Would you prefer we lose the war in Iraq?

TexJam

ryan198 wrote:

I don't get how you cannot correlate that with right wing christian terrorism?

Further if you look at our country how can you not see the individual terror christianity has on the people - even though Bush will be the first to claim freedom - a few brief examples:
1. You have the right to be gay and in love, but you cannot have the same rights as a married man and women.

2. You have the right to practice other or no religions, but at graduations (at a vast majority of schools), sporting events, and following every speech by Bush, only one religion and one god is evoked.

Right wing christian terrorism? Did you put any thought into that one?

1. They don't have the right to be married because marriage is between a man and a woman. But I have no problem with civil unions I guess.

2. Poor baby. I betcha it burns your ears.

RainDog

TexJam wrote:

Right wing christian terrorism? Did you put any thought into that one?

1. They don't have the right to be married because marriage is between a man and a woman. But I have no problem with civil unions I guess.

2. Poor baby. I betcha it burns your ears.

1. Whatever you call it, gays will call it marriage. Will you go around writing tickets for violations of the "you cain't youse mah word, dang it" law?

2. Whatever you want to call it, it's still preaching from the pulpit.

NCfan

Heineken Helen wrote:

Since when did the muslims build a 'muslim army' to serve their 'muslim' wants? Do you actually know any muslims?

ALL sides killing in God's name - You can SAY God told ya to do it, doesn't mean he actually DID though, it just means you're personally a bit fucking mental! Why can nobody tell the fucking difference? :rolleyes:

LoL, oh I dunno... maybe you should ask that question to Al Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Taliban or Islamic Jihad. They could probably tell you about building a Muslim army. Or maybe you could just take a trip to Iran and take a look at their Muslim army.

You see, Iran is a theocracy. That means their country is run by a holy, supreme leader who has the final say over the internal and extermal affairs of that country - the Ayatollah.

Now, America is not a theocracy, we are a democracy. And although a lot of Christains live here, and one currently sits in the White House - we still respect other religions and the rights of our citizens to believe and practice whatever they want. Sure there are exceptions, like gay marraige and the like, but you get the drift.

So, I'm curious how you draw the parallel and say that we are Christians dropping bombs on Muslims. We are Americans dropping bombs on fanatical terrorist who have zero tolerance for our way of life. Why should we tolerate people who cannot tolerate us?

What difference does it make if I know a Muslim or not? There is a big difference between a Muslim and a radical Muslim, same as a Christain and Pat Robertson.

NCfan

ryan198 wrote:

How can you argue that George Bush hasn't invoked the use of a moral God to fight this 'war' in Iraq? Isn't that his final justification for everything...doesn't he god bless america and all that after all of his speaches? Isn't this whole thing based on creating a corporate conservative Iraq with ATM's and good 'family' values? I don't get how you cannot correlate that with right wing christian terrorism?

Further if you look at our country how can you not see the individual terror christianity has on the people - even though Bush will be the first to claim freedom - a few brief examples:
1. You have the right to be gay and in love, but you cannot have the same rights as a married man and women.

2. You have the right to practice other or no religions, but at graduations (at a vast majority of schools), sporting events, and following every speech by Bush, only one religion and one god is evoked.

Isn't that a form of mental terrorism on the part of christianity? Doesn't that a/effect more people in this country and around the world?

I don't think anybody is trying to make that argument, and they would most certainly be wrong in their attempt. It's no secret that Bush is influenced by his faith, and he publicly calls on God.

But it's also no secret that not everybody who supports the war supports the President. I think Bush is an idiot, but I still think we should be in Iraq.

And no, I don't think we are there becuase of one man's religous beliefs, even if he is the president. Anybody should realize that.

El_Kabong

NCfan wrote:

LoL, oh I dunno... maybe you should ask that question to Al Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Taliban or Islamic Jihad. They could probably tell you about building a Muslim army. Or maybe you could just take a trip to Iran and take a look at their Muslim army.

or we can ask the cia, al qaeda was created while bin laden worked for the cia...so we paid to create al qaeda, ha!

NCfan wrote:

You see, Iran is a theocracy. That means their country is run by a holy, supreme leader who has the final say over the internal and extermal affairs of that country - the Ayatollah.

yes, and why do they have a theocracy again? maybe b/c we overthrew their democratically elected PM and installed a ruthless thug (who has one of the worst human rights records in history) and let him and his death squads run around for a few years...i wonder...if they had their democratically elected PM at the time of the revolution bringing the theocrats to power instead...would they have ever turned into a theocracy?



maybe one decade we will finally catch a fucking clue

NCfan wrote:

So, I'm curious how you draw the parallel and say that we are Christians dropping bombs on Muslims. We are Americans dropping bombs on fanatical terrorist who have zero tolerance for our way of life. Why should we tolerate people who cannot tolerate us?

b/c those bombs are killing an awful lot of ppl who didn't hate us or have zero tolerance for our way of life.

and so continues the cycle and a reason for even more ppl to hate us and have zero tolerance for our way of life...get the drift?

Heineken Helen

‘LoL, oh I dunno... maybe you should ask that question to Al Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Taliban or Islamic Jihad. They could probably tell you about building a Muslim army. Or maybe you could just take a trip to Iran and take a look at their Muslim army.’

They can CALL themselves whatever they want (Muslim Army) – it STILL doesn’t make it so. Do you not see what I’m getting at here? The IRA did not represent all Catholics in Ireland and there were even one or two protestants in it… just like there were one or two Americans who joined Al Qaeda :rolleyes: or maybe I can take a trip to Iran and have a look at their Iranian army :cool:

’You see, Iran is a theocracy. That means their country is run by a holy, supreme leader who has the final say over the internal and extermal affairs of that country - the Ayatollah.’

Lol, you may as well have been speaking about Bush there.

’Now, America is not a theocracy, we are a democracy. And although a lot of Christains live here, and one currently sits in the White House - we still respect other religions and the rights of our citizens to believe and practice whatever they want. Sure there are exceptions, like gay marraige and the like, but you get the drift.’

No I don’t really… in a nation that respects other religions and rights of citizens, there should be NO exceptions.

’So, I'm curious how you draw the parallel and say that we are Christians dropping bombs on Muslims’

It’s ‘Christians’ giving the orders, isn’t it? In fact, Bush took a direct order from God didn’t he?

‘We are Americans dropping bombs on fanatical terrorist who have zero tolerance for our way of life. Why should we tolerate people who cannot tolerate us?’

Ah so what better way to MAKE them tolerate you than to control them, eh? And force them to abandon their evil ways and live your way of life – that will show them how great it is. Yep, well that only works for so long.

’What difference does it make if I know a Muslim or not? There is a big difference between a Muslim and a radical Muslim, same as a Christain and Pat Robertson.’

Because if you KNEW a Muslim, you would BELIEVE your second statement! I know quite a few Muslims and funny enough, they’re NOT all the same. And if you knew anything about Islam... ah, why bother!!!!!!

ryan198

Helen can probably attest to the dangers of christianity being that she is from Ireland.

NCfan

El_Kabong wrote:

or we can ask the cia, al qaeda was created while bin laden worked for the cia...so we paid to create al qaeda, ha!



yes, and why do they have a theocracy again? maybe b/c we overthrew their democratically elected PM and installed a ruthless thug (who has one of the worst human rights records in history) and let him and his death squads run around for a few years...i wonder...if they had their democratically elected PM at the time of the revolution bringing the theocrats to power instead...would they have ever turned into a theocracy?



maybe one decade we will finally catch a fucking clue




b/c those bombs are killing an awful lot of ppl who didn't hate us or have zero tolerance for our way of life.

and so continues the cycle and a reason for even more ppl to hate us and have zero tolerance for our way of life...get the drift?

Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Our real politic policies towards the middle east for the last 50 years has been pretty horific and down right bigoted. We certainly have created much of the mess we are facing today.

I would add however, that our bombs are killing people not associated with terrorists. But I think this is at a minimal, I'm saying we aren't doing it on purpose - and to not take action because we might inflict these casualties is not worth the price of inaction. It's the same case if Darfur. There is a genocide going on there, but if we sent the military in - innocent people are bound to get killed. But does that mean we shouldn't try to save that country?

Heineken Helen

ryan198 wrote:

Helen can probably attest to the dangers of christianity being that she is from Ireland.

No ryan, apparently we're not really allowed learn from the past :(

There have been so-called 'religious wars' going on in EUROPE pretty much forever. Now America wants one of their own. I mean it's so obviously wrong to the rest of us and probably half of the Americans too... but with the others it's pretty painful to watch and listen.

Heineken Helen

NCfan wrote:

I would add however, that our bombs are killing people not associated with terrorists. But I think this is at a minimal, I'm saying we aren't doing it on purpose

Hang on - so it's ok to drop 2000lb bombs on URBAN areas and kill loadsa innocent people... to catch one? And then say afterwards 'well, we didn't do it on purpose... now come join my cult, it's great'. :rolleyes: They may not be TARGETTING civillians but they're responsible. It's not a game. The victims aren't collateral damage to their families.

NCfan

They can CALL themselves whatever they want (Muslim Army) – it STILL doesn’t make it so. Do you not see what I’m getting at here? The IRA did not represent all Catholics in Ireland and there were even one or two protestants in it… just like there were one or two Americans who joined Al Qaeda :rolleyes: or maybe I can take a trip to Iran and have a look at their Iranian army :cool:

Lol, you may as well have been speaking about Bush there.


No I don’t really… in a nation that respects other religions and rights of citizens, there should be NO exceptions.


It’s ‘Christians’ giving the orders, isn’t it? In fact, Bush took a direct order from God didn’t he?


Ah so what better way to MAKE them tolerate you than to control them, eh? And force them to abandon their evil ways and live your way of life – that will show them how great it is. Yep, well that only works for so long.


Because if you KNEW a Muslim, you would BELIEVE your second statement! I know quite a few Muslims and funny enough, they’re NOT all the same. And if you knew anything about Islam... ah, why bother!!!!!!

I get your point Helen, but I think you're missing mine. I agree 110% that these fanatical terror groups who kill in the name of Jihad are not TRUE Muslims. But the fact remains that they call themselves Muslims and they kill in the name of Islam.

I also agree 110% that not all Muslims are the same, just like the members of any group vary. I wish you wouldn't judge me so harshly just becuase I think America's action in Iraq is righteous. You'd probably be pretty surprised at how much I know about Islam.

And no, Bush is not a therocratic leader. Any reasonable person would admit that. We couldn't be in Iraq right now without the approval from congress. In fact, our congress just voted on a measure that would bring our troops home in a year, but it was defeated by a large margin. It was not Bush who made that call, it was our congress. So can you be reasonable about that please?

Again, you are just being unreasonable. Because there are exceptions, you can't just claim that America doesn't respect freedom of religon.

ryan198

Heineken Helen wrote:

No ryan, apparently we're not really allowed learn from the past :(

There have been so-called 'religious wars' going on in EUROPE pretty much forever. Now America wants one of their own. I mean it's so obviously wrong to the rest of us and probably half of the Americans too... but with the others it's pretty painful to watch and listen.

When American's look historically they only look at themselves...oh wait we don't even do that didn't all of our past wars use god as justification to kill?

NCfan

Heineken Helen wrote:

Hang on - so it's ok to drop 2000lb bombs on URBAN areas and kill loadsa innocent people... to catch one? And then say afterwards 'well, we didn't do it on purpose... now come join my cult, it's great'. :rolleyes: They may not be TARGETTING civillians but they're responsible. It's not a game. The victims aren't collateral damage to their families.

I never said they weren't responsible did I? Just becuase we use the term "collateral damage" does not mean we don't care about these people or their families. That is the exact reason we are in Iraq right now, becuase WE DO CARE!!!

ryan198

TexJam wrote:

Right wing christian terrorism? Did you put any thought into that one?
2. Poor baby. I betcha it burns your ears.

Here's my thought on it ole' Tex:

terrorism doesn't have to kill the body it can kill the mind, soul, and/or heart as well.

Right Wing Christian Terrorism-The claims by neoconservatives to respect all other thoughts, feelings, and actions but through political choices by those in power actually closing off, making unattractive, or making illegal opposing thoughts feelings and actions. The removal of rights for gay couples is an example of this type of terrorism. The invocation of god/godlessness in the us. them and no in between on "the war on terror". The incessent pandering to one relgious groups beliefs in sporting events, graduations, presidential speeches, etc. is another example of this. The popular idea that if you are on welfare that you must be a sinner or godless. The idea that caring for other countries, and the people is godless. I can go on...So anyway That is my partial definition of Right Wing Christian Terrorism.

2. As for it burning my ears, I wouldn't mind it if they followed up with other religious prayers, or more simply didn't do it at all ... we are supposed to respect opposing stuff in this country and by invoking one god for every big event we have flies right in the face of that theory.

ryan198

NCfan wrote:

I never said they weren't responsible did I? Just becuase we use the term "collateral damage" does not mean we don't care about these people or their families. That is the exact reason we are in Iraq right now, becuase WE DO CARE!!!

Can you tell me what we care about? Because if it's saving people why aren't we helping our own in the United States, given that 17% of us live in poverty, including 29% of our Latino/a and 31% of our African-American children.

NCfan

ryan198 wrote:

Can you tell me what we care about? Because if it's saving people why aren't we helping our own in the United States, given that 17% of us live in poverty, including 29% of our Latino/a and 31% of our African-American children.

What kind of statement is that? Our government spends billions, did you get that... billions (as in 9 zeros) every YEAR to help our own people. Whether you are mentally ill or you live in poverty, our government has programs to assist.

So I don't know where you can make the statement that we aren't helping our own. I'm sure you are one of those people who share the attitude that the government didn't help anybody during Katrina either.

But you also have to look at priorities as well. What good is spending time and money to help disadvantaged people to get their life back on track, when 5-10 years from now we suffer a crippling terrorist attack that ruins the whole country?

manapa99

NCfan wrote:

They can CALL themselves whatever they want (Muslim Army) – it STILL doesn’t make it so. Do you not see what I’m getting at here? The IRA did not represent all Catholics in Ireland and there were even one or two protestants in it… just like there were one or two Americans who joined Al Qaeda :rolleyes: or maybe I can take a trip to Iran and have a look at their Iranian army :cool:

Lol, you may as well have been speaking about Bush there.


No I don’t really… in a nation that respects other religions and rights of citizens, there should be NO exceptions.


It’s ‘Christians’ giving the orders, isn’t it? In fact, Bush took a direct order from God didn’t he?


Ah so what better way to MAKE them tolerate you than to control them, eh? And force them to abandon their evil ways and live your way of life – that will show them how great it is. Yep, well that only works for so long.


Because if you KNEW a Muslim, you would BELIEVE your second statement! I know quite a few Muslims and funny enough, they’re NOT all the same. And if you knew anything about Islam... ah, why bother!!!!!!

I get your point Helen, but I think you're missing mine. I agree 110% that these fanatical terror groups who kill in the name of Jihad are not TRUE Muslims. But the fact remains that they call themselves Muslims and they kill in the name of Islam.

I also agree 110% that not all Muslims are the same, just like the members of any group vary. I wish you wouldn't judge me so harshly just becuase I think America's action in Iraq is righteous. You'd probably be pretty surprised at how much I know about Islam.

And no, Bush is not a therocratic leader. Any reasonable person would admit that. We couldn't be in Iraq right now without the approval from congress. In fact, our congress just voted on a measure that would bring our troops home in a year, but it was defeated by a large margin. It was not Bush who made that call, it was our congress. So can you be reasonable about that please?

Again, you are just being unreasonable. Because there are exceptions, you can't just claim that America doesn't respect freedom of religon.

You can claim that actually recently I have read reports of fallen soldiers who were not allowed to have Wicca symbols on their memorials...
Why? The US doesn't recognize that religion...
Nor are most politicians happy about me and my lack of religion... that's the thing you're either free or not... some of the population being free... doesn't mean all of the population is...
And yes bush can be very much painted as a theocratic leader he him self says he does everything because he feels it's what god want... the christain majority of the country put him and his other republicans in office because they ran their campaigns on the "christain morals" that the world is apparently missing...
The fact is our country is run by religion and if you can't see it maybe you should ask someone to help you from another religion....
Bush thinks what he is doing is what god wants him to do and yes congress did vote to go to war, but then bush abused 9/11 to get support and congress shouldn't have been so blind but that doesn't me we have to stay there, situations and conclusions change, the one constant in the world is change and when people see more and more of what we're really causing and what's really going on why shouldn't their opinions change? Any sane person should be able to reassess things.... staying the course isn't always the right decision especially when it's causing thousands of people to die....

Heineken Helen

NCfan wrote:

I get your point Helen, but I think you're missing mine. I agree 110% that these fanatical terror groups who kill in the name of Jihad are not TRUE Muslims. But the fact remains that they call themselves Muslims and they kill in the name of Islam.

Yes but that doesn't make it a Muslim army. It just doesn't.

NCfan wrote:

I also agree 110% that not all Muslims are the same, just like the members of any group vary. I wish you wouldn't judge me so harshly just becuase I think America's action in Iraq is righteous. You'd probably be pretty surprised at how much I know about Islam.

But you were saying how christians don't behave like 'muslims' do and I'm pointing out that there are extremists who claim to be in every religion... very few, if any, of them actually ARE religious... most use their religion to their advantage, that doesn't mean we can say it is the religion.

NCfan wrote:

And no, Bush is not a therocratic leader. Any reasonable person would admit that.

The fact that 'seperation of church and state' is the huge debate it is says otherwise.

NCfan wrote:

Again, you are just being unreasonable. Because there are exceptions, you can't just claim that America doesn't respect freedom of religon.

I didn't say that... but there shouldn't be 'exceptions' to human rights and such, just because one belongs to a certain group.

inmytree

NCfan wrote:

I never said they weren't responsible did I? Just becuase we use the term "collateral damage" does not mean we don't care about these people or their families. That is the exact reason we are in Iraq right now, becuase WE DO CARE!!!

kill 'em with caring...and bombs...but we care...

NCfan wrote:

What good is spending time and money to help disadvantaged people to get their life back on track, when 5-10 years from now we suffer a crippling terrorist attack that ruins the whole country?

exactly..why bother? there are those who hate us and our freedom to care about those who die as "collateral damage"...since our way of life will be crippled in 5 to 10 years, why bother on improving or addressing issues within our own country....

Heineken Helen

NCfan wrote:

I never said they weren't responsible did I? Just becuase we use the term "collateral damage" does not mean we don't care about these people or their families. That is the exact reason we are in Iraq right now, becuase WE DO CARE!!!

Sorry, what I meant by 'responsible' is that they are responsible for those bombs and they have a responsibility to the people they're supposed to be trying to save :rolleyes: not to kill them.

And those people losing limbs or family members probably don't see HOW exactly you care... I can't really either!