggenheim Fellowship to write his classic and I think without further ado, since you don't need an introduction, but I've wasted my breath in your time introducing you, Tom Barfield. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, and I want to thank the organizers for bringing such a group together. I want to thank people. Having lunch in the second day, I will try to see if I can't keep people awake. It's also a little bit, I didn't pick the topic, an anthropologist being asked to critique counterinsurgency. But then Ashraf Ghani is an anthropologist, and he's president of Afghanistan. So we fill a lot of roles. So I want to do some things sort of conceptually, not necessarily completely sort of run the table, but really ask some questions, and particularly in terms of state strengthening some of the difficulties of combining state strengthening with counterinsurgency, but even more problematically with counterterrorism. And before I begin, having sort of written a book that takes a running start of 500 years, that this is not the first time state building has been important in Afghanistan, or that foreigners have thought this is how we will bring stability. I like to point to people that this will be the fourth foreign withdrawal that the Afghans have seen, all remarkably similar, in that foreigners arrive seeking to make Afghanistan into their own image, and leaving Afghanistan content to let the Afghans run it any way they please, as long as it doesn't bother the rest of the world. Consequently, the Afghans actually have a template for this. We do not. In fact, one of the most interesting things is that the Afghans can legitimately claim their insurgencies have driven every foreign force from Afghanistan. The more interesting thing is no insurgency after having done that has ever succeeded in toppling a government in Kabul that retains an international patron, and God knows I thought they'd be able to do it with Najibullah. But he proved me wrong, and he did not collapse until after the Soviet Union collapsed. No patron, no state. But if we're looking at periods of state strengthening, what I want to suggest, which as we heard a few comments from Mr. Siddiqui yesterday, is is this really a good idea? I mean, how strong do we want it? Because we do have to remember that most of the state's strengthening in Afghanistan has usually been for the benefit of an elite in Afghanistan that is very much in favor of it and wants the foreigners to strengthen the state for them, and then leave soon. And there's been three periods of state strengthening in Afghanistan in the last 50 years. The first and perhaps the most famous is Abdul Rahman, who killed more Afghans than the British ever did in both Anglo-Afghan wars, over a hundred thousand people. He also destroyed all autonomy in Afghanistan. He created a real state, a centralized state that has been the dream of all his successors. Even Ashraf had to mention, yes, he's one of my ideals. From the rural perspective, this is not such a great ideal. Because he was the only one that was successful. The two other times of state strengthening included Aminullah in the 1920s, creating a top-down modern state. Abdul Rahman wanted a centralized state. He built the car, but he chose not to drive it. I mean, no social reform, no nothing. Don't cause me problems, and I'll leave you alone. Aminullah wanted to change things, and certainly at the end of the First World War, Afghanistan was one of the leading lights of the Islamic world in terms of change, along with Turkey and Iran. It didn't turn out so well. He was overthrown in 1929. The third period of state strengthening was the PDPA in Kabul, taking more of a leftist approach. Sometimes they saw themselves as successors to Aminullah, but on steroids. The interesting thing is, out of these three state-building exercises, two ended in destroying the state. Therefore, one of the things I think we need to be careful of is, when we're thinking about strengthening the state, if it means that Kabul feels that it can run roughshod over the countryside, it risks political stability. Because if we look at one of the longest periods of peace in Afghanistan, and the Canadian Prime Minister said, oh, Afghanistan, it's always had insurgencies, but actually it doesn't. And for 50 years, from 1929 to 1978, the Musahiban, do-nothing dynasty, proclaimed they were the absolute rulers in Afghanistan, and almost never sought to prove it. It was 25 years before they even decided maybe we should do infrastructure, maybe we should do education. Very slow, and that probably led to their demise with the PDPA, but it also led to 50 years of peace. It's what I call the Wizard of Oz strategy. I am the great Oz. Don't look behind the curtain. It served everybody's function. OK, so these are the, you know, just to be aware that when we're talking about strengthening the state, it is true that a state that's too weak is a problem, but a state not so much that really is too strong, but a state that believes itself to be so strong as the PDPA thought, hey, we've had 50 years of peace. Let's do something with this government. That's what brings things down. And so with a new regime coming in, one of the important questions with the internationals saying we really need to strengthen your state, it's really important that the state not overplay its hands. This has brought it down in the past. So one of the problems that any state faces now is the question of counterinsurgency being asked to talk about counterinsurgency. And there's a lot of debate. What's the best counterinsurgency strategy? The best counterinsurgency strategy is not to allow an insurgency to begin. We've heard from many of speakers that think about if you were Mullah Omar, it's September 11th, 12th, 13th, and you've announced if the foreigners come, we will beat them like the Russians. All Afghans will rise. We'll fight another 10 years. In 10 weeks, he's on a motorcycle. Disappearing into the mountains on his way to Pakistan. You got to ask yourself, like, what went wrong? Where's my xenophobic allies? Where's my friends? It's gone 10 weeks. But as was noted, the Taliban were not so much defeated as they decided to go home. Times had changed. System was gone.   I mean, if Mullah Omar couldn't hold Kandahar, everybody was entitled to enter the winner's circle. That was the whole deal. If one looks at the rise and fall of dynasties of states in Afghanistan, one of the things, and Ali Jala Ali can correct me on this, but is an absence of decisive battles. The night before decisive battle, people decide who's going to win. And the next day, there's no need for a decisive battle. How that happens is sort of a mystery, but people know when it happens.  Everybody's behind you one day and suddenly the palace is empty. If you see all the uniforms in the foyer, it's time to sneak out the back door. You have lost your legitimacy. You don't have to ask how you can leave that to a political scientist who will be writing a dissertation on it in 10 years. But if we look at it, this was the time to really focus. And instead, it is almost that the West could not believe it had won so it searched for enemies and its allies that it helped. Because remember, there were fewer than 400 Americans on the ground when the Taliban fell. That's not a whole lot. This was an Afghan owned and unoperated. We had made it provided the money. We had made it provided the air power. But as the Afghans did the deals, they made this happen. But also having won, there was an incentive for those who had won to say, well, if you're looking for enemies, I have enemies. That's Abdul over there. He took my land, because you don't care about the land, but you do care that he might be an al-Qaeda sympathizer who joined the Taliban and you should bomb his village immediately so that I can take his land. Now, it's not going to be put that way, but our guys in some senses were looking for trouble that wasn't there. And they got it, that the Taliban who had decided to go back to their village or disappear into Pakistan were essentially given incentive to reorganize, to come back. So one of the most important things, I would say, in terms of thinking about these types of operations, which was certainly said by other speakers, is know when you won. But the military side is not the complete part. It is bringing peace that's the difficulty and that involves politics. And we're at the U.S. Institute of Peace, you know? Where's the shock troops from the international brigade of international peace? I am here to impose peace, stand aside. Yeah, that's what we should be doing.  We can do this. But not if there is a sense going around that there must be some enemy under the cover somewhere we will find them. And particularly in places like Afghanistan that have long histories of manipulating foreign patrons. Always think twice before somebody says, that's just the enemy that you're looking for. Well, as was told by people by 2006, there was a significant insurgency, but this was not really recognized. I remember I was asked along with a number of other academics and scholars by the British who were leading the NATO operation in Kandahar to come to Germany for a conference. So we could tell this new force coming in how to deal with Afghanistan. The biggest conversation was how are we going to deal with NGOs? You know, how can we cooperate with NGOs to bring devout? This is really kind of peacekeeping.  And they stepped into one of the biggest, the Canadians and the British, one of the biggest fights they had seen in more than a generation. It was totally unexpected. But we knew there was an insurgency on the way, already there. And it's not till the Obama administration, 2009, 2010, as we've heard, that essentially the United States steps in that the Afghan army, security forces are not up to this. The United States should step in and begin a counterinsurgency. But it's a particular kind of counterinsurgency that I call counterinsurgency by proxy. Because Afghanistan is the home of the Afghans, not the United States. When the British are fighting an insurgency in Northern Ireland, they have a stake in it. When the French are fighting in Algeria, they believe they own Algeria. When the United States goes in to say we will deal with the insurgency, Afghans stand the hot side while we take care of this, does this strengthen or weaken the state? In one sense, it streaks them, Zed, because you're taking out major opponents. But on another way, you've left training wheels on the bicycle. They're not going to learn how to do this themselves. Even worse, I think the analogy would be, you go to the doctor and he says, you know, you're really kind of out of shape. You should go to a gym, have a personal trainer. Well, in the Afghan context, you say, that's a really good idea. I'm kind of out of shape. You go to the gym, you see a really good looking personal trainer. But he can lift weights better than you. He can run the treadmill better than you. So you spend an hour watching him lift weights, run the treadmill while you read a magazine.  This is what we did in Afghanistan. In some ways, by not involving the Afghans at all, essentially, in the most important battle in their own country, an insurgency in the heartland of southern Afghanistan, which I should note, that's really the first insurgency in Afghan history. Insurgencies are us, live in eastern Afghanistan and just north of Kabul. The Duranis, the southern Afghanistan, they're always late adopters, in part because they have a lot of irrigated land to use. But, you know, it's, when we're looking at this, what we see is that we protect a state from collapsing, which is useful, but we do not provide it with the tools to sort of, in terms of security, to run its own operation. And the negative impact of this is it means the palace can play patrimonial corrupt politics because it's not worried about losing. You know, so even in places like Helmand, Kandahar, other places, the governor there has got to worry about what the palace thinks, not what the local population thinks, because fundamentally, what we've got is a regime that's acting as if nothing is changed because they have this protective shield. So they can go out there about their business, they can engage in criminal enterprises. They can do mismanagement, but it really doesn't matter fundamentally because NATO, ISAF, the United States is taking care of the problem, at least preventing it from falling apart. Now, this brings to the question of, so, okay, what should you be doing in counterinsurgency, and particularly the whole idea of coin? And as was mentioned in one of the talks yesterday, Coin Strategy talks about governance, good governance. This is what's causing trouble. The problem, as Nemot Najumian and I once wrote an article, is that governance and government are not always the same things. In Western societies, developed societies, yeah, governance comes from government. If my house is robbed, I call 911. Okay, if I run a red light, there's a cop that pulls me over. In Afghanistan, there is no 911.  If somebody kills your brother, it's a blood feud. But what you've got in then essentially are mechanisms at the lowest level for governing, meaning maintaining social order. This has its limits, which is why these people have never rejected the sovereignty of the Afghan government because a government, even the most anarchic kind of people, recognize somebody needs to keep the roads open. Somebody needs to prevent Pakistan or Iran from coming. There's somebody needs to print the currency. Somebody needs to design the flag. But, and this was noted, it's the 200th year anniversary of Mount Steward Elphinstone's, the Kingdom of Kabul and its dependences, Britain's first explanation of Afghanistan. They said, according to the Afghan ruler, he has all the powers of an Asian potentate. He can do anything. According to his subjects in the village, his powers are much more limited. And there's a pause that said, there is much disagreement on where these limits are. And this, this is a fundamental problem in Afghanistan that elsewhere in the world was taking care of two or 300 years ago. That is the state became predominant. That is, Weber could define a state as having monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Afghanistan, the state as the highest level of authority, has been contested for more than 200 years and has not really been resolved. Either way, local people have never replaced the state. But the state has never been able to make itself, even under Abdul Rahman, so powerful that it could run everything. So one of the important things, if you're looking at a coin strategy, is, and perhaps I'm wrong on this, I haven't read the entire long manual, which is available from a free download. But what you get is, I would say in coin, an assumption that it's a zero sum game between two parties, the insurgents and the government. The difficulty is that it assumes the population you are fighting over is largely passive, waiting for one side to win. And I would argue, particularly in Afghanistan, the population is not neutral, they're players. They may not like the Taliban, they may want the Taliban out, but they don't necessarily want to see agents of the Karzai government showing up. And this is a really tough thing to do. And I think General McChrystal had a real problem with this when he announced, moving into Helmut, that he would deliver a government in a box. That is the last present these people wanted. It's a Karzai jack-in-the-box. You turned it and outpumped a full administration. Tax collectors, police, we're all here. No, that's not what they wanted. But our assumption was we're fighting on behalf of a government that's lost control of the territory. When from sort of the United States, we don't want the Taliban there, but it's a second-order problem as to whether local people are taking care of this or whether the palace is taking care of this. So I would argue that, you know, that most of coin strategy, it looks to me, is based on colonial examples and others in which they largely dealt with peasant populations, which Scott's work, Weapon of the Week, are largely, they see themselves as having no role in politics. At the local level, Afghans have never accepted this. So this leads me to talk a little bit about the question of where you fight insurgency. And in addition to fighting insurgency being kind of, as I call it, a proxy insurgency war, we do the work on behalf of a central government. But it's also in so many places, the fighting of the insurgents didn't seem to be based on strategy so much as convenience of where to fight. Why was Helmand, both for the British and the Americans, the place to start? Maybe 5% of the population, not since Mahmoud of Ghazni's sort of winter palace has it ever been particularly important, but they're there. Why? Well, books are some, well, the British knew Kandahar was more important, but the Canadians were there. And we don't work well with Canadians. We'll take Helmand. And when the Marines move in, we want to go in. They can't work in Kandahar because the Marines don't even work well with others at all. So there's even, you know, so instead of R.C. South, suddenly we have R.C. Southwest, which is Marineistan. And when people say the Afghans are divided into tribes, hell, there's nothing like that when you look at NATO and U.S. military. There's the Marines, there's the regular guys, then there's the Allies and somewhere on the horizon of the Afghans. And yet that's set where we're going to fight, who we're going to fight. Same thing in the East. We must control Noristan. Afghanistan never even conquered Noristan until 1895 and they did it in the winter and then left. You can't even take donkeys into Noristan and Kunar. Also, another place that Afghans ignored. As I wrote in my book, Afghan leaders control territory by ruling populated areas and ignoring these other places. Things that I will ever live to regret. I call it the cheese holes. That it's Swiss cheese.  Afghans knew better. They would not send. They never did. A base up the core and got what? Pick a fight with lumber smugglers who never liked anybody, not even other Noristan. Yet we did. And all of these places were marginal. So we choose to fight an insurgency, not in the places that are most strategic important, but they're in fact the most marginally. That politically don't mean anything, whether you lose Kunar or Noristan or whether Helman raises a black flag doesn't really make any difference. But that's not how we were doing it because we were doing counterinsurgency by demonstration. We will show they are. We are so effective in Noristan or in Helman that the insurgents will say, Oh, look at those guys. Let's give up. The big problem was in Kandahar or in eastern Afghanistan, Paktia, Paktika, Nangrahar, but no, we're elsewhere. And what I would say is that's an example where if it's not your fight, you don't make the hard strategic decisions. You don't have somebody saying, I don't care if you don't work well with others. I'm commander in chief. You guys lump it, learn it. So this brings me finally to a little talk on counter terrorism, which all the way going back to 9-11, we have no idea what it is. It was always noted terrorism is a tactic, not a group, not a thing. It's a tactic. So who are terrorists? What do they do? But the most important thing to realize about counter terrorism in places like Afghanistan is that they are potentially state destroying. Why is that? Because counter terrorism in developed countries is handled within the law. It's a legal problem. You may not like them, but we consider them murderers. We've got one on trial in Boston. We don't even, he looks so goofy. Boston doesn't even consider him a terrorist. That's not up to our standards. But you've got a situation in which the legal system handles it, and that would be the same in Europe, Canada, Britain, United States. But in weak states, particularly places like Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, counter terrorism always takes place in secret outside the legal system. This means that the country is actually losing its sovereignty, has no idea what's going on, therefore is unable to weigh the consequences. But worse than that, it can actually go against the stability type of operations. If a group is considered to be terrorists, then the anti-terrorist people are going after them, regardless of how your diplomacy is going, or how your counter insurgency is going. If we're looking at this, what we see is a situation in which potentially it's highly unstable, only takes place in weak states. Look at where drones are. The Fata region of Pakistan, I notice we don't send one to Mullah Omar and Quetta, much more high value target, but we don't go there. Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. All places that fundamentally can't really object or are actually happy to see this kind of support. The difficulty is, if you're in the counter-terrorism business, a positive solution might be the complete destruction of the state so that everybody fights everybody else because then they can't bother us. That would be, from a counter-terrorism point, a good solution. They cannot threaten us. It's a very bad solution for the people who live. There are, even for those of us who are talking about increasing the Afghan state's capacity in terms of making it work. And because in these weak countries, it is not responsible, either to the military chain of command, to ambassadors, or to the Afghan government, we don't have the checks and balances that we need. So in terms of looking at this, what I would say is that if we're looking at questions of counter-terrorism and we're looking at questions of counter-insurgency, one of the most important things to realize about Afghanistan, which has been talked about by many people at the conference, is it's a very complex society in which today's friend is tomorrow's enemy and vice versa. And in that kind of situation, it's not as George Bush would, you're either against us or for us. In Afghanistan, well, which day of the week? I could be against you, but I could be for you. It changes. We assume, once we've identified somebody, that is fixed. And one of the lessons of Afghanistan and certainly people who spent a lot of time there, realize it's a much more fluid situation. And one of the interesting things to watch is whether the withdrawal of foreign troops may actually focus the new government and others to come to a deal within Afghanistan because they no longer have enough protection to act in an arbitrary manner. They need this for internal reasons. And God knows, Najibullah did this when the Soviets withdrew, 80% of the Mujahideen stood down. They were fighting Russians, Russians were gone. So when we're looking at this, it's both a dangerous period, but potentially a period of opportunity because the Afghans, in a way, are more likely to craft a political decision that works because it's their country, it's their culture, it's their politics. So I'll leave it there for today. Thank you very much. I'm tempted to probe Helman because it seems to me, it seems to me that there were other objectives at play, right? One of my students showed lovely slides of the poppy fields of Helman where he was based for some time. So maybe you would talk just a little bit about the opium eradication program and its perceived fueling of terrorism in Afghanistan. If we had actually eradicated the opium production in Helman, I might agree. But in fact, eradication was like the insurgency demonstration eradication. Send weekly reports home, something is eradicated, and yet, if you look at the UN figures, the actual production of opium is increasing every single year. So, and in fact, it was really clear that NATO had no interest at all, neither the British or the Americans, and helping to eradicate opium because it would upset the people that they were trying to make friends with. And it was well known that DEA guys couldn't get rides on helicopters, would be sent to the wrong place, that fundamentally not our problem. So there I would say, and you know, if you wanna do opium, Kandahar had opium, there's other places you could go. But I find it interesting that of all the places that you pick to make a stand, Kandahar, which is the center of population, of political influence in Southern Afghanistan, that receives troops much later than Helmand. And that's, from a strategic point of view, it seemed to me that that's absolutely reversed because if you controlled, if you had Kandahar under control, you really wouldn't need to worry about Helmand. But the reverse was not true. You could absolutely control Helmand and it wouldn't affect what was going on further to the east or west.


Welcome to All Hands Update, I'm Petty Officer Jonathan Pankaw. Sailors are among the more than 1200 volunteers answering questions from your kids about Santa's location. The North American Aerospace Defense Command's NORAD Tracksana call center allows children around the world to call or use computers to track Santa's path as he delivers gifts on his sleigh. NORAD has been tracking Santa's flight for more than 50 years. The call center will be fully operational at 5 a.m. December 24th until 5 a.m. December 25th, Eastern Standard Time. Kids can call 1-877-HIGH-NORAD and receive responses from volunteers in 8 different languages or send an email and a NORAD staff member will reply with Santa's last known location. For more information on how to track Santa, visit the official NORAD Tracksana website.


Welcome to the first episode of the No Show. Let's get it on. I'm Holly Brown, and here's the opening story with Dan Cople. Thanks, Holly. During a university of college student faculty form, Dean Schwartz produced a boisterous gas emission when asked about the minority problem on campus. Sophomore Zeke Sparks, the reporter for the college, posed a question during the severe lack of minority students. Upon hearing the question, Dean Schwartz paused for reflection and then unleashed a loud and odiferous fart in the general vicinity of the said reporter. Various minority groups issued a statement saying, we're opposed to the foul response of Dean Schwartz, and we hope he rectifies the action. The minority situation is nothing to fart on. And now, sidelines. During the speech earlier today, President Clinton urged the entertainment industry to improve award show banter. Whether it is the Academy Awards, the Grammys, or the Blockbuster Entertainment Awards, the award show banter between presenters is weak and lacks any sort of whimsical repartee. Our award show banter is in jeopardy, stated Clinton. Clinton's proposed legislation, which he hopes Congress will pass, calls for $50 million, all at the expense of taxpayers, to be spent on the improvement of award show banter writing, which would include witty one-liners and snappy zingers of humorous or light-hearted nature. Additional money will be spent on teaching dumb actors how to read teleprompters. Freshman Chuck Bender announced an indifferent and apathetic crowd that he has had it up to here. Bender noted heavy course load, long hours of work, and all the goddamn lies fed to him about all night caggers and group orgies are the basis for him having it up to here.   Just days after the inaugural celebration of the new Jack Ruby assassination bench, located next to Ilbrook dining hall, the death toll has reached 37. A footage as events unfold. The dining hall's edition of Magic Brownies to their menu is drawing overwhelming approval from University of college students. According to the University of college debt dessert variety, the Magic Brownies are the highest rated cafeteria food and have not chick witches off the top spot. OK, the voices in my head are telling me that we have some film on the subject and we'd like to go live to footage to reporter Ben with more details on the popularity of the Brownies Ben. In an attempt to get to the bottom of the Magic Brownie issue, we've talked to Leroy Jenkins, manager here at Ilbrook dining hall. It's really amazing. I can't believe all the positive response from the students. I really like the Magic Brownies. When we introduced them, we thought they had a limited appeal. You know, the hemp club, the fish heads, and the fleece wearing types. Well, due to the high success, we'll be adding other delicious snacks with any luck for my connections.   Very interesting, yes. I then asked some students what they thought about the Magic Brownies.  I love them, right, Andrew? Like, I got some sort of chemical in them, some shit, man. I think it might be cinnamon or cocoa powder. They're just awesome. Dude, Scooby-Doo's on. Oh, let's bounce.  They're just so addicted to them. They're awesome. I just think they're something in them. And I really like them. And they just make me want to eat more and more and more. I love them. Upon eating the brownies, Miss Jane then proceeded to stare at a brick wall for eight hours. For final comment on the brownie issue, we talked to Chef T-Dog of Billings Dining Hall. Now, a lot of people are wondering, what's in these dank brownies? Hey, people, don't worry about what's in there. It's all good.  Delicious sweet sugar goodness. Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta go posh my three foot up. The No Show promises to keep you updated on any new dank information nuggets that we may come across. I'm Ben French for the No Show. There's still much more to come on the No Show. Weatherman Trevor has some winter storm survival tips. And the girl everyone wants to know, Becky, the overly enthusiastic R.A. And we've got a commentary that will make you think long and hard about the New Haven's dildo advertisement still to come on the No Show. All right, crazy. No Show Weather Center, here's our weatherman with the tips. Thanks, Holly. And now, what you do if you're trapped in a winter storm? If string on the road with a passenger, never rule out a grisly murder suicide. If driving during icy conditions, avoid skating into small children. However, if a collision with a child is unavoidable, put quickly and leave for dead. Resolute cannibalism only if food is not within reach. During construction of a makeshift shelter, avoid any alien parasites you may come across. To prevent frostbite, gnaw off all fingers and toes before going outside. Let the encompassing white blanket snow be a good time to talk to kids about white supremacy. Spread a generous amount of lard in and around rectum to keep anus warm and toasty. If temperature drops below zero, let in all pets and elderly. Keep suicidal thoughts alive by viewing Corey Feldman's filmography. Remove snow from driveway and place it inside where you can keep an eye on it. To keep company, take in any deranged or retarded homeless people. Allow two to three hours before lacing hot chocolate with cyanide. If driving during bad weather, keep one to three of ice by using an ice scraper. Or if necessary, a shotgun. And finally, pray for a quick and painless death. Now back to you, Holly. Thanks for those weather tips, Trevor. Boy, that'll definitely make the next storm a little more bearable. Those will be helpful. And now we go to our campus profile of the week, live to tape, Tabaki. Hi, everyone, how you doing? Wow, it's so neat to be here. I just love scanning all the student organizations out there. Remember, student body, it's so important to get out there and get involved in some activities. After all, you can't spell involved without I.N. I remember when I first came here to the University of College, I didn't know what to join. But luckily, I discovered the Cat's Meow Club. It's this great student-run organization dedicated to sewing faces of cats on huge banners throughout the campus. And now that I'm a senior at University of College, I'm happy to say that I'm not only a Cat's Meow Club member, but I'm also the president. And between that and being an RA at the best residence hall on campus, low-call, Becky is one busy beaver. Enough of my gibber-dabber. Let's get on to the great event that we have scheduled for in my biased opinion, the best residence hall on campus, low-call. Hey, yeah, to my 5A girls, you rock. Okay, guys and gals, this is what we have in store. On Thursday night, I came to just Nick Rams in the rec room. He actually came in November and hypnotized me. I can't really remember much, but my floor buds tell me that I was making monkey noises and then I thought my right arm was the devil.   You begin at the 10th floor and you get plates and silverware and continue down to the 9th floor for mashed potatoes. 8A is peas, 7A is broccoli, I think, and 6A is rolls. And you just go on and on until you get to the first floor for some delicious turkey. And the toppings like gravy and butter and hot fives will be in the floors of B and C towers. And don't forget to look for the bonus lap of roast beef, hidden by a heating vent somewhere in Blochaw for some extra foodborne goodness. Remember about our Roxbury trip at the end of the month. We're taking a busload of residents down to Roxbury, Massachusetts to discover the glimmer and the glitter. We're gonna bust you down and drop you off in the middle of the night so you can experience the magic of Roxbury alone. It should be a great time if you don't get knifed. We've got a lot of other good stuff coming up too. Next month we have tuckouts. It's the 2B girls' turn. At 3AM, the sketch you guys from 9A will come down and creep into random 2B beds and fall asleep. But the fun really begins in the morning when the 2B girls wake up and they see these strange guys they've never seen before in their beds. And it's a great way to meet new people. I hope to see you all in the rec room on Monday night for a weekly Alamedeal party. There'll be treats and goodies and munchies and tons of giggles as we watch America's most celebrated anorexic. Well, that's all the time for Becky. Blochaw, you rock. Yee-hoo! Is she on crack? Due to recent controversy of the New Haven's dildo ad, we go live to tape now for more details. Hello? My name is J.J. McFickles. I'm the news editor here at the New Haven. And recently, as some of you may know, the New Haven has been under intense pressure and scrutiny for the controversial brand of samurai dildo ads that we've been running in our publication. Now, due to the uproar, many students and faculty have stopped reading the paper. Local advertisers have pulled their advertisements right out and a boy named Timmy, God bless him, started crying on Main Street. Now, I've got a question for you.  It's just an ad. Are ads really that bad? Are dildos really that bad? No. As we all know, many of us use dildos in our everyday lives. In fact, I bet somebody out there in TV land is using one right now. And what better brand to use, really, than samurai brand dildos? As the advertisement goes, samurai is the brand endorsed by most of the American public and porn stars.   You see them when you're doing laundry, when you're buying groceries down there at the dump. Man, when you're going to get food at the dining hall, even when you're in a three-way or something, pow, they're right there.  Don't get me started on those squirrels. Now, seeing how these dildos is such a big part of campus life. Why shouldn't we, the people here at the New Haven, alert students and faculty to samurai brand dildos? I mean, who'd want to use a lesser brand?  Now, it's just any dildo enthusiast wants when they're going in for the raid. But I'm sad to say that due to all this pressure, the advertisements are stopping. And apparently, the powers that be have seemed fit to also put on hold bongo, bob, brand, butt-plug ads, poppycock, cockerade ads, auntie stew, animal ads, and various kinds of creams. It just seems to be the, seems how we are in the livery-or-die state. This seems to go against all of our principles. You know what I'm saying? So, closing, I'd just like to say God bless America, livery-or-die, and God bless samurai dildos. Thank you for your time. Still to come on the No Show, the college groundskeeper airs his beef with those nutty squirrels. And long-pass celebrity Corey Feldman makes a comeback while the Roe Rules cast finally gets what they deserve. Everything all right in there? Open the door. Nothing satisfies, quite not scared. We've got quite a special report cooked up for you folks at home today. It seems many students have been illegally pressing the handicap buttons outside the building entrances. We're here today at one of the local dining halls to hopefully catch some of these perpetrators in the act and question them as to why they need to press the button. We got one, let's go. Excuse me, sir. Sir, are you aware that you just pressed the handicap button?   I didn't press that.  Yes, you did. We have it on film, wait for the camera. Oh, man.  I might have touched it a little bit, but I didn't press that. Yes, you did. You pressed it and the doors opened. It's all on film. You should be ashamed of yourself. I should be ashamed? Yes, you should. Man, that's- Oh, that's wrong. Are you aware that you just pressed the handicap button? Yeah, I might have pressed it. You know that's explicitly for handicapped people only.  Oh!  Your back is behind to me, sir. What's wrong with it? My spinal cord was ruptured. And I was walking up the stairs and I dripped over my cat. You have a ruptured spinal cord. Ah, yeah.  Christopher Reeve. Yes. Are you aware that he's paralyzed from the neck down and requires a wheelchair? You seem to be walking very fine, you know? Hey, it's ranked still on. Ranked still on? Where? You just pressed the handicap button. Are you aware that you are not handicapped? I am. I am. I'm blind. You're blind. Really? Ah, blind. I can't see a thing. Sir, I'm not buying it.   Look, Frank's still on. You know you just pressed the handicap button, sir. And you are not handicapped at all. Hey! People today want to live in a world full of leisure. They don't know rape from wrong. As you can see, we live in a world full of scumbags and Frank's still on. But more importantly, in this world, there are the non-handicapped button pushers. Wow. If I weren't an emotional cyborg, I might actually have some emotion and disgust on those people. Thank you, Ryan. With spring rapidly approaching, many squirrels are gathering nuts for their long hibernation. In fact, at University of College, squirrels are more common sight than frat guys raping their jungle friends. Anyways, here's Eddie, the insane groundskeeper, with an insane rant on squirrels. Hello, news people.  What's wrong with them? They're all over the place. I don't like them. I don't like them one bit. I never have. I never will. They're running around like they own the place. Like something's up. Well, I've seen them while I'm tending the grounds on campus. Once when I'm raking leaves, it's what I'm done making the leaf pile.  Assholes.  Anyways, those asses are cocky, too. Running around making fun of you, calling your names. Eddie! Eddie!   And then I'd make a hat.  And I'd probably take off all my clothes. Eddie, could you please stay on topic? Right. Anyways, back in my day, there weren't that many squirrels.  You'd walk on your way to school or class, or even raking leaves. They'd say, hello, Eddie. Hello, morning to you. Well, hello, squirrels. Thank you very much. You're very nice. Not anymore. Anyways, back to the point of them being everywhere. And everywhere. The trees, the bushes, and in my mind. Eddie, the insane groundskeeper, everyone. Thanks, Eddie. The latest Greek news, the new master beta fraternity, better known as MB, has yet to pick up momentum with his student body, who for some reason or another do not take the fraternity seriously. Master beta was founded by alumni Jack Hoff and gained its charter over Christmas break. I get it. Let's go live to take Jack Hoff for more. You know, I just don't get it. Master beta is such a great fraternity, but nobody takes it seriously.  Master beta provides a stimulating community spirit, as well as a hardened Santa campus fun.   I mean, never mind. Master beta. And now for entertainment news. Corey Feldman has decided on his next Hollywood project, painting his neighbor's house. It was either this or mowing my uncle Earl's lawn. I like the challenge this role presents me, and I get $6.50 an hour for Sunny D. Feldman had announced this proclamation to several of the lawn ornaments and gasoline-soaked rags. Hollywood is completely apathetic and indifferent over Feldman's decision. Producer Harvey Weinstein released this statement.  And you better not release this statement. Feldman has already begun his preparation for his role by purchasing several cans of off-white Dutch boy and asking his friend Corey Hame if he can borrow a ladder. MTV announced today to have all 86 real-world and road-roll cast members being senseless. It appears the constant stream of reruns, new episodes, real-world versus road-rules shows, and shameless reunion specials has left the country over-saturated with overexposed 20-something whiners, slackers, and no-talent media whores. The American people are tired of these pricks, trivial and petty problems. I'm glad they're finally going to be beaten, said the president in praise over the producer's decision. The real-world road-rules beating special will be hosted by Kurt Loder and immediately followed the Jesse Camp gets hung on nail by his scrotum special. The police academy gang pulled another comical prank on the uptight Captain Harris. Investigators have not yet determined the details and motive behind the hilarious hijinks, but they did acknowledge that if left, they befuddled Captain Dazed, Nude, and covered nacho cheese. I witnessed an organizer of the Zany mischief, Officer Mahoney noted, all the officers and cadets were gathered around him, even the commissioner. Fellow prankster Jones conferred and then made numerous wacky and crazy sounds with his voice, some of which resembled a helicopter, ghetto blaster, and scared goblin creature. Captain Harris reportedly exclaimed Mahoney with his fist wading firmly in the air directly after the ensuing madcap chicanery. Director Gus Van Sant, hot on his heels after directing the updated Psycho, has confirmed that his next project will be a shot-for-shot television movie remake of the Dukes of Hazard episode entitled, The Duke Boy's Get It Monkey Business. The plot of this second episode concerns the Duke brothers, Bo and Luke, finding an expensive monkey that had escaped from the zoo out by Bear Canyon. The Duke boys decided to hide the monkey and protect it from the aggressive zookeepers and greedy boss hog, whose schemes to capture the monkey and cash in on its handsome reward. When I first saw the monkey business episode, I was enthralled by the mixture of comical situations involving Mary Sue the monkey, the rollicking action and tailing car chases on dirt roads, and the bittersweet dramatic turn at the end, where the Duke boys give Mary Sue to a blind-hearted child, said Van Sant, who plans to keep everything the same in the remake, except for a talk in General Leakar and increased Daisy Duke's cleavage. The monkey from Dustin Chexen has already been contacted about the starring role. The soon-to-be-forgot-one-hit-wonder band, Matchbox 20, has announced plans to cash in on 90s nostalgia by doing a 17-city club tour in the year 2007. Lead singer of the band, whatever the hell his name is, it was quoted as saying, we all know we're doomed for one-hit-wonder status like most other bands for the 90s, and we'll be forgotten faster than you can say tears for fears. But we'll be considered cheesy or shamefully cool when people start looking back at the 90s with fond nostalgia or reflective disgust, depending on how you look at it.  Matchbox 20 will shamelessly play past hits such as Push You Around and Three AM as well as several extremely sucky new songs.  The spin doctors and bare-naked ladies have also signed on to perform. During a sold-out Las Vegas show, David Copperfield amazed the crowd with his new severed thumb illusion, using only his hands. Copperfield somehow managed to make a pier as though he had magically severed the tip of his thumb. Amid mysterious Peter Gabriel music, Copperfield proceeded to slide a magic digit back and forth away from the severed thumb to a shocked and bedazzled crowd who shelled out $60 a pop to see the famed illusionist. Some suspect at Copperfield achieved this groundbreaking illusion using either mirrors or strategically placed index finger. Desperately in need of a new hit single and lacking any artistic ability, Puff Daddy decided to remix his day-old French onion dip. Day-old French onion dip.  Well, good night, mom.