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?

^You could save yourself this whole diatribe of bizzare commentary by simply pointing out that NO-ONE, not Arabs, not Muslims, not Western Chistians, not even Jews want to be occupied by a foreign power. And all will violently resist such a thing... regardless of culture. By the way, this statement cracks me up: What in the WORLD are you talking about?

Toys? Heaven forbid! I just think it's most sad how they're willing to sacrfice 40 of their own people, children too, if it means two of our guys will die. How on earth do they hope to win support that way? All that shows is that they really have no concern for their own people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes of course, Funny how this unbelievable sacrifice is adopted by both sides. We've sacrificed more than 2000 of our own men and $200 Billion of our own taxes on a war for "Iraqi freedom", after all. Despite this, those damn ungrateful Iraqis now want us out of there. In fact, their own elected government recently voted for the establishment of a US withdrawal timetable which sees us leaving in 6 months. Have our toys and candy handouts won the hearts and minds? Incidently, Has anyone been following the Murtha story?

I doubt that merely discussing it could be considered grounds for impeachment, u True, however, if he were to lie about it under oath, that WOULD be grounds for impeachment. For example, he could be asked, in court, whether he pushed for the bombing of Al-Jazeera's headquarters with Mr. Blair. If his response to that question is: "No, absolutely not! Outlandish!" when the memo happened to clearly show that he was, then THAT would get him impeached. Clinton was impeached for much less. There you go, then. Had he actually ordered the bombing, he'd get off scott-free. There's dozens of ways to defend such a thing. We've seen several such defenses already stated on this thread: "It was an accident", "Al-jazeera is in bed with Al-qaeda terrorists" "It's not illegal to bomb the enemy's communications sources" etc.

Could you point me to the thread where this is happening? Because all I'm seeing here is someone hiding behind the "you have no authority!" defense. He's actually not proving, disproving, denying or agreeing with anyone. And personally, his attempts to prove there are "hundreds of newspapers in iraq, according to the bbc" literally failed, as he linked us to a BBC article which cites exactly 2 newspapers in iraq, not "hundreds". LOL

^There's no need for you to have to defend your original comments, Hildegard. metadigital is putting up the familiar response of: "you ain't no authority, thus you can't say what you're saying." And he's doing so in the hopes that we forget that *HE* was the first person on this thread to make a claim which would require access to confidential Pentagon intelligence in order to quantify. From Page 1, metadigital's very first post on this thread: Of course, several pages later, he ADMITS that he has no evidence to support this. So one wonders why he even bothered to spout such BS in the first place. Perhaps he actually thought there wouldn't be anyone here to dispute such shameless propaganda BS. But the fact that he dares criticize others for doing the exact same thing that he did before anyone else is what stands out for me.

Oh no NO, mon Ami. I wouldn't dare make such a value judgement. The British Government would, though.. They took the threat of US force so seriously, that they drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do. In Iraq? No. How many? I can think of 3. One is Iraqi government run. One is US coalition run, and the third is Moqtada Sadr's newspaper --which the US tried to shut down. Go ahead and list us the other ones, kumquatq. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually the BBC reported there are hundreds. Certainly there are more than three. Perhaps you should check your figures before mouthing off opinions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> While NEITHER of your links say that there are hundreds of newspapers in iraq, even your BBC link only cites 2. Are you trying to be sarcastic?

That's why The Sudanese Arab Government banned Al-jazeera. That's why Al-jazeera is banned in Iran, and Saudi Arabia too. Dr. Condoleeza Rice certainly WOULDN'T be any authority on the subject. Regular viewers of Al-Jazeera here in the west would probably be better authorities on the subject though. And from watching their programming, I've come to the conclusion that if there are members "batting for al-qaeda" at any level within Al-Jazeera, they have absolutely no notable influence on what gets aired. Their reporting of the hotel bombings in Jordan a couple of weeks ago absolutely made that clear in my eyes. In any case, I don't see al-jazeera as Anti-American. A fairly good case can be made that they tend to be anti-US foreign policy in the middle east. But that's not unusual. Much of the world's media is. The BBC is not impartial. It is, by its very name, British. Its main focus is on British things. This rules out impartiality. Incidently, Al-jazeera tends to be populist. Since the majority of its coverage takes place in the middle east where dictatorships are common and most of the media is government controlled, being populist is a damn good idea for any media source that wishes to be taken seriously by the world.

Al Jezeera is regarded as the primary mouth piece of al Qaeda, as in there are many members suspected to be common to both. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ayup. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Regarded by whom, exactly? And I'm unfamiliar with anyone working for al-jazeera who's believed to be a member of Al-Qaida. Anyone have links to back this rather absurd propaganda belief??

Just so we're all on the same page here, we do know that in 2004, the Iraqi governing council, headed by Paul Bremer, BANNED Al-Jazeera from Iraq, don't we? They literally stormed their existing offices in Iraq and shut them down. So I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that the BA contemplated targetting them by force during the invasion. It would be in line with their absurd, elitist philosophy. After all, the TV news outlet they introduced in Iraq, "Al-Hurrah", is nice and peaceful in its reporting. For example, in April of last year, instead of reporting on the Abu-Ghraib Scandal when it was breaking news, Al-Hurrah decided to offer up a nice long 4 part documentary series on the history of India.

Happens all the time at the top. During the oil embargo of 1973, The Nixon administration drew up plans to take control of Saudi and Kuwaiti oilfields by force. Oh and these plans were detailed beyond the level of simple 'contingencies'. They were talked out of it. Why you (or anyone) would find such a thing "silly" is beyond me. In Iraq? No. How many? I can think of 3. One is Iraqi government run. One is US coalition run, and the third is Moqtada Sadr's newspaper --which the US tried to shut down. Go ahead and list us the other ones, kumquatq.

Correct. According to the bible, Adam is.