Yrkoon

1. Yep, yet Bush disagreed with them about the pullout. HENCE MY POINT! 2. Lobbiest voiced their opinions about what they want to see???? SHOCKER. 3. So, he doesn't ask again but he calls the withdrawl "historic and courageous actions". The point doesn't stick, if he is trying to please Falwell, he wouldn't repeatedly praise what you are suggesting Falwell pressured him not to. So again: Your link says: That article is about how "Zionist Israelis" and "Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals" are upset about the withdrawl from the West Bank because of their religious views. But this is something that Bush has praised! MANY times. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/14/bush.sharon/ So if he is literally appling the bible, why would he want to pullout, something your link claims "Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals" don't want. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where does my link say that Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals disaprove of Sharon's pull out plan? In fact, it says no such thing. And in fact, Evangical Christians support the Pull out plan for 2 reasons. First, it keeps the bulk of west bank towns intact and undismantled (what they were griping about in my link), and second because it is the will of the Jewish leader of Israel.

How about you post why you link supports your assertion that Bush litterally is applying the bible in foreign policy? No new links. No new arguements. Just use that link and explain to everyone how it backs you up "utterly". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I give up. I do not believe I'm debating on a message board with people who Actually DENY Bush's religious stance towards Israel. LOL

Your link says: That article is about how "Zionist Israelis" and "Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals" are upset about the withdrawl from the West Bank because of their religious views. Right. Who were we talking about again? So if he is literally appling the bible, why would he want to pullout, something your link claims "Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals" don't want. Do you read your own links? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WTF. First off, MY OWN LINK backs my stance utterly. Quit with the games. Second of all, I'm quite aware of the evolution of Bush's stance on the Gaza withdrawal. Thanks. For example, I'm aware of the argument Sharon used to convince Bush that the Gaza withdrawal would be a good idea. Care to take a stab as to what arguement that was, Exactly? I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with Bush's public spin on matters.

Wow, your Biblical knowledge is profound. " There is no mention of torture listed at all in that verse, nor any verses around it. Perhaps you should just take a time out. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course there is. 1 Chronicles 20:3 And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem. ^if that's not describing the torture of a people (slaves/sinners) than what is it? Is it love? is it turning the other cheek? When literally interpretting the bible (what the religious right does)(what we're talking about) this is what you get. Deal with it. Bush and the Rapture Christians *literally* apply the bible *literally* in their foreign policy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> New International Version: 1 Chronicles 20:3 [He] brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes. David did this to all the Ammonite towns. Then David and his entire army returned to Jerusalem. " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's nice. But we'll stick with King James. Since that's what the Fanatic Right of the US (who we're discussing) uses

Wow, your Biblical knowledge is profound. " There is no mention of torture listed at all in that verse, nor any verses around it. Perhaps you should just take a time out. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course there is. And no amount of silly smilies on your part changes this. 1 Chronicles 20:3 And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem. ^If that's not describing the torture of a people (slaves/sinners) than what is it? Is it love? is it turning the other cheek? When literally interpretting the bible (what the religious right does)(what we're talking about) this is what you get. Deal with it. Bush and the Rapture Christians *literally* apply the bible in many aspects their foreign and domestic policy.

Oh PUHLEASE. Torture is consistant with Christian doctrine. Especially if you're a Christian who interprets the bible in a literal fashion, which the Christian right, and (Bush by extention) do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read the Bible before making stupid comments like that, thank you very much. I'm part of the Christian right (albeit not far right). I guess that means I condone torture then, hmm? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Kindly read 1 Chronicles 20:3 and tell us what our good friend David did.

Excuse me but are you listening to what you're arguing? What exactly do we have here? Lets see, Non-democracies in the middle east (read: Dictatorships; theocracies) hate al-jazeera. (as you just pointed out) Why? Because they fear that al-jazeera's programming will incite the masses against them. Al-jazeera *will* report stories that are sometimes against their interests. These dictatorships and theocracies routinely accuse al-jazeera of anti-government bias. On the flipside, we've got democracies like The US, and to a certain extent, Iraq's fledgling democracy, and they hate al-jazeera too. Why? Same reasons. What's that tell you? Well, as anyone who's actually part of the media will attest, being accused of bias from *both* sides generally means that you're doing a damn good job being impartial. Now, that's not to say that Al-jazeera isn't bias. They certainly are. However, they are less bias than what people on this thread claim. The fact that they have repeatedly won accolades and praise from the various global press freedom organizations year after year for their independent reporting cannot be ignored.

'Cept for the Bush administration, who have repeatedly condemned Al-Jazeera's broadcasts. I call that caring. Worrying, even. And the democratic government of the USA. Or do you DISPUTE the fact that Donald Rumsfeld worries that Al-Jazeera's broadcasts promote terrorism, thus pose a threat to US interests? If you're talking about oil, you would be wrong. Oh PUHLEASE. Torture is consistant with Christian doctrine. Especially if you're a Christian who interprets the bible in a literal fashion, which the Christian right, and (Bush by extention) do. This does not rule out the notion that such claims are propaganda rubbish, does it, metadigital. And it doesn't change the fact that you were the FIRST on this thread to spout such BULL. Yes, I know an editorial remark when I see one. What I fail to understand is how your entire rebuttal to hildegard's post (and mine) on this thread centered around the fact that both of us dared to post editorial remarks without having inside connections to the pentagon/government leaders. Are you suggesting that your asinine claims on this thread are ANY different than ours? Or that they somehow carry more weight?

I would argue that Islam hasn't been an endless storm of fundies *EVER*. You've got a religion practiced by 1.2 BILLION people, just 15% of them Arabs, and a small fraction of them engaged in fundamentalism. It's asinine to speak of such a gigantic mosaic of a religion that spans the entire globe in such general terms. But here you are. first, you mistakenly interchange "Afghanistan" with "Islam" Then later you try to describe Shariah as a movement.. no, worse, a MAIN MOVEMENT Stop it already!

No man, I'm obviously someone other than Yrkoon.

<sigh> Ok, you're almost 800 years off, and historically, there's never been a "main movement of Islam" (aside from the very first one), but hey, you're just breaking yourself into this internet debate thing, so I suppose I must let this one slide as well.

I'll ask one more time. What are you talking about? You are attempting to establish that there has been some sort of change. You will find none. As a matter of fact, most people believe that lack of change is the very explanation for the situation we're discussing No. Kashmir is religious land to both the Hindus and the Muslims. They've been fighting over it since the British left. This fighting has seen thousands die via suicide bombings, kidnappings, etc. There are no less than 2 dozen Islamic groups engaged in "jihad" over it. Nah, I think I'll turn it up a bit, instead and ask you to explain THIS, now: ^Been there. There's several phrases one can use to descibe Lybia. "One of the most Islamic countries" is certainly not one of them. Not even close. Gambling casinos, private topless beaches etc. mark Libya as one of the least islamic countries in the entire region.

Afghanistan would be a terrible example, buddy. Make no mistake about this. As heroic as we viewed the Afghanis when they battled the soviets, they STILL employed the same exact tactics then that they're employing now, including suicide bombings, kidnappings, etc. Their tribal culture still saw leaders engaging in honor killings, denying women the right to an education, forcing people to adhere to strict Wahabbism, etc. Again, what in the WORLD are you talking about?

Say What? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think he meant about the mujahideen who fought the soviets in Afghanistan of which a large number were/are now members of Al Qaida.....at least I think he meant that <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, if that's what he was talking about then his logic makes no sense. Especially since he doesn't mention Afghanistan at all, but instead cites Libya...and the Gulf. Lets see, when did Lockerbie happen? When did the Iraq-Iran war happen? When did the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon occur? When did the Achille Lauro attack occur? When did the Munich Olympics plane hijacking occur? When did the Iran Hostage Crisis happen? When did the Yom Kippur war happen? When did all four Pakistan vs. India Wars occur? Did all of the above all occur before the end of the soviet era? Um, Yep. How in the *world* can anyone possibly say that there's been *any* "turn in Islam" (for better or worse) after the soviets?