Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera

[Dark Moth]

Just a quick note here: Bush may be a lot of things, but first and foremost he is a BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN. To suggest that he personally sanctioned torture is ludicrous.

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?

Edited November 27, 2005 by Mothman

[Dark Moth]

The US interest begins and ends with commerce, and the non-OPEC nations produce almost as much as OPEC, now.

If you're talking about oil, you would be wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What do you mean? That OPEC produces more oil, or less oil?

 

And seriously, how about arguing like a calm and rational person, instead of like one who needs a tampon change?

Edited November 27, 2005 by Mothman

[Commissar]

There'd be no way to pull it off. If it happened, it wasn't a serious discussion. I know plenty of Bush-despisers who engage in rather graphic conversations about what they would do to the man with five minutes and a blow torch.

 

We do not like al-Jazeera, al-Jazeera does not like us. I'd be willing to bet Nixon suggested chucking a few nukes in Moscow's direction from time to time. It happens.

 

You know, I'd like to see Bush out of office as much as the next guy, but some of you folks are really going to have to learn to pick your battles a little more carefully. Jumping on every issue and letting your tone rise to a rather unpleasant, high-pitched screech reminiscent of an indignant fishwife is not really going to convince anybody that you can consider things in a rational manner.

[kumquatq3]

whats a fishwife?

[Reveilled]

whats a fishwife?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A woman who sells fish in a marketplace. Job requirements are lots of shouting and being smelly.

[Musopticon?]

^Sounds like the Congress.

[kumquatq3]

^Sounds like the Congress.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who's? The US doesn't have a loud, and hence entertaining, congress.

[Reveilled]

^Sounds like the Congress.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who's? The US doesn't have a loud, and hence entertaining, congress.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree. Sounds more like Parliament. Very smelly in there.

[kumquatq3]

Parliament is ****ing GREAT!

 

Sometimes C-span will have those guys, it's just terrific.

[Yrkoon]

Al Qaeda are trying to depose the Saud monarchy, so it doesn't provide any evidence for your case; if there were moles in the network then Saudi Arabia would be banning them faster than Bush.

 

When it comes to that, al Qaeda are trying to impose a theocracy on Earth: no law of man (read: democracy) shall overrule God. So any country that doesn't have a Taliban-style theocracy is on the hit list (placings to be determined).

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.

 

  As for Jordan, I don

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Yrkoon]

Just a quick note here: Bush may be a lot of things, but first and foremost he is a BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN. To suggest that he personally sanctioned torture is ludicrous.

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.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Dark Moth]

Kindly read 1 Chronicles 20:3  and tell us what our good friend David did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Mothman

[random evil guy]

Bush reads an AJ blasting him for whaetver reason. He gets mad, and goes," Damn it! I hate them *" He turns to his friend, and confidante Blair, and in passing suggests they are udnemrining the war effort and makes a comment about bombing them or doing *soemthing*. Blair says no, no, no. They move on. Game over.

 

Definitely not out of the realm of possibility.

 

actually it is. bush catching up on his reading?!? not bloody likely...

Edited November 27, 2005 by random evil guy

[Hildegard]

I don't know why you think propaganda has to be blatant; Philby spied for the Soviet Union and reached the top of British Intelligence at the height of the cold war, after all, and did far more damage than a single West German border guard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just wanted to say it's ridiculous to say AJ is the mouth of AQ, because if there was one that clearly was/is doing so, praising the 9/11 hijackers and calling for violence and suicide bombers, it would get shut down by any serious goverment, especially a ME allie to the US such as Qatar.....I remember prior to the 9/11 the Bush administration was supporting the establishment of AJ and its work, but after it showed the constant devastation and civilian casulties in Afghanistan caused by the USAF, the Bush administration changed the rethoric, practically marking them as 'enemy' propaganda, bombing their offices in Iraq&Aghanistan(me thinks intentionly), killing their reporter in Iraq, imprisoning another on phony charges as countless others placing them in Guantanamo, driving them out of Iraq because they weren't 'helping'......

 

 

They bombed the Chinese Embassy in the Balkans, too: was that some sort of pay-back?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know you tell me....let's just say it was very convinent that out of all embassies they struck the one whose country was the strongest opposition to the war together with Russia.

 

I've got news for you, nearly EVERYONE in the US doesn't give a tinker's cuss for what some arabic news network says, let alone hears what that happens to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not even saying that anybody in the US or elsewhere in the west watch or listen to AJ, but the fact is it's the most popular news network in the Arab world and with the US trying to present their image as the good guys to the people in the ME, AJ isn't contributing that, on the contrary with the constant 24/7 broadcast of images of tortured Iraqis from Abu Ghraib prison and the controversy with the US handling of Falluja etc. they've done more damage to the US then any insurgent in Iraq. And the US can blame that only on themselves,on the conduct of those in charge responsable for the mentioned 'incidents' and not AJ, as Bush probably got frustrated and joked/said/mentioned they ought to be bombed and it ended up on the record. Knowing what blunt statements Bush speaks out, this with AJ is hardly suprising.

 

The only people who need to worry about al Jazeera (if it is just a journalist institution trying to bring truth to the Middel East) are the undemocratic governments of the Middle East.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah they got kicked already out of many undemocratic states in the ME and abroad, and ofmany of those that are tagged as US allies.

 

AJ provided the footage of the US using WP weapons in Falluja, it posted numerous times images of civilian casulties caused by the US forces all the time(but hey the USAF provided the material all the time), many more then any other news agency did....during the Abu Ghraib scandal they aired the images of tortured prisoners 24/7 so the muslims from all around the ME can see the 'real' face of Mr.Bush and his policy.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a quick note here: Bush may be a lot of things, but first and foremost he is a BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN. To suggest that he personally sanctioned torture is ludicrous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not saying Bush personally sanctioned those tortures in Abu Ghraib because as many experts said those tortures didn't have any goals of extracting information just some sadistic purpose of those who commited them or whatever....What I wanted to say they just want to show/prove how the war in Iraq was never about WMDs/connection of Saddam with AQ/freeing the Iraqi people, in their view it was only about the economic and strategic interests od the US and its allies(Israel) and I agree with them.

 

I noticed you cut my comment about if Bush wanted al Jazeera removed, it wouldn't be around anymore. Even if he did say it; heck, even if he asked for a contingency plan to be drawn up, if he didn't execute the command than all he's doing is daydreaming, not making war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Excatly it was their mistake it got on record, no record no news......reminds of Watergate

 

Well I knew nobody would understand because it's somewhat archaic latin and I can only translate it as: He who intents to commit harm/injustice, has already commited it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah. Well, I did try: several tranlators on the internet and my two latin dictionaries had no idea what "facturus" was. Why are you quoting archaic latin, if you KNEW nobody would get it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was just the appropriate saying to be mentioned in this case, frankly I didn't bother to think if anyone would understand it :">

 

Good Bye Meta, I'll miss your neverending wikipedia links

[Judge Hades]

We all say we want to blow something up. There is a difference in saying it, doing it, and having the ability to do it.

[kumquatq3]

I don't know you tell me....let's just say it was very convinent that out of all embassies they struck the one whose country was the strongest opposition to the war together with Russia.

 

So Clinton had their embassy bombed? Come on.

 

 

Good Bye Meta, I'll miss your neverending wikipedia links

 

Is meta going somewhere?

[Judge Hades]

Its the chimps. They're everywhere.

[kumquatq3]

Its the chimps.  They're everywhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Damn! Then they have found out my secret identity, your all in extreme danger!

[Yrkoon]

Kindly read 1 Chronicles 20:3  and tell us what our good friend David did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Reveilled]

Kindly read 1 Chronicles 20:3  and tell us what our good friend David did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

"

[Yrkoon]

Kindly read 1 Chronicles 20:3  and tell us what our good friend David did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

[kumquatq3]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your link says:

This week, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told President Bush that he would start to dismantle some illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank....That news has already alarmed those Jewish settlers -- and ultra-Zionist Israelis who believe that the Jewish State should control all of the Biblical Jewish homeland.....But they're not the only group that feels that way. So do Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals who make up the largest single religious grouping in the United States

 

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/

 

"These are historic and courageous actions," Bush said. "If all parties choose to embrace this moment, they can open the door to progress and put an end to one of the world's longest-running conflicts."

 

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?

Edited November 27, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Dark Moth]

Actually, I used the NIV version. If anything, that might be a more authoritative version since it's more modern. I decided to look at a Hebrew interlinear, and according to it, the original Hebrew actually reads closer to what the NIV translated it as. So once again, there's no torture mentioned in that verse. Yup.

 

And is there a reason you feel you need to make generalizatons like a 12 year old, Yrkoon? Who are you to say "Oh, well stick with KJV, since that's what the fanatic right wing uses." What an immature thing to say. And get over this attitude of yours, already. Nobody's going to take you seriously if you don't learn to reason like a rational, respectful person.

 

That CBS article is a bunch of BS, by the way. It's actually more of an editorial. Anyone who reads it can tell it's little more than a biased stab at the Christian right.

 

P.S.: sorry for the smilie, Muso.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Mothman

[Yrkoon]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your link says:

This week, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told President Bush that he would start to dismantle some illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank....That news has already alarmed those Jewish settlers -- and ultra-Zionist Israelis who believe that the Jewish State should control all of the Biblical Jewish homeland.....But they're not the only group that feels that way. So do Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals who make up the largest single religious grouping in the United States

 

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?

 

But this is something that Bush has praised! MANY times.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/14/bush.sharon/

 

"These are historic and courageous actions," Bush said. "If all parties choose to embrace this moment, they can open the door to progress and put an end to one of the world's longest-running conflicts."

 

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.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[kumquatq3]

WTF. First off, MY OWN LINK backs my stance utterly. Quit with the games

 

 

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".

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your link says:

This week, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told President Bush that he would start to dismantle some illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank....That news has already alarmed those Jewish settlers -- and ultra-Zionist Israelis who believe that the Jewish State should control all of the Biblical Jewish homeland.....But they're not the only group that feels that way. So do Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals who make up the largest single religious grouping in the United States

 

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/

 

"These are historic and courageous actions," Bush said. "If all parties choose to embrace this moment, they can open the door to progress and put an end to one of the world's longest-running conflicts."

 

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}>

Edited November 27, 2005 by kumquatq3