Do Religious Right's Beliefs Pose Threat to U.S.? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

daswig · 02-15-2005, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Hey, we get to point out what we see are hypocracies just like you do. Claiming they represent God, the turning around and damning Islam as the religion of the devil = hypocracy. Saying that God is coming in the next 40 years = lunacy.

And parts of Islam doesn't return the favor and label them as "Infidels"?

Religious lunacy like "God is comin' in 40 years!!!" is constitutionally protected lunacy.

host · 02-15-2005, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

DAMN THOSE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE! THEY SHOULD BE BEATEN TO DEATH AFTER REPENTING THEIR HERESIES!!!

oh, wait...

/amused by the so-called "liberals" screaming we have to stop people from exercising their constitutionally protected rights....

My immediately preceding post should help to persuade you that
I sincerely want to understand and to call attention to what
I believe is happening to the reputation of the U.S. Note
that the thread starter was an article that was published in
a Toronto newspaper, and the following was published last year in a British newspaper. If our foreign policy is perceived
to be driven by the imminent rapture wing of the republican
party, then even our closest, English speaking allies, may
write us off as delusional and unreliable. Israel may perceive
that it is being used to hasten the time of it's own destruction.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/04/20/apocalypse-please/">http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/04/20/apocalypse-please/</a>

......We can laugh at these people, but we should not dismiss them. That their beliefs are bonkers does not mean they are marginal. American pollsters believe that between 15 and 18% of US voters belong to churches or movements which subscribe to these teachings.(8) A survey in 1999 suggested that this figure included 33% of Republicans.(9) The best-selling contemporary books in the United States are the 12 volumes of the Left Behind series, which provide what is usually described as a “fictionalised” account of the Rapture (this, apparently, distinguishes it from the other one), with plenty of dripping details about what will happen to the rest of us. The people who believe all this don’t believe it just a little; for them it is a matter of life eternal and death.

And among them are some of the most powerful men in America. John Ashcroft, the attorney-general, is a true believer, so are several prominent senators and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay. Mr DeLay (who is also the co-author of the marvellously-named DeLay-Doolittle Amendment, postponing campaign finance reforms) travelled to Israel last year to tell the Knesset that “there is no middle ground, no moderate position worth taking.”(10)

So here we have a major political constituency – representing much of the current president’s core vote – in the most powerful nation on earth, which is actively seeking to provoke a new world war. Its members see the invasion of Iraq as a warm-up act, as Revelations (9:14-15) maintains that four angels “which are bound in the great river Euphrates” will be released “to slay the third part of men.” They batter down the doors of the White House as soon as its support for Israel wavers: when Bush asked Ariel Sharon to pull his tanks out of Jenin in 2002, he received 100,000 angry emails from Christian fundamentalists, and never mentioned the matter again.(11)

Willravel · 02-15-2005, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

And parts of Islam doesn't return the favor and label them as "Infidels"?

Religious lunacy like "God is comin' in 40 years!!!" is constitutionally protected lunacy.

Well of course it's protected. It's also protected to call them imbred morons who give religion a bad name, too. That was all I wanted to do.

Also, not all muslims are gun toating, bomb wearing psychopaths. A lot of them are regular, low key, productive members of society. While some of Islam can be interpreted as anti Christian, it is not regular practice to have religious prejudice.

daswig · 02-15-2005, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

My immediately preceding post should help to persuade you that
I sincerely want to understand and to call attention to what
I believe is happening to the reputation of the U.S.

Hating the US is a long, well established tradition. And frankly, I think that most Americans don't give a rat's ass WHAT the rest of the world thinks of us. Our President isn't there to make us popular in the world. Our President is there to PROTECT the American constituency and our way of life, and NOTHING more.

We spend more on our military than the next 20 highest-spending countries spend on their militaries COMBINED. That gives us a right to show our asses on the world stage, and if the rest of the world doesn't like it, well, tough shit. We've EARNED the right with American "blood and treasure". The rest of the world doesn't like our culture? Fine. They don't have to buy it. Parts of the world doesn't like the fact that we defend them? They don't have to be defended by us. They don't like what we stand for? They can stand for whatever they like, but shouldn't expect continued handouts from us if we don't like what they are doing. And a government that encourages it's people to chant "Death To America!" should expect death FROM America in response.

Our government isn't perfect. But compared to the other alternatives, it looks pretty good to me. We can be the world's best friend. But we don't HAVE to be. And people around the world should realize that.

daswig · 02-15-2005, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Also, not all muslims are gun toating, bomb wearing psychopaths. A lot of them are regular, low key, productive members of society. While some of Islam can be interpreted as anti Christian, it is not regular practice to have religious prejudice.

Finally, you say something I agree with. But the moderate muslims have an obligation to muzzle their extremists if they don't want the rest of us to think that the extremists represent the mainstream. And almost ALL religions are anti-other religions. If they weren't, they'd never grow and would die off.

Superbelt · 02-15-2005, 04:34 AM

Should us moderate christians start muzzling the extremist christians like Falwell, Robertson, Franklin Graham, Bush etc?

I don't want the rest of the world to think the US christians are all as nuts as those people are.
How would I go about doing that without violating their civil rights?

Manx · 02-15-2005, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Should us moderate christians start muzzling the extremist christians like Falwell, Robertson, Franklin Graham, Bush etc?

I don't want the rest of the world to think the US christians are all as nuts as those people are.
How would I go about doing that without violating their civil rights?

Apparently you can't, and you shouldn't even mention it because then you're an anti-constitution liberal. But if you don't like the Muslims, feel free to trash them.

roachboy · 02-15-2005, 08:36 AM

it's obvious: for conservatives, when it comes to attacking muslims, anything goes: ignorance.....racism--everything is fine.
but christianity, even in its whackjob fundamentalist/evangelical forms, is not and cannot be a problem.

go figure.

alansmithee · 02-15-2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it's obvious: for conservatives, when it comes to attacking muslims, anything goes: ignorance.....racism--everything is fine.
but christianity, even in its whackjob fundamentalist/evangelical forms, is not and cannot be a problem.

go figure.

There's a big difference. Even in countries that are our "allies" muslim extremists are taught to hate America. These peace-loving muslims seem to be the silent majority. They rarely condemn acts that the rest of the world feels to be heinous. You don't see christians chopping heads off and videotaping it. And for all the liberal hatred of "whackjobs" they are infinitly more tolerant than the muslim whackjobs, who DO chop heads off.

And don't come back with some tired arguement like "christians are there now killing thousands, blah blah blah". If there were fighting against soldiers, or even targetting military targets they might get sympathy. But you can't justify killing someone like Margaret Hassan, who not only spent her life trying to help muslims and married one, but was against the war. Until there is some outcry in the muslim community about such acts, there is no comparison between Islam and Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, or any other religion.

Fourtyrulz · 02-15-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

There's a big difference. Even in countries that are our "allies" muslim extremists are taught to hate America. These peace-loving muslims seem to be the silent majority. They rarely condemn acts that the rest of the world feels to be heinous. You don't see christians chopping heads off and videotaping it. And for all the liberal hatred of "whackjobs" they are infinitly more tolerant than the muslim whackjobs, who DO chop heads off.

And don't come back with some tired arguement like "christians are there now killing thousands, blah blah blah". If there were fighting against soldiers, or even targetting military targets they might get sympathy. But you can't justify killing someone like Margaret Hassan, who not only spent her life trying to help muslims and married one, but was against the war. Until there is some outcry in the muslim community about such acts, there is no comparison between Islam and Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, or any other religion.

There is a distinct difference between toleration of religion and toleration of murderous acts in the name of religion. Personally, I won't tolerate extremists of any religion.

Willravel · 02-15-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

There's a big difference. Even in countries that are our "allies" muslim extremists are taught to hate America. These peace-loving muslims seem to be the silent majority. They rarely condemn acts that the rest of the world feels to be heinous. You don't see christians chopping heads off and videotaping it. And for all the liberal hatred of "whackjobs" they are infinitly more tolerant than the muslim whackjobs, who DO chop heads off.

How many big Christian names are going around preaching religious equality? Approxamatly none. All of the big names are either trying to sell books that are circular at best, or they are condeming Islam blindly and swaying the puppet/President into killing so many Muslims. I don't see that as being much different than the beheadings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

And don't come back with some tired arguement like "christians are there now killing thousands, blah blah blah". If there were fighting against soldiers, or even targetting military targets they might get sympathy. But you can't justify killing someone like Margaret Hassan, who not only spent her life trying to help muslims and married one, but was against the war. Until there is some outcry in the muslim community about such acts, there is no comparison between Islam and Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, or any other religion.

I like how you demand that we don't come back with an argument that you say is tired, when it's the best argument. So you think it's okay that so many Muslims die under American bombs and in front of American bullets? Christians ARE killing hundreds of thousands. Go watch FOX News and try to rebuttle that.

StanT · 02-15-2005, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

And don't come back with some tired arguement like "christians are there now killing thousands, blah blah blah". If there were fighting against soldiers, or even targetting military targets they might get sympathy.

Just curious, would you consider the IRA to be a bunch of good old Catholic boys? Seems to me that terrorism isn't confined to Islam.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-15-2005, 10:45 AM

IRA wasn't killing in the name of catholicism, they were fighting for Irish independence.

Groups like Al Qaeda kill because they get 40 raisins in heaven after they blow up infidels.

alansmithee · 02-15-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

Just curious, would you consider the IRA to be a bunch of good old Catholic boys? Seems to me that terrorism isn't confined to Islam.

As was stated above, the IRA isn't killing in the name of the Pope or Catholocism. It's true that terrorism isn't confined to Islam, but RELIGIOUS terrorism is. In the few incidents that other religious groups might kill supposedly for religion, the majority professing their beliefs speak out against the terrorists, this is not present in Islam.

Many people here have tried to compare Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others to the islamic fundamentalists. A more apt comparison would be comparing David Koresh to islamic fundamentalists.

StanT · 02-15-2005, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

IRA wasn't killing in the name of catholicism, they were fighting for Irish independence.

That's certainly how it started, but it turned into a Catholic vs Protestant issue during this century.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-15-2005, 11:00 AM

There's always been an issue between the two, for centuries, it goes back and forth. The IRA if I remeber correctly largely targetted the British who have historically fucked over the Irish.

StanT · 02-15-2005, 11:03 AM

Terrorism Q&A: IRA

Quote:

What is the conflict in Northern Ireland about?
Following a 1916 uprising and years of guerrilla war led by the legendary Irish nationalist Michael Collins, the British government decided in 1920 to split up Ireland, which it had ruled as a colony for centuries. An independent state was created in the island’s predominantly Catholic south; a smaller, northern district called Ulster, with a Protestant majority, remained part of the United Kingdom.
Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein,
the IRA's political wing,
Belfast, 2001.
(AP Photo/Peter Morrison)
Since then, many Catholic “republicans” (also known as “nationalists”) have complained of feeling like second-class citizens in Ulster and have backed the IRA’s quest for a united Ireland free of British rule. On the other side, Protestant “unionists” (also known as “loyalists”) want to stay loyal to the British crown; backed by their own paramilitaries, the unionists have opposed the IRA’s attempts to expel the British. More than 3,200 people on both sides have died since what the Irish call “the Troubles” began in 1969.

How did the IRA become an important force in Northern Ireland?
The IRA rose to prominence after rioting and clashes between Catholics and Protestants in Ulster in the summer of 1969. British troops were eventually deployed to restore order, but many Catholics resented the British presence and felt that the security forces did not do enough to come to their aid. The group (then known as the Provisional IRA) began conducting guerrilla operations against the British Army and police. During riots in Londonderry on January 30, 1972—now remembered as “Bloody Sunday” —British paratroopers killed 13 unarmed Catholics, accelerating a cycle of IRA violence, loyalist reprisals, and security crackdowns that has continued, with some fits and starts, for more than three decades. One milestone in the conflict was the 1981 deaths of ten IRA prisoners led by Bobby Sands, all of whom died during hunger strikes.

What kind of attacks has the IRA carried out?
Since the late 1960s, the IRA has killed about 1,800 people, including about 650 civilians. The IRA’s primary targets were British troops, police officers, prison guards, and judges—many of them unarmed or off-duty—as well as rival paramilitary militants, drug dealers, and informers in Ulster. Major IRA terrorist attacks include:

* the July 1972 bombing spree known as Bloody Friday, in which downtown Belfast was rocked by 22 bombs in 75 minutes, leaving nine dead and 130 injured;
* the 1979 assassination of Lord Mountbatten, Queen Elizabeth II’s uncle;
* the 1984 bombing of a Brighton hotel where then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet were meeting, which wounded several British officials and killed four other Britons;
* a 1993 car bombing in London’s financial district that killed one person and caused $1 billion of damage;
* mortar attacks on the British prime minister’s 10 Downing Street residence and London’s Heathrow Airport in the early 1990s;
* and high-profile bombings of civilian targets, including pubs and subway stations, in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

Looks like Catholics vs Protestants to me. The point being that Christianity isn't as peaceful as some might claim.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-15-2005, 11:04 AM

It isn't Catholics vs. protestants in any sense that religion factors in. You have the seperatist Irish Catholics who have historically and continually have been treated as second class citizens or worse by the Brits, versus English loyalists, the protestants.

Superbelt · 02-15-2005, 11:07 AM

It STARTED with the Protestants punishing the Irish for remaining Catholic

So it started as a religious issue. There were other parts to it, but it wouldn't have even started without the religious aspect.
(Protestants colonizing Irish Catholic owned land)

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-15-2005, 11:14 AM

But in that sense it's more of an ethnic conflict, less of a religious one.

alansmithee · 02-15-2005, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

It STARTED with the Protestants punishing the Irish for remaining Catholic

So it started as a religious issue. There were other parts to it, but it wouldn't have even started without the religious aspect.
(Protestants colonizing Irish Catholic owned land)

IIRC, the Irish/English conflict started before the protestant reformation reached the British Isles. Hasn't there been conflict over N. Ireland since the 1200's?

True, that wasn't the IRA, but the IRA is an extension of the same conflicts.

Superbelt · 02-15-2005, 11:27 AM

That was battling back and forth, but the conflict that is being fought right now is specifically about the Protestant religious invasion.
You can go back and find the start of the "Muslim/Christian" conflict back before Muhammad if you just keep turning back the calendar.

Rdr4evr · 02-15-2005, 11:33 AM

Quote:

There's a big difference. Even in countries that are our "allies" muslim extremists are taught to hate America. These peace-loving muslims seem to be the silent majority. They rarely condemn acts that the rest of the world feels to be heinous. You don't see christians chopping heads off and videotaping it. And for all the liberal hatred of "whackjobs" they are infinitly more tolerant than the muslim whackjobs, who DO chop heads off.

And don't come back with some tired arguement like "christians are there now killing thousands, blah blah blah". If there were fighting against soldiers, or even targetting military targets they might get sympathy. But you can't justify killing someone like Margaret Hassan, who not only spent her life trying to help muslims and married one, but was against the war. Until there is some outcry in the muslim community about such acts, there is no comparison between Islam and Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, or any other religion.

You have got to be joking. First you talk about several beheadings conducted by Muslim fanatics which resulted in about twenty deaths or so, than you go back and say don’t give me the “tired” argument that Christians are killing thousands? This hypocrisy is utter non-sense. If you want to condemn several beheadings performed by several extremists while shunning off tens of thousands of civilian murders brought upon by a lunatic Christian fanatic, your whole argument is void. And the Iraqis ARE targeting the military, perhaps you’re not aware of the numerous roadside bombs targeted at US military convoys, or the countless “insurgents” fighting to the death to remove the foreign oppressors?

stevo · 02-15-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

...or the countless “insurgents” fighting to the death to remove the foreign oppressors?

I love this. "insurgents" is in quotation marks, while American soldiers are casually referred to as oppressors. WTF is that?

alansmithee · 02-15-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

You have got to be joking. First you talk about several beheadings conducted by Muslim fanatics which resulted in about twenty deaths or so, than you go back and say don’t give me the “tired” argument that Christians are killing thousands? This hypocrisy is utter non-sense. If you want to condemn several beheadings performed by several extremists while shunning off tens of thousands of civilian murders brought upon by a lunatic Christian fanatic, your whole argument is void. And the Iraqis ARE targeting the military, perhaps you’re not aware of the numerous roadside bombs targeted at US military convoys, or the countless “insurgents” fighting to the death to remove the foreign oppressors?

The difference is that the beheadings are being performed in the name of religion, whereas most Americans being Christian is incidental to the militart conflict. Here is no hypocrisy. What is present is your blinding hatred of Christianity.

And where is the proof of the "tens of thousands of civilian murders brought upon by a lunatic Christian fanatic"? Who is this mysterious Christian fanatic, where are these vast hordes of dead civilians? That is a baseless statement with no place in a logical debate.

And there are some "insurgents" targeting military targets. However, the vast majority of those being killed by these terrorists are civilians or Iraqi officials, and they are doing this in the name of a religion that is dominated by hatred and violence.

KMA-628 · 02-15-2005, 12:07 PM

awww....forget it....

Yakk · 02-15-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

And where is the proof of the "tens of thousands of civilian murders brought upon by a lunatic Christian fanatic"? Who is this mysterious Christian fanatic, where are these vast hordes of dead civilians? That is a baseless statement with no place in a logical debate.

I'm guessing he's referring to GWB. Who, based on some interpritations of world events, is a lunatic christian, who attacked a nation that was not threatening his nation nor his people, killing at tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

That view of the world is self-consistent and probably more common than you'd like to believe. When GWB talks about crusades and being inspired by God, some people take him seriously.

I attribute different motivations to GWB, but the above is a pretty strong message the USA is putting out to the world.

Rdr4evr · 02-15-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

The difference is that the beheadings are being performed in the name of religion, whereas most Americans being Christian is incidental to the militart conflict. Here is no hypocrisy. What is present is your blinding hatred of Christianity.

And where is the proof of the "tens of thousands of civilian murders brought upon by a lunatic Christian fanatic"? Who is this mysterious Christian fanatic, where are these vast hordes of dead civilians? That is a baseless statement with no place in a logical debate.

And there are some "insurgents" targeting military targets. However, the vast majority of those being killed by these terrorists are civilians or Iraqi officials, and they are doing this in the name of a religion that is dominated by hatred and violence.

Religion dominated by “hatred and violence”? And you want to talk about baseless comments? Should I begin making you aware of the deaths brought in the name of Christianity? Or does my “blind hatred” discount facts? What led to that assumption in the first place? The fact that I stated both sides possess extremism? I didn’t realize not being racist and biased means I condemn Christianity.

As for the Christian fanatic I refer to, his name is George W. Bush. He is the same man who stated “God speaks through me”, he is the same man who stated, “God told me to strike Al Qaeda and Saddam”. This is the worst form of fanaticism and it has resulted in countless deaths, deaths that you’re apparently not aware of, which is why I provided you with some links. I apologize as I couldn’t find links from fox or cnn, but I hope this is sufficient.

http://www.rense.com/general40/todate.htm

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0709-Civilians.html

http://villagevoice.com/issues/0336/mondo3.php

http://www.evilgopbastards.com/september_2003.htm

http://opednews.com/hughes1003_Protestors.htm

http://baltimorechronicle.com/oct03_DC-Marchers.html

http://www.iraqbodycount.com

go-bots · 02-15-2005, 01:34 PM

the muslims won the crusades. so nanny nanny foo foo!?

boatin · 02-15-2005, 01:45 PM

this one group of religious terrorists have different motivation than this other group of religious terrorists? Therefore I can say whatever I like about a group of people and that doesn't make me a racist.

Great logic. I like it.

daswig · 02-15-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Should us moderate christians start muzzling the extremist christians like Falwell, Robertson, Franklin Graham, Bush etc?

I don't want the rest of the world to think the US christians are all as nuts as those people are.
How would I go about doing that without violating their civil rights?

Falwell, Robertson, et al generally don't have their followers going around blowing shit up. We do indeed jump on our religious fundamentalists when they cross the line...they end up in jail, like that abortion clinic bomber guy.

You're allowed to believe whatever you want. Once you start acting in a manner that causes casualties, that's no longer protected and is criminal.

daswig · 02-15-2005, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

http://www.rense.com/general40/todate.htm

You list a bunch of links to "support" your position, and lead off with a link to Rense.com?????

You're joking, right? (if not, your credibility drops to zero, along with the UFO articles.)

"Well, I saw it on the Internets!"

daswig · 02-15-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

You have got to be joking. First you talk about several beheadings conducted by Muslim fanatics which resulted in about twenty deaths or so, than you go back and say don’t give me the “tired” argument that Christians are killing thousands? This hypocrisy is utter non-sense. If you want to condemn several beheadings performed by several extremists while shunning off tens of thousands of civilian murders brought upon by a lunatic Christian fanatic, your whole argument is void. And the Iraqis ARE targeting the military, perhaps you’re not aware of the numerous roadside bombs targeted at US military convoys, or the countless “insurgents” fighting to the death to remove the foreign oppressors?

Is Bush in Iraq to spread Christianity? The muslim extremists do what they do IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. Last time I checked, Bush didn't invade Iraq in the name of Christ.

Look at the number of civilians killed by the "insurgents" in Iraq as compared to the number of US military personnel killed by the "insurgents". They are DEFINITELY targeting the Iraqi people.

Rdr4evr · 02-15-2005, 04:26 PM

No, he is not trying to spread Christianity, rather he invaded a country in the name of God. This "Christian" maniac thinks he is a prophet sent down to free the world of tyranny. This mentality is equatable to that of the islamic fanatics. As for the links, whatever, there is six more for your viewing pleasure, and your beloved iraqbodycount is one of them.

And exactly what are the numbers of civilians and US military killed by the "insurgents"?

daswig · 02-15-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

No, he is not trying to spread Christianity, rather he invaded a country in the name of God. This "Christian" maniac thinks he is a prophet sent down to free the world of tyranny. This mentality is equatable to that of the islamic fanatics. As for the links, whatever, there is six more for your viewing pleasure, and your beloved iraqbodycount is one of them.

And exactly what are the numbers of civilians and US military killed by the "insurgents"?

So the UN is now God? Here I thought that Bush said the reason to invade Iraq was to enforce the various UN prohibitions on Saddam having WMDs, right? Isn't that why the whole "we've only found some old WMDs!" thing was raised?

People shouldn't allow personal animosity for the man get in the way of rational argument. Some people might think that people who act like that are mentally unhinged. Or, they might send them large rolls of Reynolds Wrap for haberdashery construction purposes.

As for the numbers, I don't know "exactly". But conventional wisdom from BOTH sides is that a hell of a lot more civilians have been killed than US Servicemen, yes?

Rdr4evr · 02-15-2005, 05:03 PM

Bush has lied so many times that there have been countless varying reasons for invasion, all of which proved to be false. Unfortunately he needed more than "God" to maintain international "support" and have backing from the mindless masses in the US who feared the big bad terrorists. You see, once he instilled baseless propaganda to the nation putting them in fear, he than used God as a final crutch to lure them in officially. As for the UN, they don't have "a backbone" so we need to confront the issues by illegally invading a country! Yeehaw!

Yes, it's conventional wisdom that more civilians have been killed than US servicemen, but you stated that insurgents are responsible for more civilian deaths than US military deaths, which I doubt is the case. And besides, what do you expect when they are fighting the most highly trained killers in the world with the most advanced military weaponry? You think a couple of AK's and homemade bombs are sufficient enough, hardly, but they are putting up a good fight with what they have to work with.

Also, I wouldn't mind some of that Reynolds wrap; I'd take it over a blindfold anyday.

Lebell · 02-15-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

Bush has lied so many times that there have been countless varying reasons for invasion, all of which proved to be false.

Your views on the war are well known, but I can't let this one go unchallenged.

The only "claims" I know to be provisionally false is that there were stocks of WMD's and that they could be rapidly deployed against whoever, and possibly that he had links to 9/11.

The other claims, the Hussein was still breaking UN sanctions, that he posed a continuing threat to his neighbors, that he was a butcher, that he had plans to rebuild his WMDs and that he supported terrorism (in Israel) have been shown to be true.

daswig · 02-15-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The only "claims" I know to be provisionally false is that there were stocks of WMD's and that they could be rapidly deployed against whoever, and possibly that he had links to 9/11.

The CIA report states that there were stockpiles of pre-1990's WMDs found, but that they haven't yet been inventoried since we're not sure how safe it is to open the sealed bunker.

As for Saddam's not being involved in 9/11, well, it's not like he didn't try to claim responsibility for it with his people... see http://www.webmutants.com/strategypa...the_towers.jpg for an example

Superbelt · 02-15-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Falwell, Robertson, et al generally don't have their followers going around blowing shit up. We do indeed jump on our religious fundamentalists when they cross the line...they end up in jail, like that abortion clinic bomber guy.

You're allowed to believe whatever you want. Once you start acting in a manner that causes casualties, that's no longer protected and is criminal.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...n+diamond+mine
Pat Robertson contributed to untold numbers of peoples murders and suffering in his african diamond mining ventures. Most recently with Charles Taylor in Nigeria.

Difference between Robertson and Bin Laden? Robertson has power in the strongest nation in the world.

Lebell · 02-15-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Saying that God is coming in the next 40 years = lunacy.

I don't ascribe to the fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Revelation, but it seems to me that you have no more basis for saying this than they do for saying it will happen

02-15-2005, 08:36 AM	#48 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it's obvious: for conservatives, when it comes to attacking muslims, anything goes: ignorance.....racism--everything is fine. but christianity, even in its whackjob fundamentalist/evangelical forms, is not and cannot be a problem. go figure. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-15-2005, 10:45 AM	#53 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	IRA wasn't killing in the name of catholicism, they were fighting for Irish independence. Groups like Al Qaeda kill because they get 40 raisins in heaven after they blow up infidels. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-15-2005, 11:00 AM	#56 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	There's always been an issue between the two, for centuries, it goes back and forth. The IRA if I remeber correctly largely targetted the British who have historically fucked over the Irish. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-15-2005, 11:04 AM	#58 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It isn't Catholics vs. protestants in any sense that religion factors in. You have the seperatist Irish Catholics who have historically and continually have been treated as second class citizens or worse by the Brits, versus English loyalists, the protestants. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-15-2005, 11:14 AM	#60 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	But in that sense it's more of an ethnic conflict, less of a religious one. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-15-2005, 04:34 AM	#46 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Should us moderate christians start muzzling the extremist christians like Falwell, Robertson, Franklin Graham, Bush etc? I don't want the rest of the world to think the US christians are all as nuts as those people are. How would I go about doing that without violating their civil rights?

02-15-2005, 11:07 AM	#59 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	It STARTED with the Protestants punishing the Irish for remaining Catholic So it started as a religious issue. There were other parts to it, but it wouldn't have even started without the religious aspect. (Protestants colonizing Irish Catholic owned land)

02-15-2005, 11:27 AM	#62 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	That was battling back and forth, but the conflict that is being fought right now is specifically about the Protestant religious invasion. You can go back and find the start of the "Muslim/Christian" conflict back before Muhammad if you just keep turning back the calendar.

02-15-2005, 12:07 PM	#66 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	awww....forget it.... Last edited by KMA-628; 02-15-2005 at 12:09 PM..

02-15-2005, 01:34 PM	#69 (permalink)
go-bots Upright	the muslims won the crusades. so nanny nanny foo foo!?

02-15-2005, 01:45 PM	#70 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	this one group of religious terrorists have different motivation than this other group of religious terrorists? Therefore I can say whatever I like about a group of people and that doesn't make me a racist. Great logic. I like it.

02-15-2005, 04:26 PM	#74 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	No, he is not trying to spread Christianity, rather he invaded a country in the name of God. This "Christian" maniac thinks he is a prophet sent down to free the world of tyranny. This mentality is equatable to that of the islamic fanatics. As for the links, whatever, there is six more for your viewing pleasure, and your beloved iraqbodycount is one of them. And exactly what are the numbers of civilians and US military killed by the "insurgents"?

02-15-2005, 05:03 PM	#76 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	Bush has lied so many times that there have been countless varying reasons for invasion, all of which proved to be false. Unfortunately he needed more than "God" to maintain international "support" and have backing from the mindless masses in the US who feared the big bad terrorists. You see, once he instilled baseless propaganda to the nation putting them in fear, he than used God as a final crutch to lure them in officially. As for the UN, they don't have "a backbone" so we need to confront the issues by illegally invading a country! Yeehaw! Yes, it's conventional wisdom that more civilians have been killed than US servicemen, but you stated that insurgents are responsible for more civilian deaths than US military deaths, which I doubt is the case. And besides, what do you expect when they are fighting the most highly trained killers in the world with the most advanced military weaponry? You think a couple of AK's and homemade bombs are sufficient enough, hardly, but they are putting up a good fight with what they have to work with. Also, I wouldn't mind some of that Reynolds wrap; I'd take it over a blindfold anyday.