|
|
|
|
|
| | The Constitution and religious freedom Page 8 of 18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) |
Bush Administration has admitted that their claims at the time were false and have admitted that Saddam was not a threat to America or his neighbors.
I notice you have nothing to say about the fact Mr. Clinton and other leading Democrats believed the very same things about Hussein's regime--and are on record as saying so--long before Mr. Bush was president. I'm not surprised, because it's a little inconvenient for your argument. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/7/2010 1:00:40 PM |
In the name of Christianity in years 2002 to 2009 over a hundred thousand Muslims have been killed
Why Paul K, I'm amazed you hadn't heard that! I saw it just the other day, in a headline. I was waiting in the checkout line at the market, and there it was on one of those papers, right next to an article about a three-headed wildcat someone had discovered in Tasmania. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/7/2010 1:16:51 PM | ^^^^^^^
And I thought that the three headed wildcat was just someone that I met on an on line dating site once............
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/7/2010 3:50:07 PM | | We didn't go into Iraq in the name of Christianity, but I believe the fact they are a Muslim coutry helped sell the need for war to Americans. North Korea isn't a Muslim country, and they actually have WMDs. We should have invaded them before Iraq. They're the ones helping Iran develop their nuclear program. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/7/2010 4:00:48 PM | | Big problem with NK: China. They tossed us out the first time we tried it and would likely do so again. Why they back those idiots now is beyond me, but apparently they still do. There will be some very cranky Koreans to deal with when the Chinese and South Korean economies prosper and NK is still in the stone age--except for their nukes. Oh, yeah. They'll have ... nukes ... and China is ... right next door! | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/7/2010 4:01:58 PM | ^^^^^^^^
Agreed, sort of. Your premise stated that the NK's actually have WMD's, intimating that Iraq didn't. Nice try.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/7/2010 4:44:16 PM |
but I believe the fact they are a Muslim coutry helped sell the need for war to Americans.
That completely ignores several inconvenient facts. The U.S. led a coalition of countries in enforcing U.N. resolutions by driving Iraq out after it had invaded Kuwait in 1990. That put an end to the Iraqi forces' barbaric occupation, in which they raped, tortured, and murdered thousands of Kuwaiti men, women, and children. I guess you know Kuwait is a heavily Muslim country. The U.S. intervened in Somalia--another heavily Muslim country--as part of a U.N. effort to relieve starvation and chaos there. The U.S. intervened in the Balkans to prevent Bosnian Serbs from preying on Muslims in Kosovo. U.S. actions have saved the lives of many thousands of Muslims in these and other places.
Saddam Hussein's Nazi-like Baathist regime butchered at least 300,000 Iraqi Arabs--and tens of thousands more Iraqi Kurds, many of whom were tortured to death. We know all this both from captured documents and from the remains recovered from mass graves all over Iraq. Even more of them will surely come to light, and the survivors will try to identify the victims. That total doesn't include the hundred thousand or more who died in Hussein's 1980-89 war with Iran. But for the United States, Hussein's goons would still be pushing people from rooftops, burying and burning them alive, feeding them into wood chippers, throwing their small children into filthy dungeons, and beheading women so they could amuse themselves later, by watching the video over cognac and cigars.
To imply that Americans were more willing to invade Iraq because it is a Muslim country may the latest fashion in pseudo-intellectual cynicism about this country. It's also a disgusting insult--not only to every American, but especially to the U.S. servicemen who have been killed in the course of helping Muslims. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/7/2010 5:10:10 PM |
To imply that Americans were more willing to invade Iraq because it is a Muslim country may the latest fashion in pseudo-intellectual cynicism about this country. It's also a disgusting insult--not only to every American, but especially to the U.S. servicemen who have been killed in the course of helping Muslims.
In fairness, demonizing Muslims has been going on ever since 9/11 and to a certain extent before. Holding them out as different and sinister does and did make it easier to sell the public on the idea. Look at GoGetter's umbrage at my suggestion that a theocracy is a theocracy is a theocracy, regardless of the religion.
It's no insult to the troops to say that those who sent them off did so for reasons that might not all have been the best. It is to their credit that they served anyway. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/7/2010 5:28:22 PM | Hey Ace
you wrote:
"Why they back those idiots now is beyond me, but apparently they still do. There will be some very cranky Koreans to deal with when the Chinese and South Korean economies prosper and NK is still in the stone age--except for their nukes."
You mean to tell me that the NK's will be more cranky once they find out that the South and China are prospering? It seems to me that China and South K are both prospering now, lets hope that NK's power of observation stays dim.........
I have to agree with go go's umbrage at your suggestion that all theocracys are the same. They are not the same, at least in the here and now, in the modern era. It is very easy to point out to the crusades, and all sorts of various other forms of "evil" that happened centuries ago, but we live in the here and now. The point he is trying to make is that there is only one religion that doesn't tolerate others within its borders..... and to say that only the militant sect of said religion is evil is no reason to sleep better, seeing how even with only about 15% of the general garden variety being militant, that still means more militant islamists than the population of the US........ Think about that for a while.
If they were all to be the same, you sure can't tell from the 85% who claim to be "peace loving". And, YES, what I want from them is a constant, continual outpouring of statements and ACTIONS that shows that the militant sect is not in control. Because until that happens, I will paint them ALL with the same brush. Its called self-preservation. How many "fawtahs'' have been issued against the ones who are militant and want to destroy us????? I haven't heard of any. That would be a start.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/7/2010 5:55:00 PM |
demonizing Muslims has been going on ever since 9/11 and to a certain extent before. Holding them out as different and sinister does and did make it easier to sell the public on the idea.
Are you claiming someone in our government has "demonized" Muslims? If so, who? When? And what did these people do, specifically, that constitutes "demonizing Muslims"? I've followed all this pretty closely since 9/11, and I've seen just the opposite from this government. There's been nothing but bending over backward, in statement after statement, and action after action, to assure the world's Muslims that we have no quarrel with them. There's been so much of this fawning and ****footing that it's now risking innocent lives, as we've seen in the last few months.
The jihadists themselves have done more than enough to justify everyone in viewing them (accurately) as different and sinister. They don't require demonizing, any more than Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot. Blame them, not us. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/7/2010 6:00:39 PM | Match,
I wasn't trying to insult anyone. There was definitely an anti-Muslim feeling in the air after 9/11. There were many reasons to invade. Whether they are valid is up to the individual to digest. I was simply saying the fact they are a Muslim country helped Americans to be passive about the invasion because of the heightened sense of awareness of the dangers of jihadists. We were spoonfed every dirty little detail about all the terrorists around the world who want to kill us. Then we were told Iraqi officials met with Atta in Germany and Iraq was involved with 9/11. There was a marketing campaign to sell us on the war, and Muslim jihadists were pushed into our fear sensors left and right. Not everyone is astute about the Middle East as you. Most everyone was drinking whatever kool-aide they were being sold. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/7/2010 6:48:00 PM |
Muslim jihadists were pushed into our fear sensors left and right.
These people have proven we have good reason to view them as a threat. Just wait until they get hold of a few pounds of weaponized anthrax and a cropduster. I think the extent of Hussein's involvement with jihadists--and Al Qaeda in particular--is still an open question. We know there was some contact between them in Sudan, when an Islamist regime was in control there in 1992 and was hosting bin Laden.
Hassan Turabi, the head of the regime, tricked one of Hussein's enemies into coming from London to Khartoum. Once he was there, Saddam's agents (operating out of the Iraqi Embassy) murdered him. The U.S. knew Sudan was trying very hard to develop biological weapons. Clinton thought Iraq--which we knew had a very advanced chemical and biological warfare program--was helping the Sudanese with that. And maybe not just them.
The U.S. had intercepted phone conversations, over a period of months, between people at the factory and leading scientists in Iraq's program. Some of these men had also attended the ceremony when the plant opened. Soil samples collected near the plant showed traces of chemicals used only in making VX nerve gas. Bin Laden had chipped in millions to the regime and had made Sudan home base for the Al Qaeda he was forming. Looking at all those things together, I'd say they looked very suspicious. Mr. Clinton thought so, too. That's why he ordered the pharmaceutical factory there destroyed, as he said at the time. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 6:17:43 AM | They are not the same, at least in the here and now, in the modern era. Which benign Christian theocracies in the here and now are you referring to, Paul? | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 6:23:33 AM |
The jihadists themselves have done more than enough to justify everyone in viewing them (accurately) as different and sinister. They don't require demonizing,
I agree with you about jihadists being rightly viewed as a threat, and as amoral if not immoral. Unfortunately, the government statements about Muslims in general are designed to counter anti-Muslim sentiment over the jihadists.
It might be easier to refer to them all as "towel heads," but it would still be wrong. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 9:29:20 AM | As for the Muslims, the good ones are getting a bad rap for the minority of radicals which comprise the ranks of the terrorists. However, there seems to be a lack of mainstream Muslim clerics willing to stand up and condemn the terrorists.
The much misinterpreted first amendment protects freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 9:42:14 AM |
the government statements about Muslims in general are designed to counter anti-Muslim sentiment over the jihadists.
You're implying that we Americans are biased against Muslims in general. What's your evidence for that? And how do you know what government statements about Muslims in general are designed to achieve?
I refer to Islamists in terms a lot more colorful than "towel head," and I couldn't care less whether they like it. The ones in this country can count themselves lucky no one's kicked he!! out of them on the street. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 9:44:33 AM |
However, there seems to be a lack of mainstream Muslim clerics willing to stand up and condemn the terrorists.
Ever think that might be because deep down, they don't completely disagree with them? | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 10:21:33 AM | Hey Ace
You asked:
"Which benign Christian theocracies in the here and now are you referring to, Paul?"
About the only "christian" church I can think of off the top of my head was the one headed up by one Rev. Wright....................... But that is just one church, and you asked for theocracies.
All kidding aside, I don't know of any Christian theocracies that preach "jihad", martyrdom, being the only theocracy on Gods green earth........ NONE. Please give me an example of one, I would love to know, so I can go throw rocks through their windows.
hey match, you wrote :
''You're implying that we Americans are biased against Muslims in general. What's your evidence for that?''
There is no institutional bias against muslims in the USA. NONE. If there was, Ft. Hood wouldn't have happened, mutaabullabad (SP?) would still have his nutsack intact, and we would be breathing a lot easier.
Is this "hate speach"? First of all, that concept is nonsense, but, no it is not. All it is, is reality of what we have today, of how things are today, yet we are hamstrung by political correctness, and heavens if we accidentally offend some group who wants to destroy us.
hey match, you wrote:
''I refer to Islamists in terms a lot more colorful than "towel head," and I couldn't care less whether they like it. The ones in this country can count themselves lucky no one's kicked he!! out of them on the street.''
The only thing I can add to that is:
OOH RAH.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 10:30:00 AM | ^^^^^^^^^^
That is a thought that did not occur to me. The general opinion seems to be that they don't speak out because they fear for their lives. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 10:45:31 AM | ^^^^^^
If you mean that they fear for their lives, and are speaking about why the "moderate" muslims aren't speaking out, you might be right. But, I don't think that is the case at all. When you hear from a muslim spokesperson, all you hear about is how they reject jihad, etec............ and it is all CRAP. I don't believe it at all. If they really meant it, you would hear it other than from their spokespeople. If you really think that orgaizations like CAIR are very open and tell you everything they think, you are very mistaken.
I go back to the example of the Japanese during WW2, who weren't afraid to speak out.............
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 11:23:49 AM | Paul,
I wasn't asking about currently existing Christian theocracies that preach jihad. I was asking about any currently existing Christian theocracies that might still exist.
Are there any left that still have police power? Does the Pope still have absolute authority over criminal justice matters in Vatican City? Could His Holiness order the execution, torture, or even detention of anyone within its bounds?
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, though I find it hard to believe that you aren't getting my point. So here it is. When there were Christian theocracies that had actual police power, they engaged in all of the same abuses that any other authoritarian government engages in: empire building/Crusades, arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, genocide, discrimination, slavery. Not all of them, and not all the time, and not all to the same extreme, but enough of them to validate the rule that it is simply too risky to vest the police power in priests.
This isn't because they were Christian. It is because they were authoritarian. Once you acquiesce to an authoritarian mindset, _any_ religion can be used to justify human rights abuses--even atheism. And that was the fatal flaw in the Soviet system. It too was authoritarian and therefore too rigid to keep up with the development of technology.
Religion is an appeal to divine authority, and as such, a ready-made apology for an authoritarian government. And that is why attempts to introduce any religion into government--be it Evengelical Christianity or atheism-- are simply un-American. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 11:26:24 AM |
''I refer to Islamists in terms a lot more colorful than "towel head," and I couldn't care less whether they like it. The ones in this country can count themselves lucky no one's kicked he!! out of them on the street.''
As long as you're clear on the distinction between Islamists and Muslims, it's all good. When you can tell the difference just by looking at them, let me know, OK? | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 12:14:32 PM | First the important thing:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY ELVIS!!!!
I really don't know what power the pope has within his own jurisdiction. Seeing how his jurisdiction is about a square mile or so......... who cares. As far as abuses committed within the vatican, I highly doubt that they are carrying on any large scale crusades, detentions, tortures or executions within the jurisdiction of the vatican.
All of the hoopla that is trying to compare christianity IN ITS CURRENT FORM, at least for the past 100 years or so, and islam, and saying that the outcome is even, is nothing less than political correctness at its worst. In other words, don't believe what you see, believe what we tell you...................
You stated:
"As long as you're clear on the distinction between Islamists and Muslims, it's all good. When you can tell the difference just by looking at them, let me know, OK?"
I see no difference between Islamists and Muslims...... where I see a difference between MILITANT islamists and MILITANT muslims, and islamists and muslims. And therein lies the problem, until after the fact, it is sometimes hard to tell. However, in the two most recent problems with militant islam, both could have been prevented if we were to look at things with common sense instead of filtering it through the lens of political correctness.
I can easily tell in an airport who most probably 99% of the time woulnd't be the one to blow up an airplane, and that line would start with the little old lady, or a blond haired blue eyed Swede. See where I am going with this? For us to simply close our eyes and see nothing as far as outword appearances is silly at best, and most probably suicidal in reality.
I think the whole US is getting rather tired of political correctness, and where it is taking us.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 12:53:04 PM |
I think the whole US is getting rather tired of political correctness, and where it is taking us.
Considering the fact it was cooked up by European communists for the express purpose of undermining the cultural foundations of this country in every way possible, I'd say it was high time. Their successors must get a kick out of watching millions of people dutifully swallow their poison pill, all in the name of niceness. Their 11th Commandment is: "Thou shalt not judge anything." Only now, when it starts to dawn on folks that this tolerance of everything may get them killed in an airplane, do they start to re-think it. A lot of PC has been transmitted through schools, but Hollywood and the regular news media have certainly done their part.
The whole notion is un-American and tyrannical--it completely violates the spirit (and sometimes the letter) of the First Amendment. But most budding brownshirts, fresh from their graduate school indoctrination about the depravity of America, barely know what the Constitution is--or care. After all, it was written by white men who owned slaves! The "rights" they're most likely to get indignant about are those they reserve to themselves, and those they fabricate for our enemies. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/8/2010 12:59:27 PM | Well, there's a difference between being PC and valuing freedom over a particular religion. If you can't tell the difference between an authoritarian government and one that promotes religious freedom, I can't help you. If being a Christian blinds someone to that distinction, they're still blind. If being a Muslim does ... still blind. The fact that one other the other of them is more violent this week than in some other week makes no difference to me. The potential for violence remains and must be contained by ensuring that no religious authority of any stripe gets hold of the police power.
How come when it gets hard you use the PC dodge?
I do see where you're going with the profiling, and if it didn't cast a net so wide as to be impractical I might go there with you. But one of the reasons this last idiot got through was that his name didn't rank high enough in the search listings. Those lists, based on profiling rather than evidence, were overbroad. And that's where prejudice takes you. You feel justified in harrassing people who weren't militant before you got up their nose. Meanwhile, the really dangerous people slip by while you're preoccupied with quelling the secondary unrest that you yourself started.
Where exactly would a healthy respect for individual rights to temper our understandable rage actually take us? | |
|
|
|
|
Page
8
of
18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
|
|
Home
login 
