Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera

[Yrkoon]

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".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I give up.

 

For Christians who interpret the bible in a literal fashion, Israel has a crucial role to play in bringing on the Second Coming of Christ.

 

 

 

Last fall, supporters of the Christian Coalition gathered on the Mall in Washington to express their faith and to lobby the administration. The rally was organized by the Christian Coalition, which wants to make sure that the Bush Administration sees the struggle in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims their way - the Christian way.

 

 

 

Falwell began to detect just that in April 2002 when President Bush called on Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns on the West Bank. So Falwell shot off a letter of protest to the White House, which was followed by a hundred thousand e-mails from Christian conservatives. Israel did not move its tanks. Mr. Bush did not ask again.

I do not believe I'm debating on a message board with people who Actually DENY Bush's religious stance towards Israel.

 

 

LOL

[Lucius]

Is there an echo in here? Echo in here?

 

Edit: Damn you Kumq, that was fast. <_<

Edited November 27, 2005 by Lucius

[kumquatq3]

Is there an echo in here? Echo in here?

 

Edit: Damn you Kumq, that was fast.  <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ya, when I make a point and no answer comes I keep putting it in their face.

[kumquatq3]

1-For Christians who interpret the bible in a literal fashion, Israel has a crucial role to play in bringing on the Second Coming of Christ.

 

2-Last fall, supporters of the Christian Coalition gathered on the Mall in Washington to express their faith and to lobby the administration. The rally was organized by the Christian Coalition, which wants to make sure that the Bush Administration sees the struggle in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims their way - the Christian way.

 

3-Falwell began to detect just that in April 2002 when President Bush called on Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns on the West Bank. So Falwell shot off a letter of protest to the White House, which was followed by a hundred thousand e-mails from Christian conservatives. Israel did not move its tanks. Mr. Bush did not ask again.

 

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:

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.

Edited November 28, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Yrkoon]

1-For Christians who interpret the bible in a literal fashion, Israel has a crucial role to play in bringing on the Second Coming of Christ.

 

2-Last fall, supporters of the Christian Coalition gathered on the Mall in Washington to express their faith and to lobby the administration. The rally was organized by the Christian Coalition, which wants to make sure that the Bush Administration sees the struggle in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims their way - the Christian way.

 

3-Falwell began to detect just that in April 2002 when President Bush called on Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns on the West Bank. So Falwell shot off a letter of protest to the White House, which was followed by a hundred thousand e-mails from Christian conservatives. Israel did not move its tanks. Mr. Bush did not ask again.

 

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:

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.

<{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.

Edited November 28, 2005 by Yrkoon

[kumquatq3]

Where does my link say that Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals disaprove of Sharon's  pull out plan?  In fact, it says no such thing. 

 

O man you make this too easy, considering I already posted how it does:

 

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

 

So Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals, according to your link, think that the Jewish state should control all of the "Jewish homeland". How do you think they feel about abandoning part of that homeland????

 

The Jewish State should CONTROL ALL of the West Bank, according to YOUR link, is what the Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals believe.

 

And then you go on to argue that they don't want control of the parts they left, right after you were trying to prove how bad they wanted it:

 

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.

 

(w00t) (w00t) (w00t)

 

What a flip flop!!!

 

For Christians who interpret the bible in a literal fashion, Israel has a crucial role to play in bringing on the Second Coming of Christ.

 

Falwell began to detect just that in April 2002 when President Bush called on Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns on the West Bank. So Falwell shot off a letter of protest to the White House, which was followed by a hundred thousand e-mails from Christian conservatives. Israel did not move its tanks. Mr. Bush did not ask again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

^ Here your trying to argue that the right didn't want tanks removed from the Palestinian towns in the West Bank (hence backing up your "literal interpertation" stance, in theory, of course), but one post later you say their ok with giving up land to the Palestinians in the West Bank.

 

EDIT: and I should meantion that if they are ok with the idea of giving up jewish homeland, they are not literally applying the bible and hardline religious views, hence your still wrong.

Edited November 28, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Dark Moth]

OMG! It's John Kerry!!! (w00t)

 

He still has yet to answer to my posts about the Biblical verse. ^_^

Edited November 28, 2005 by Mothman

[SteveThaiBinh]

Stepping gingerly away, avoiding sudden movements, from the subject of Israel's biblical borders and Bush's alledged Christian fundamentalism...

They're still bias, though.  If you don't believe me, just ask an Israeli.  Just ask the hard core members of the pro-war crowd last year when they claimed victory after the Hutton Report was released.

Every news organisation is biased, I agree, but the BBC is less biased than most. And though the Hutton Report did expose some failings in how the BBC checked its stories, the actual content of the controversial report was largely vindicated by the later Butler Inquiry.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it's their own fault. The US military went on and on in the first Gulf War about how accurate their targetting systems are, minimising the risk of civilian casualties and so on, that now every time they hit something 'by accident' it's assumed it was done on purpose. And would it really be that surprising if it were not an accident?

[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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it's their own fault. The US military went on and on in the first Gulf War about how accurate their targetting systems are, minimising the risk of civilian casualties and so on, that now every time they hit something 'by accident' it's assumed it was done on purpose. And would it really be that surprising if it were not an accident?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kinda yea. What if the world knew that the US purposely bombed and killed Chinese citizens, and technically, Chinese soil? Thats a big risk to take, and Clinton wasn't that kind of risk taker.

 

but was the embassing bombing a question of missing a target? Because then I get the bit about the US bragging about being accurate. THo, iirc, it was just bad intelligence or something of the like. Hence the bomb did hit where it was suppose to. To lazy to check right now.

[Slowtrain]

Yrkoon here? lolololol!

 

Never expect the unexpected!

[Calax]

Wow this went up faster than Anakin at the end of Revenge of the sith before Palpatine rescued him.

 

Yes Bush is a christian. Yes it has an influence on the way he runs this country. Christians have been known to torture those who don't believe in their version of god (see the inquisition). No I don't like the war. No I don't think America should be trying to run the world. Yes I think the terrorists have a right to express themselves (no not condoning deaths here). However it would appear that with the way the war has been going Bush has catagorically denied the terrorists or his opponents the ability to talk to the public. Thus we generally see a one sided view (as it is difficult for the average american to recieve the TRUE bbc or Al Jazeera). And that one sided view has the Arabs as idiots who can't pull up their own pants to save their lives when american tanks roll through the city. But we lament the deaths of people at the hands of these terrorists. It should also be pointed out that you guys would probably start fighting like these terrorists (maybe not the same targets but similar style) if they attacked your country..

 

 

Dives into adamantium bunker and hides. Locking door behind him.

[Judge Hades]

Yrkoon here?  lolololol!

 

Never expect the unexpected! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you never expect the unexpected then the unexpected would be expected but then you would never expect it.

[kumquatq3]

Wow this went up faster than Anakin at the end of Revenge of the sith before Palpatine rescued him.

 

1. I'm a atheist and I voted Kerry. I'm not defending Bush, only pointing out that the man made a claim and supported it with a link that clearly undermined his actual case.

 

Yes Bush is a christian. Yes it has an influence on the way he runs this country. Christians have been known to torture those who don't believe in their version of god (see the inquisition).

 

What religion hasn't. Personally, I think your forcing a connection between torture and christianity.

 

Does the US "torture": Personal felings, prolly Yes. Legally, I think they are going out of their way to keep it in a legal grey area (which is HUGE). Hence if they ever get busted, good luck doing anything about it.

 

No I don't like the war. No I don't think America should be trying to run the world.

 

Thats good. Niether do I, I like taking Saddam out (for the benifit of his citizens, not personal saftey), but didn't like the circumstances of the war or it's handling. I don't like that many Euro countries, citizens, and UN officals were profiting of Saddams existance (and his torturing of citizens) either.

 

Yes I think the terrorists have a right to express themselves (no not condoning deaths here).

 

If you come from a group that goes out of their way to purposely target civilians, I'm not sure I agree. That is kinda part of the modern day definition of terrorism. Hence allowing them to speak is generally allowing them to condone death.

 

However it would appear that with the way the war has been going Bush has catagorically denied the terrorists or his opponents the ability to talk to the public.

 

You have to be kidding. In war, you actively try to eliminate the enemies communications.

 

And that one sided view has the Arabs as idiots who can't pull up their own pants to save their lives when american tanks roll through the city.

 

2000+ Us soliders dead.

 

I guess the IEDs are made by giant idiots.

 

But we lament the deaths of people at the hands of these terrorists.

 

For good reason.

 

It should also be pointed out that you guys would probably start fighting like these terrorists (maybe not the same targets but similar style) if they attacked your country..

 

Um.....their "targets" (see: purposely attack kids, private citizens) IS why they are, in fact, terrorists.

 

Dives into adamantium bunker and hides. Locking door behind him.

 

Have you gone out of your way to kill a kid recently? No? They feel free to say your peace, doesn't mean I'll agree.

[taks]

I'm not defending Bush, only pointing out that the man made a claim and supported it with a link that clearly undermined his actual case.

get used to it. yrkoon does a google search and finds one phrase in a link that seems to support his claims. he rarely reads the source for full content, and often ends up posting evidence that supports his opposition.

 

What religion hasn't. Personally, I think your forcing a connection between torture and christianity.

happens often. the religion itself is not to blame, the people that use it for their own ends are. the same is happening with the distortions used by fanatic islamists and the koran (or however it is spelled these days).

 

Does the US "torture": Personal felings, prolly Yes. Legally, I think they are going out of their way to keep it in a legal grey area (which is HUGE). Hence if they ever get busted, good luck doing anything about it.

i agree. however, one point that people are skipping is that this is not something new. i.e. bush didn't invent torture out of thin air. this has likely gone on under all presidents. to blame only bush is disingenuous at best, rewriting history at worst.

 

If you come from a group that goes out of their way to purposely target civilians, I'm not sure I agree. That is kinda part of the modern day definition of terrorism. Hence allowing them to speak is generally allowing them to condone death.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

btw, yrkoon once referred to suicide bombings at a cafe in jerusalem, which targeted only civilians as "sweet, sweet revenge." decide for yourself whether this makes him a hypocrite.

 

just thought i'd point out what you're up against... for the record, IMO, debating yrkoon = shooting fish in a barrel.

 

taks

Edited November 28, 2005 by taks

[Walsingham]

Step away from the personal references, gentlemen. This is about ideas, not people. Er... except George Bush. Unless he starts posting here.

[Volourn]

"2000+ Us soliders dead."

 

Impressive... until you count how many bodies the 'oppostion' has had to bury.

 

Even in the Vietnam War where the US 'lost' they pretty much kicked the opposition's behind when it came to actual warfare. It was Amerikans who beat Amerikans.

[Calax]

It should also be pointed out that when we were destroying the "communications assets" they were civilian owned and run. Thus we killed civilians. To not condemn that and to condemn the targeting of civlians by the terrorists seems hypocritical to me.

[Judge Hades]

Hypocrisy and the US government is synominous.

[kumquatq3]

"2000+ Us soliders dead."

 

Impressive... until you count how many bodies the 'oppostion' has had to bury.

 

Even in the Vietnam War where the US 'lost' they pretty much kicked the opposition's behind when it came to actual warfare. It was Amerikans who beat Amerikans.

 

I'm not trying to show how effective they are at killing compared to us, so much as showing that they arn't idiots, and have created remote bombs that can pierce tanks and can't be detected without troops on the ground finding them. One way or another.

 

It should also be pointed out that when we were destroying the "communications assets" they were civilian owned and run. Thus we killed civilians. To not condemn that and to condemn the targeting of civlians by the terrorists seems hypocritical to me.

 

Well, there is a difference. The question is: Is it enough of one.

 

They broadcasts the enemies papaganda for them, propaganda that often calls for death and more enemy fighters to join the fight.

 

So, where do you draw the line?

[~Di]

Big difference between bombing a munitions factory during war time, and deliberately blowing up a marketplace or a school. Civilians always have and always will die during a war. Not nice, not pretty, but neither is war itself.

 

In Iraq, as in VietNam, the enemy doesn't wear uniforms announcing which side they are on. Then and now they wear civilian clothess, enscounce themselves in the civilian population, and hide weapons in civilian homes. This makes uniformed soldiers paranoid and nuts, of course. Hard to stay sane and focused when survival mode requires one to maintain distance and/or skepticism of just about every human being in the country. At one point, "civilized" nations agreed that combatants out of uniform could be considered spies, and executed on the spot. Well, that only works when both sides agree to the same rules, which certainly wasn't the case in VietNam, or the Gulf, or in Afghanistan, or in Iraq. Somewhere along the line, the world began to realize that calling un-uniformed combatants spies and allowing wholesale execution of 'em flat wasn't going to work in conflicts where one side refused to wear a uniform. The reasons are obvious.

 

At any rate we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. You'd think VietNam would have taught us a lesson (not the least of which is beware of Frenchmen offering quid-pro-quo!). But no. We've got to charge in to occupy, or attempt to occupy, yet another country of civilian-clothed fighters, and this time we don't even have the excuse of having promised to extricate an ally from a bad situation, and in turn making the entire situation a million times worse.

 

That said, it is totally disingenuous to try to brush off the deliberate targeting of civilians, including children, in markets, schools, hospitals, etc., for mass murder simply to instill terror in the population, or compare it with civilians who die in legitimate (although I know the word "legitimate" can be beaten to death in any context) military targets during the course of war.

 

War is unfair, and contrary to those who pretend otherwise, war has no rules. We may pretend that war has rules, but the truth is that each side does whatever it wishes... or can stomach... in order to destroy the other side or achieve whatever victory it can achieve. We've seen that in every war in the history of the planet, and certain we've seen it in every war of this century. However, anyone who pretends that civilian deaths caused by the destruction of legitimate military targets is on a par with the terrorist who targets and deliberately dismembers several dozen school children seriously needs a reality check.

 

Hmm. Guess I'm bored tonight. To anyone who actually managed to plow through this one-sided little rant, thanks for your time! I'll be quiet now.

[kirottu]

War... War never changes...

[Diamond]

This "teddy-bear" thing reminded me...

It will be off-topic, but what do you guys think of Beslan?

 

All Russian media just screams about western world having double standards regarding terrorism (calling people responsible for 9/11 "terrorists", and people responsible for Beslan "separatists" and "freedom fighters").

[Walsingham]

I reckon I've said just about all I have to say on these topics. Will spare you the tedium of scrolling past more.

[kumquatq3]

War... War never changes...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

[Lucius]

War... War never changes...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahh, good old Fallout. 'tis was a good game, wouldn't you agree orange picture man?