Not my problem if you do not believe me. But at the same time the press conference was going on, there was a "Breaking News" trailer about the plane hijack from Albania which was bound for Turkey and was forced to land in Italy. Are you implying that the Amish shootout was not true? Because here it is on CNN. - MENJ
Again, you have not read or watched it and apparently have refused to read my first post with link in what really happened. Ironically enough, you could easily twist it (if you actually knew what happened) to your own benefit here. I'm trying to help you help yourself here, but... No, I'm implying that it was not committed by Amish but rather a lone nut job that had some phobia of women. Let me know when it "clicks." K?
I did not in any way said that the shooter was Amish. I said that Amish children were killed and yet it was conveniently not mentioned anywhere, even though the press conference on the shootings occured at around the same time as the plane hijackings, which did not lead to any deaths. That is the point I was trying to make. You couldn't read? - MENJ
Actually it has been mentioned and has been discussed here. I take it you think the Amish murders happened today? Your quest for moral equivalence is failing miserably and if you had a clue about the hijacking, you'd be taking a different direction. Let me know when that clue arrives, okay?
Well I guess its the timezone differences. For me it happened today at GMT +8 between 1AM to 2AM Malaysian time, do not know what would be the equivalent time for the United States, but I am guessing that it would be in broad daylight at the time. Reading the first five posts in this thread, guess who was being targeted at for hate? Hint: it was not the shooter who killed 6 children. - MENJ
Please take time to read what happened with the hijacking. Since you refuse and are clearly not aware of what happened: A hijacker, who was a convert (ex muslim) to Christianity, hijacked the plane (reportedly peacefully) to seek political asylum from having to serve in the Turkish (muslim) army. In other words, you could easily turn this around to your benefit here. The reason no deaths occurred and that it was peaceful is because the guy was a Christian, not a muslim. Think about it...a muslim hijacking without death would be strange, would it not? That wouldn't make sense! Now use this to your advantage!
Let me know when that magic moment "clicks," okay? You could have a field day with this, if you had a clue
BWAHAHAHAAHAH!!! Foaming Christian starts thread to show how violent Muslims are: ...and makes a TOTAL FOOL of himself when it turns out it's a Christian who did the hijacking (btw, it's not spelled "hyjacking" Mr. Peaceful Christian Redneck) Actually, to give credit where credit is true GTech seems to have made a much bigger fool of himself than Mia here!
That would be "where credit is due." Yeah, I probably shouldn't have gone out of my way to show an uninformed extremist what really happened. He thought it was a muslim that did the hijacking. Everyone knows you can't have a muslim hijacking without death
I absolutely hate these "my religion is better than your religion" threads so it does my heart good when the starter of a thread like this ends up making a complete ass of himself by jumping to conclusions in an effort to show the "other" religion in the worst possible light. Some how it does not seem to be in the spirit of brotherly love and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to constantly degrade the beliefs of others and distort the truth just to show other people's religion in the worst possible light. This type of hate mongering and bigotry is irreprehensible and has no place in modern society. They say actions speak louder than words. If either side in this constant back and forth fighting want to truly prove that their religion is better, then prove it by practicing the best parts of your respective religions. Right now all I am seeing from these threads is the worst that religion has to offer. If I were forming a position about the major religions based on how they are represented in this forum I'd have reject all religion and become an atheist because I wouldn't want to be associated with such hateful beliefs as I keep seeing projected here. Some apologies are owed by this thread's starter for jumping to conclusions and baring false witness based on unsubstantiated rumors and bad information.
I don't think that the full truth about this case is out in public and more background investigation are needed.
Then you should not venture into threads where no one has claimed their religion was better than others with a "holier than everyone" mindset and stick to defending an ex-president who helped create the North Korea crisis we have today. Mia reported the information available AT THE TIME that was available. As time unfolded, new and additional information became available. Information that has changed has been updated in the thread.
It is always easy to blame a whole nation or believers of a religion after a certain event (hijacking, a terrorist attack, etc. etc.). This world has enough space for its population, so we can all live on it. Little more RESPECT to each other would solve all problems (which politicians can't figure out). Let's try to understand each other, not to hate each other. PEACE to all...
For the express purpose of berating another's religion. As a Christian, I find this type of behavior to be repugnant, deeply offensive and immoral. The constant judging of other religions and hate mongering I am seeing in these threads goes against everything I have ever been taught about Christianity. In regards to NK have any of you Bush lover's ever stopped to think that the whole reason we are suddenly having really major problems with NK and Iran is because those countries have come to honestly believe that George Bush intends to invade them? Given the way George Bush has acted in the last six years and given the things he has said if I were in the shoes of the leaders of those countries I'd be doing everything in my power to create some form of deterrent that would make the thought of invading my country (the way Bush did in Iraq) completely unpalatable. We did the exact same thing during the Cold War. We developed so many nuclear weapons and so many different delivery platforms that we were able to guarantee the Soviet Union that if they tried to invade the U.S. we would be able to successful turn every city in the Soviet Union into piles of radioactive rubble. Above all else Kim Il-sung values power and having absolute control over his country; as such he will do anything to stay in power. Had Bush not been such a cowboy six years ago and spent so much time rattling sabers with Iran and North Korea we would probably have a completely different political picture. It would be a heck of a lot easier to negotiate with these countries if their leaders didn't believe we had plans to invade them. Threatening these countries the way Bush has done has done us no good and has actually done a tremendous amount of harm to our negotiating position. What could Clinton or Bush Sr. have done differently with North Korea? Nothing. We already had sanctions against them, nobody but China has any real diplomatic relations with NK and we have been at a state of war with them since the 1950s. Even if they don't have nuclear weapons we can not risk invading North Korea less they bomb South Korea into the Stone Age nor do we have the ability to fight against a million man army. So, there is NOTHING we can do to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons if they have their mind set on it. The best we can do is negotiate with them and hope to give them enough confidence that we do not plan to invade them that they decide the money that would be needed to develop nuclear weapons would be better spent on something else. Signing some treaty that stated we promised not to invade them should have been an easy treaty to sign because we wouldn't be giving NK anything. Contrary to what you might wish to think, I am not a party ideologue, I am a pragmatist and when I vote, I look at the big picture I will even vote (and have voted) for a candidate who I might disagree with on many issues IF I believe they are the best candidate overall. I don't think George Bush is a bad president because of some ideology. I think George Bush is a bad president based on his actions and the messes he keeps getting us into. If you could just remove your party blinders from your eyes and really look at the issues you would see, as so many other conservatives are now seeing, that George Bush is making a very big mess of things and he is responsible for a large amount of the problems we are now facing, especially when it comes to Iraq, Iran and North Korea. George Bush is not a conservative, nor is he protecting conservative ideals; he simply is a puppet of our military industrial complex, the oil industry and big business.
And you were here to let us all know you stand above everyone. So be it. As I pointed out, if you do not like these threads, then don't go into them. You have that choice, don't you? The acts are the hatred you see. Being aware of them is not hatred. Some people cannot tell the difference. Again, he posted info he had at the time. And given recent histories, had every right to be upset. I didn't initially respond because the news story I initially read said it was a peaceful hijacking. For me, that sent up red flags. The rest of your post is just rambling on perceived issues. I note you attempt to blame Bush for NK because of the utterly naive actions Carter took in the 90s. There's no way to spin that blunder of blunders. Appeasement fails, NK has much more nuclear capability because of Carter and we are dealing with the threat today. There is no defense for it. We simply deal with it today.
NO, no...it's you. I wouldn't ask you to not be yourself. If your answer is going to be big, then so be it. I just find it humerous...like I know I'm in for a chapter of reading.