Thank you again. The truth is that while different religion has been used by different sides to justify violence, it is very seldom the cause and it is usually used as a simple division line or a magnifier for underlying social and political problems. Wars and conflicts mostly have their causes on earth and not in the kingdom of heaven. For example: The American revolution, did it happen because Americans were Muslim? No, it happened because of the difference of interests between British ruling class and Americans. Did French partisans fought Germans because they were Muslims? No, they did it because their country was occupied, Even both Germans and French are Christians. Did people in Vietnam (Buddhist and very pacifist) fought Americans because of religion? No, their country was occupied. Do IRA and protestants and British government fight because they are all Christians? No, it is because of social and political problems caused by British rule in Ireland. Did Americans helped Afghans against soviet because they are Muslims? No, while both Americans and Russians are Christians, they help Afghan Muslim because of their Geo-political interest in the area. Did Shia and Sunni have problem in Iraq because one of the group is not a Muslim? No it is because of social, economical and political differences caused by Saddam government and later on by occupation. Do the people in the middle east fight Americans because of the religion? Not really. Their country is occupied by a military force and most people in any country would not like this and fight against occupying power independent of their religion. There are many complicated question that are not very easy to explain and use as banner to gather people but when you add the difference of religion to the equation, religion can be used as the banner to gather all the red necks in different countries who are not capable of understating more complicated questions.
Mainly for tax reasons, that should teach that a low tax environment is better than a leftist tax burdening strategy. The French needed the Brits to hold on and the Brits and the Americans to enjoy their freedom to speak their crappy language 'til nowadays North Vietnam wanted the South to expand the communist dictatorship that they were enjoying so much that they wanted to share it with their brothers south of the border They fight less because the British Army is there, they fight because they can't stand each other, after all they never did Americans helped because they had oil and the Americans are always after oil, aren't they? The soviets instead were trying to give Afghans a better life (in heaven, maybe with virgins and stuff) The occupation, was by Saddam, those who opposed it were tortured and killed, raped and psychologically destroyed. Even then he didn't cause the differences, these are caused by the people themselves and the place they chose to stay in. The reason why some are fighting them, is because they are the major hurdle to violently expand their religion and culture. Religion differences make things worse as they provide an easy reason for people that wouldn't understand why they should fight and cover the real reasons behind the fight, which are and have always been power and money.
BTW, I got anonymously red repped because of this: Quote: Nothing is ever their fault -- it's all George W. Bush's fault True, very sadly true! I want to confirm that I really meant it, it's sad that some are always ready to blame Bush for the most silly thing, even when unrelated to his actions. Thanks!
hmm not sure on the red, however What has been blamed on Bush that he had no decision or fault on? It might be, just curious
I got the red for this: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=385573&postcount=1917 But I'm not complaining for the read, don't get me wrong, but as it was anonymous and with no comment, I wanted to confirm my opinion, after all I don't think he/she can confirm the red!
Saddam could not occupy Iraq since he was not representing a foreign government and he was not a foreigner. I do not like him or support him but if we argue that any country that is ruled by corrupt politician is occupied, then USA is occupied too. Maybe Bush does not have the possibility to be as bad as Saddam but he has taken away many civil liberties from Americans too. How are they going to expand Islam and Arab culture in Iraq? Isn't Iraq already an Islamic Arab country, or do you already count Iraq as one of the states in USA? I agree with you about this.
It's too late, see you tomorrow, but anyway I meant occupation in the sense that he definetely occupied/took away his own people's freedom, and Iraq is islamic, but what kind of islamism will prevail? We'll all have to wait and see...
Who's arguing that any country that is ruled by corrupt politician is occupied? Or are you fabricating that? What civil liberty am I missing? The right to go to the library and check out a terrorist book on how to blow up the USA without falling under suspicion? This is as bad as your weak attempt to give credit of a brutal dictator that killed 800,000 people to a handful of Christians who had the choice of dying or talking. But then you'd give anyone's killing credit to a Christian
Are you pro patriot act if that's where the discussion is working it's way to? Personally I am against it, if it only applied to non US citizens and or for terror purposes I would have no problem with it myself. However taking even fraction of freedom away in my opinion gives the terrorists exactly what they want if they 'hate our freedom' as so many have stated including our president.
Yes, I am, and I have no objection to the discussion going there. It's better than gworld's 15 pages of bashing Christians and giving them credit for what a dictator did. I've seen some over the years attempt to rationalize their disproval with the "if we take a freedom away" gig. It's a typical "inaction is the best course of action" do nothing approach. I'm for just about anything that takes away rights from terrorists and makes it easier for our government to capture them. But I also understand there are some people are terribly concerned about the rights of terrorists. I'm pretty sure I already know gworlds position though
uca said that Iraq was occupied under Saddam which I disagreed, you don't need to become defensive about Bush. Right to trial, Right to lawyer and defense and yes the right to read books without being scared of Gestapo tactics. Didn't the Nazi also trying to control what people read and arrest people for having forbidden books? Gtech, it is no wonder that you want to export democracy to other part of the worlds, it seems you have no use for it in USA and can not tolerate it. "Three are Roman Catholic priests, one is a Seventh-day Adventist pastor, one an Anglican bishop. Prosecutors at the United Nations war crimes tribunal for Rwanda maintain that the five collaborated with killers in their congregations during the 1994 civil war, when more than 500,000 people were slain. " "One is the Rev. Athanase Seromba, accused of helping to kill about 2,000 people who had taken refuge in his church, by ordering bulldozers to crush the building. Later, Father Seromba worked as a priest in Italy under an assumed name and then went into hiding after the tribunal tried to have him extradited. He surrendered in early February after international pressure was put on the Italian government and the Vatican. " "The second Catholic priest is the Rev. Hormisdas Nsengimana, who had been living under the protection of a monastery in Cameroon. Prosecutors charge him with playing a prominent role when a group of Hutus attacked and killed refugees in and around the Christ-Roi College, where he was rector. Both men were recently transferred to the United Nations jail in Arusha. " "As many as 100 pastors, priests and nuns played an active role, siding with the Hutu militias," "Genocide trials in local courts in Rwanda have already included church workers, and in 1998 two priests were sentenced to death. They remain in Rwandan jails, together with at least half a dozen other clergymen. In Belgium last year, two Rwandan nuns received long prison sentences after a local jury convicted them of crimes against humanity, finding them guilty of collaborating with murderous militia gangs." All my quotes are from your own link in the previous posting: http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljust.../0512faith.htm I don't think any other comment about this last part is necessary for anyone who reads the quotes from YOUR OWN LINK.
I wasn't being defensive of Bush. Just pointing our your usual gifted talent to defend brutal dictators Again, no one argued what you suggested. So you admit you want terrorists to have access to all means necessary to conduct acts of terror on our country? Why doesn't that surprise me, coming from a non-American? And on top of that, want to compare terrorists reading books on how to attack our country as Nazis? No doubt, you would defend a terrorist's rights, that's for sure. No doubt you want the US to pull out of Iraq so terrorists can win and mass murder. But it's better to defend a terrorists right to do so, eh? Ah, but it is. It goes to the heart of what you do! Defend a brutal dictator that killed 800,000 people by suggesting a few Christians that had the choice of dying, or cooperating by talking, by giving them all the credit. And of course, without noting the HUNDREDS that DID TRY to help, but were slaughtered for doing so. This is exactly my point! What does a brutal dictator have to do to get some credit when gworld will give it away to someone else?
Taking rights away from terrorists is a big difference from taking rights away from all US citizens. To take rights away from US citizens in the hopes that we will live safer I also do not buy as it takes away much of the point of the US and gives the terrorists a win, afterall they 'hate our freedom'. Take rights away on a terrorist basis only, non US citizen I have no problem with, taking away rights from all US citizens I do have a problem with. It is not a "inaction is the best course of action" it is keeping our country free and obiding by our constitution. I personally would rather that I and even my own son has a higher chance of death at a terrorists hands then eroding any of our freedoms in the name of defending against terrorists.
What are you talking about? Do you mean all Americans are terrorists until they prove they are innocents? Let's look at some of the things that government can do to an American for just coming to this web site and saying that they are against war or just visiting a web site that government doesn't like. 1-Patriot Act- section 215- goverment right to look at individul activity held by 3rd party A- They can get all your financial transactions from the banks. B- They can get all your medical records C- They can collect all your documents from your lawyer D- they can get any information regarding your reading and purchasing habits. The beauty of it is that none of this people can even inform you that they have given your private information to government. There is no need for government to show any reason that above documents are related to any criminal activity. 2-Patriot Act- Section 213- expands the right to search of private property A- Your home, office and car can be entered without your knowledge and searched. This can be done at anytime by police and there is no mention that has to be related to fighting terrorism. 3-Patriot Act- Section 214 & 218- expands the governments power to collect information A- Your Home, office, telephone can be bugged or wiretap can be used and you have no right to privacy. To make it even easier they have removed the limitation on which Judge can issue a secret wiretap order, so a judge in washington can issue a wiretap order on a home in california and law enforcement in california doesn't need even to know this. You must know all these things can be done to you without you ever being suspected of crime, terrorism or engaged in any criminal activity. Who needs democracy? Let's export all of it to other countries. Gtech, I can see why you support this kind of government and it's policies since this is a government after your own heart. I bet you can not wait until you can take out your brown shirts out of the closet.
gworld, I'm not interested in the rights of terrorists. Since I don't check out books at the libary that inform me how to create a bomb and blow up something, I have no problem if the government checks. Since I do not fund terrorists, I have no problem if they feel an investigation that I might. Afterall, we've (not you, or the ones doing the actual funding) have put a huge dent in terrorist financing with the patriot act. I'm sure you are disappointed though Since I do not speak with terrorists on the phone, I am not worried about wire tapping. If the government wants to listen to some of the shortest and boring phone conversations in the world, they are free to tap my phone. If the government wants to know if I'm reading al qaida materials and planning to blow something up, they are welcome check my reading habits at the library. Not one right I've lost. Not one right you've lost, since you are not an American. That you would care about my country is a joke, when you spend all you time bashing it. All these so called "rights" and nare one has ever affected me. Of course, IF I WERE A TERRORIST or TERRORIST SUPPORTER, I would be interested. But since I'm more concerned about dismantling them and ensuring our government has the tools to do so, I'm all about the patriot act! If they ammend it, so that I can no longer shop at Walmart, or I can only buy gas from Texaco, or I can only shop on Tuesdays, then I've lost rights. Since I'm not a common thief (not that they are targed by it) or terrorist, then I have no worries, do I? Not only that, but I've seen nothing to suggest it's being abused at all. But again, I must note, I'm not concerned with the rights of terrorists. Perhaps that's the difference.
Just because you are not a 'terrorist, or a theif' DOES NOT make it so it does not take away rights of US citizens. Do you also have no problem with the government knowing every gun an individual has as I see that going on the same lines as what an AMERICAN CITIZEN reads, among other items in the Patriot Act, some of which have already been struck down by the courts. Not to mention most 'terrorists' are going to get the materials they need and knowledge before they even enter the US are they not?
line 1) what rights? The right to read material on how to blow up our country? I don't need that right line 2) When I purchase a gun (I do not currently have one, but have my eye on a Colt LE 6920), it will have to be registered. I guess if I were a crook, I might not want to do that, eh? line 3) I would disagree. Is that what happened with both scenarios of the WTC? Knowledge, perhaps, who knows. Since I'm not a terrorist and am not interested in that information, I'm not worried. What right(s) am I giving up? What right(s) are average Americans giving up? I see what rights terrorists lose.
That is the reason you are a fascist and do not believe in democratic society built on laws. You do not believe in right guaranteed to all Americans according to Constitution and would like to demolish it, which makes you as dangerous or may be even more dangerous than other terrorist that would like to destroy the democratic culture in Western world. While our society can easily see the other terrorists, your kind can hide themselves behind the shield of patriotism. I would be interested to know how many others here like debunk, zman, will ,... support Gtech in his hopes for establishment of fascist state in USA.