The Next President of the USA will be?

[Electrophile]

They weren't connected 'til we got in there (Iraq). Did I miss something? Or is it wrong to think during a time of war. Better leave that to the Prez and Congress. Silly me! They've done a bang up job.

How dare you question King George. Hey, didn't we declare independence from a King George........?

[Suz]

How dare you question King George. Hey, didn't we declare independence from a King George........?

Yeah, but that was when you had to have a revolution. Now, a bumper sticker will suffice.

[Electrophile]

Yeah, but that was when you had to have a revolution. Now, a bumper sticker will suffice.

Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

[DRUNK]

Allow me to correct you, DRUNKard.

I've been driving Prius's at work for the past few years. They get amazing gas mileage. You can drive forever on a tank of gas in those things. We rack up a ton of miles on those babies too; we drive the shit out of em. And guess what?.. they rarely ever break down. And what few "break downs" we do encounter are usually nothing more than a maintenance light coming on and needing to be reset by the maintenance crew.

Btw,.. since you've said you'd feel "as happy as a kid on Christmas morning" if you got to go back to Iraq on another tour of duty.. what's stopping you? Surely the military would be every bit as happy to have you go as you would be to be going,.. so..

Btw 2,.. what's your mom cooking you for dinner tonight?

First off, stay out of post between two other people.

I am happy you have had good experiences driving Prius's. Unfortunately, I know a few people with them, and they are good mostly, but not as good as advertised. I hope this technology moves forward and becomes the standard. Still, this kid who I was responding to is completely unrealistic, and that is the point I am trying to make.

I would love to go back, but my time is done now, for far more reasons than combat or Iraq.

I wish I would have had the opportunity to eat my mom's cooking over these last few years, but unfortunately, I was engaged in combat a lot of that time.

[Pb Derigable]

Pb,.. a few points for you to consider:

1. Congress did not declare war on Iraq.

[if you can find a Congressional declaration of war against Iraq, please do post it. ]

So "bush's war" is misleading then. but doesn't the president need congress approval to remain in Iraq after a length of time.

2. AL Qaeda waited 8 years between attacks on American soil. They're a patient enemy. The

fact that they haven't attacked on American soil since 9/11 doesn't mean we're any safer.

No, you're right, I hadn't had a eye injury since i started to wear safety glasses, but thats just coincidence.

3. If you're implying that we're safer merely because we have AL Qaeda "preoccupied" with fighting us "over there", does that mean you think it should be an ongoing strategy to keep them perpetually "preoccupied" over there? How many US troops would you have die in a perpetually open-ended strategy like that? How many Iraqi civilians?

Yes, and as many as U.S. soldiers. it takes. They have signed a letter saying they'll fight for this country, anyway this country seems fit, the same thing i signed 6 years ago.

4. Do you think a tactic (such as "terrorism") or an ideology (such as

radical militant Islamism) can be eradicated through military means?

If you kill the bad guys and make sure the bad guys don't come in to power again, then they can be eradicated. but not just by military means. Hitler wanted to kill us, we kill Hitler, we make sure Germany doesn't breed another Hitler. Hitler Problem solved.

5. Do you not consider it a mistake that the Bush administration literally

had no plan in place for securing and stabilizing Iraq after the fall Baghdad?

They had a plan, and it's either not working or the fruits of that plan hasn't bloom yet.

6. Do you think "fear of WMD" in the absence of an actual threat is a reasonable justification for invading a country? The fear of being robbed and shot is enough for me to arm myself, even though nobody told me they were going to robbed and shoot me.

If so, do you think we should be attacking Iran, N Korea, and China.. all of which have WMD, are hostile toward America, and are ruled by oppressive dictatorships? What about Pakistan? They have WMD and its a very unstable, volatile country.

Even they hate us they still fear us, they are smart enough to know they can't beat us by military means only. Iran cleaned up their act after the "war" started, but they have begin to fall back in their old ways, so we will continue to pressure them.

[Hermit]

1. Congress did not declare war on Iraq.

[if you can find a Congressional declaration of war against Iraq, please do post it. ]

So "bush's war" is misleading then. but doesn't the president need congress approval to remain in Iraq after a length of time.

Is that your way of acknowledging that Congress didn't declare war against Iraq?

2. AL Qaeda waited 8 years between attacks on American soil. They're a patient enemy. The

fact that they haven't attacked on American soil since 9/11 doesn't mean we're any safer.

No, you're right, I hadn't had a eye injury since i started to wear safety glasses, but thats just coincidence.

Are you claiming that the absence of an al Qaeda attack on American soil during the

Iraq war means the war itself is preventing an attack on America? Is that your illogic?

If so I guess you think we should continue this war indefinitely then, eh?

3. If you're implying that we're safer merely because we have AL Qaeda "preoccupied" with fighting us "over there", does that mean you think it should be an ongoing strategy to keep them perpetually "preoccupied" over there? How many US troops would you have die in a perpetually open-ended strategy like that? How many Iraqi civilians?

Yes, and as many as U.S. soldiers. it takes. They have signed a letter saying they'll fight for this country, anyway this country seems fit, the same thing i signed 6 years ago.

Ah.,. so you do think we should continue the war indefinitely..

..regardless of the number of US troop and Iraqi casualties.

Brilliant.

4. Do you think a tactic (such as "terrorism") or an ideology (such as

radical militant Islamism) can be eradicated through military means?

If you kill the bad guys and make sure the bad guys don't come in to power again, then they can be eradicated. but not just by military means. Hitler wanted to kill us, we kill Hitler, we make sure Germany doesn't breed another Hitler. Hitler Problem solved.

Hitler was the ruler of Germany. Hiltler and his army were neutralized by Allied forces.

Al Qaeda is not a government, nor it is tied to any one country. Attacking Iraq, a country

that had nothing to do with OBL or al Qaeda is resulting in the breeding of more jihadists.

Radical Islamists Problem exacerbated.

5. Do you not consider it a mistake that the Bush administration literally

had no plan in place for securing and stabilizing Iraq after the fall Baghdad?

They had a plan, and it's either not working or the fruits of that plan hasn't bloom yet.

They had no plan. Literally. They.. had.. no.. plan. At best they "hoped" for a speedy turnover of

the country to peacekeeping forces that they "hoped" would step in to help. That's not a plan, bud.

If you refuse to accept that truth, you are steeped in denial; you are deluding yourself.

6. Do you think "fear of WMD" in the absence of an actual threat is a reasonable justification for invading a country?

The fear of being robbed and shot is enough for me to arm myself, even though nobody told me they were going to robbed and shoot me.

Your fear would not justify you shooting people who posed no threat to you though, would it?

Arming yourself and acting violently against another person are two very different things. Yeah?

If so, do you think we should be attacking Iran, N Korea, and China.. all of which have WMD, are hostile toward America, and are ruled by oppressive dictatorships? What about Pakistan? They have WMD and its a very unstable, volatile country.

Even they hate us they still fear us, they are smart enough to know they can't beat us by military means only. Iran cleaned up their act after the "war" started, but they have begin to fall back in their old ways, so we will continue to pressure them.

So why the invasion of Iraq then? Why not the "continue to pressure them" tactic with Iraq? Afterall, Saddam was not a threat; he was fully contained; he had no WMD or WMD programs, and he had nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11. So what justification do you think America had for invading Iraq?

and btw,.. while I'm away I expect you to learn how to quote.

[DRUNK]

If I was a rich man, and Hermit was willing, I would give him an all expense paid trip to Iraq, with a complimentary tour, and a full security detail.

I think Mr. Hermit might come back with some different ideas about everything.

I can see how he can disagree with some of the stuff he has talked about. I understand. But sometimes, you kind of have to really see some shit with your own eyes before you can really understand.

Yeah, I supported Bush and the war before I decided to participate, but it wouldn't have mattered one bit if I had the opposite feelings. I would have come back with the same feelings. How can I say so? Well, I lot of guys I went with had the opposite ideas I had. We all came back with the same ideas. Interesting, huh?

[Pb Derigable]

Is that your way of acknowledging that Congress didn't declare war against Iraq?

What war? congress didn't declare war, so Bush's war is a falsehood. I would except Bush's military action against terrorist in Iraq.

Are you claiming that the absence of an al Qaeda attack on American soil during the

Iraq war means the war itself is preventing an attack on America? Is that your illogic?

Yes

If so I guess you think we should continue this war indefinitely then, eh?

Yes, unless 9/11 was a good thing

Ah.,. so you do think we should continue the war indefinitely..

..regardless of the number of US troop and Iraqi casualties.

Yes, unless we want to lose this fight.

Hitler was the ruler of Germany. Hitler and his army were neutralized by Allied forces.

Al Qaeda is not a government, nor it is tied to any one country. Attacking Iraq, a country

that had nothing to do with OBL or al Qaeda is resulting in the breeding of more jihadists.

Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorist, maybe not Al Qaeda, but terrorists. Saddam did support terrorist. We are still contining our fight with Al queda, inside of iraq.

They had no plan. Literally. They.. had.. no.. plan. At best they "hoped" for a speedy turnover of

the country to peacekeeping forces that they "hoped" would step in to help. .

Hope is a plan. any plan is hope, no plan is certain. Turning over the country to peacekeeping forces is a plan, which is what they are doing now.

.

Your fear would not justify you shooting people who posed no threat to you though, would it?

Arming yourself and acting violently against another person are two very different things. Yeah?

I stated before, Saddam was a threat.

So why the invasion of Iraq then?

Because diplomatic means where exhausted and saddam was a threat.

Why not the "continue to pressure them" tactic with Iraq? After all, Saddam was not a threat;

Yes he was, now your drinking denial tea.

he was fully contained; he had no WMD or WMD programs, and he had nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11. So what justification do you think America had for invading Iraq?

You keep rewording the same question over and over. Saddam was a threat, he stated he had nukes and was tying to get nukes when we invaded.

and btw,.. while I'm away I expect you to learn how to quote.

I would but your condescending smile faces get in the way

[Hermit]

If I was a rich man, and Hermit was willing, I would give him an all expense paid trip to Iraq, with a complimentary tour, and a full security detail.

I think Mr. Hermit might come back with some different ideas about everything.

I don't doubt for a minute that I'd have different ideas about some things,..

but I certainly wouldn't have different ideas about "everything", bud.

Being there wouldn't change my ideas about the the fact that the Bush admin lied us into the war. It wouldn't change my ideas about the fact that the just war was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And it wouldn't change my ideas that many mistakes have been made in the way the war has been executed. My ideas on those issues (and others) is not dependent on my being there or not being there.

It's not often you'll find me citing Robert Novak, but this time I will.. because he interviewed republican Chuck Hagel.. who's been to Iraq numerous times since the war broke out. And obviously Chuck Hagel doesn't share your ideas about Iraq, DRUNK,.. despite his many "complimentary tours, with a full security detail".

-------------

Hagel's Stand

By Robert Novak; Monday, April 30, 2007

"Sen. Chuck Hagel returned from his fifth visit to Iraq to become one of two Republicans to join Senate Democrats in voting Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was not an easy vote for a conservative GOP regular and faithful supporter of President George W. Bush's other policies. A few days earlier, Hagel sat down with me and painted a bleak picture of the war and U.S. policy.

Over a dozen years, I have had many such conversations with Hagel, but not for quotation. This time, I asked him to go on the record about his assessment of what the "surge" has accomplished. In language more blunt than his prepared speeches and articles, he described Iraq as "coming undone," with its regime "weaker by the day." He deplored the Bush administration's failure to craft a coherent Middle East policy, blaming the influence of deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams.

Hagel faces a political paradox as he ponders a career decision -- whether to run for president, to seek reelection next year or to get out of elective politics. His harsh assessment resonates with many Republicans who believe Bush's war policy has led the party to disaster. Yet that message faces rejection from GOP primary voters, and he is under attack from the right at home in Nebraska (with Jon Bruning, the state's 38-year-old Republican attorney general, threatening to run against him).

After his latest visit to Iraq, with stops in Baghdad, Fallujah and Ramadi, Hagel told me: "This thing is really coming undone quickly, and [Prime Minister] Maliki's government is weaker by the day. The police are corrupt, top to bottom. The oil problem is a huge problem. They still can't get anything through the parliament -- no hydrocarbon law, no de-Baathification law, no provincial elections," which are needed to bring Sunnis into the governing process.

The regional problem, as described by Hagel, is a U.S. policy breakdown with the failure to engage Iran and Syria. "I do know that there are a number of Israelis who would like to engage Syria," said Hagel. "They have said that Elliott Abrams keeps pushing them back." He quoted foreign ministers, ambassadors and former U.S. officials as saying that they believe Abrams "is making policy in the Middle East."

Hagel certainly is no peace-now zealot. "We're not going to precipitously pull out," he told me. "We have [national] interests in Iraq." While he asserted that "we can't get out by the end of the year," he called for "pulling some of our guys out -- not all of them, but you've got to get them out of [baghdad] at least, get them out of the middle of civil war." If not, Hagel said, "then the prospects of the Republican Party are very dim next year."

What about claims by proponents of the Iraqi intervention that failure to stop the terrorists in Iraq will open the door to them in the American homeland?

"That's nonsense," Hagel replied. "I've never believed that. That's the same kind of rhetoric and thinking that neocons used to get us into this mess and everything that [Donald] Rumsfeld, [Paul] Wolfowitz, [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith and the vice president all said. Nothing turned out the way they said it would."

It is "nonsense," Hagel said, because "Iraq is not embroiled in a terrorist war today." Hagel, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, cited "national intelligence" attributing "maybe 10 percent" of the insurgency and violence to al-Qaeda. Indeed, he described Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds as opposed to al-Qaeda: "They don't like the terrorists. What's happened in Anbar province is the tribes are finally starting to connect with us because al-Qaeda started killing some of their leadership and threatening their people. So the tribes now are at war with al-Qaeda."

"So," said Hagel, "when I hear people say, 'Well, if we leave them to that, it will be chaos' -- what do you think is going on now? Scaring the American people into this blind alley is so dangerous."

These judgments come from someone credited with rebuilding Nebraska's Republican Party and who has earned a lifetime conservative voting rating of 85.2 percent from the American Conservative Union. Hagel represents millions of Republicans who are repelled by the Democrats' personal assault on President Bush but are deeply unhappy about his course in Iraq."

*source*

---------------

Sorry, DRUNK, I don't buy into your self-assured "If you go there you'll change your ideas about it" assertion.

I can see how he can disagree with some of the stuff he has talked about. I understand. But sometimes, you kind of have to really see some shit with your own eyes before you can really understand.

What is it that needs to be seen first hand in order to understand it about the situation in Iraq? The chaos? The violence? The destruction? The cultural attitudes and beliefs? The hatred of westerners? The ass-backwardness of the people and the place? The barbarism and savagery? What? We're not stupid folk here, DRUNK, so how's about you explain what you mean and give a chance to understand, eh?

Yeah, I supported Bush and the war before I decided to participate, but it wouldn't have mattered one bit if I had the opposite feelings. I would have come back with the same feelings. How can I say so? Well, I lot of guys I went with had the opposite ideas I had. We all came back with the same ideas. Interesting, huh?

With all due respect, not all Iraq vets have come back "with the same ideas". That's a ridiculous generalization. There are war supporting vets and there are anti-war vets [*Iraq Veterans Against The War* *Winter Soldier*]. There are Bush/McCain supporting vets, and there are Obama/Clinton supporting vets. There are plenty of Iraq vets who are saying essentially the same things I've been saying about the war, and there are those who share your pov about the war.

You have your perspective on the war; I grant you that. But having fought in the war doesn't give you some grand vision and insight about the war that is somehow more accurate than someone's who hasn't been in that war. You can certainly say, and I cant, what it felt like to be there. You have a front-line trooper's perspective and experience on what it was like being in the war, and I don't; but your experience can actually serve to skew your perspective of the overall war rather than clarify it; it can narrow your perspective rather than broaden it. For example, someone who is in car accident can tell you better than anyone else can what it felt like to be in that car accident; but that doesn't mean that person has the best perspective on how the car accident happened, or what actually happened during the accident, or how the accident could have been avoided. My point being that "being in it" isn't necessarily the best vantage point from which to have the best perspective of an event.

Obviously you're not being realistic when you claim "we all came back with the same ideas". Just like you're likely not being realistic when you claim you'd be "happy as a kid on Christmas morning" if you were asked to go back to Iraq for another tour. If you maintain that claim then I ask you again.. if you'd be that happy to go back to Iraq for another tour, what's stopping you?

[DRUNK]

Well Hermit, I appreciate the hard work you put into your posts, but I don't really care to break em' down and answer everything. Why? I don't have the energy.

You are wrong my friend. It's just something you won't be able to understand, and I probably can't explain it to you.

As far as Hagel goes, no politicians over there actually see anything. They don't experience or learn shit. Well, they might feel like they do, but it's not true.

I never said everyone comes back with the same ideas, but the people I was with.

Most of the antiwar vets that come back didn't do anything significant anyway. They are usually noncombat arms anyway. It's always the ones that haven't done or seen shit that bitch and complain.

[The Rover]

When the Tonight Show with Jay Leno is availble to watch for the March 26th show....

You need to see the Parody of an Obama - Clinton Debate MC'ed by Leno.

http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_J.../episodes.shtml

[Hermit]

Well Hermit, I appreciate the hard work you put into your posts, but I don't really care to break em' down and answer everything. Why? I don't have the energy.

Yeah, I understand. It takes much less energy to toss about vague

generalizations than it does to actually support and defend them.

10-4, good buddy.

You are wrong my friend. It's just something you won't be able to understand, and I probably can't explain it to you.

As far as Hagel goes, no politicians over there actually see anything. They don't experience or learn shit. Well, they might feel like they do, but it's not true.

What cant I understand, DRUNK? I cant understand how FUBAR it is over there? or what?

Cultural issues? Tribal/sectarian issues? Fog of war issues? What? Throw me a bone, bud.

I don't doubt that the pols aren't going door to door rooting out insurgents, but that doesn't mean someone like Chuck Hagel doesn't know what he's talking about; he learns plenty. Your perspective on the war is very narrow; I'm becoming more and more convinced of that. You're reporting from having been in the car accident, but you don't seem to have a very good perspective on why the accident happened, how it could have been prevented, or what the big picture entails.

I never said everyone comes back with the same ideas, but the people I was with.

No big surprise there, dude. You went through the same experiences.. together; its to be

somewhat expected that most of you would have the same, or similar, ideas about it. ..eh?

Most of the antiwar vets that come back didn't do anything significant anyway. They are usually

noncombat arms anyway. It's always the ones that haven't done or seen shit that bitch and complain.

Bullshit, DRUNK.

I've seen accounts from anti-war vets who were deep in the shit when they were in Iraq. Your perspective on the war is not the only combat vet perspective, friend. There are ther combat vets have a very different perspective on the war than you do. I'm a bit surprised by your willingness to flippantly diss other vets, suggesting that just because they oppose the war that must mean "they didn't do anything significant anyway". That's not very noble of you, nor very respectful of your fellow veterans, bro.

TESTIMONY FROM THE IRAQ VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR

Winter Soldier Conference

March 17, 2008

[snips]

"Approximately 55 former members of the U.S. military were preparing to testify about the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—or what the IVAW consistently refers to as "occupations." No brainchild of the Pentagon, IVAW modeled its conference after the controversial 1971 Winter Soldier event that vivified (some say fictionalized) war crimes, human rights abuses, and military waste then occurring in Vietnam. The IVAW has three unifying aims: immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, reparations for the Iraqi people, and consistent and reliable medical care for all veterans of the war. Over the course of four days, the conference planned to address the continual breakdown and failure of military rules of engagement, the long-term societal cost of the war in the form of broken families and broken minds, the drastic privatization of the war in Iraq, racism and sexism in the military, and the future of GI resistance. And with Winter Soldier, the IVAW hoped to gain more media attention for the anti-war movement.

Critics will instantly identify any soldier testifying about immoral behavior on the battlefield as a bad seed. So Vasquez implemented an exhaustive process to confirm the veracity of the testimony being offered; his title is "IVAW verification team leader." Drawing on his background as an anthropologist, he trained 14 team members, mostly combat vets, in the verification process. Membership in IVAW was not required in order to offer testimony. "We were willing at least to take testimony from anybody, whether or not they were a member. They didn't even have to agree with our points of unity. If you had a story to tell about Iraq and you were able to prove your service, then we would give you a venue to spread that word."

Clifton Hicks, a dead ringer for a young Matt Dillon, served in the Army as a tank driver and .50-caliber machine gunner from 2003 to 2004. His own testimony—among other things, he recalled watching a five-building apartment complex full of civilians being riddled with gunfire from a warplane—troubled him deeply. When I spoke to him Saturday morning, the totality of the first day of Winter Soldier was wearing heavily on him. He told me that for the first time since becoming an anti-war activist, he felt like quitting. Re-experiencing the destruction of war and thinking about friends who had died made him feel again "that I no longer cared about my life. … I felt like the only way I could make things right is to just strip my clothing and walk naked back to Florida, you know. … Just pay a penance or something." A panel on Friday about the rules of engagement, Hicks said, was "hard-hitting." During it, much of the testimony was of witness: abuse of Iraqi prisoners and detainees, indiscriminate firing in urban areas, the quick erosion of the rules as soon as someone in a unit died. As Hicks told me, "That [panel] was the personal shit, the upfront shit. I murdered shitloads of people. Not 'I saw shitloads of people die from a distance and thought it was funny.' "

*source*

-----------

*Veterans For Peace*

----------

Anyway,.. I'm signing off.

..be back in a few weeks.

Peace all.

Go Obama!!

[Nathan]

Nah, you'll be paying either way. You think these hybrids are so great? Talk to my buddy with Prius that comes nowhere near the claimed MPG. Not to mention the $8,000 they take to fix when something goes wrong. Go ahead, buy a hybrid. But by a bicycle too, because that's what you'll be riding when you can't afford to fix your car. Unless of course, mommy and daddy are gonna pay for everything. (which is likely the case). So, I understand that you need something to rebel against, because let's face it, you probably aren't paying for gas anyway. So, I'll let you keep talking your mumbo jumbo, but before I let you continue, I will correct you.

WE GET MOST OF OUR OIL FROM IRAQ!!!!??!!??? AHAHAHAH!!!!! You say that and you come here and fucking try to talk about shit? WOW. I'll let you figure this one out on your own.

Yeah, ok. You are 20 years old. I estimate you got your permit at the earliest, which is 16 years old. That was 4 years ago. It is 2008. So we are talking about 2004. You are saying you got a gallon of gas for $0.75 in 2004? Where do you live, Saudi Arabia?

I'll just stop here................before I embarrass you further.

1. My parents declared bankruptcy at the very end of last year. We're poor right now. I'm paying for my own gas. So the next time you feel like you need to ASS U ME something about me, think about it first and consider asking. We aren't rich. The only reason we live in the house we live in is by accident and because of the best landlord any home-renter could ever ask for. He included out rent in the terms of the bankruptcy, even when we told him he didn't have to, just to lower our rent payment to help us out. And I do help to actually pay the rent, too.

2. I was wrong about Iraq and Oil. I'm sorry.

3. I will be 21 in May. And I got my permit when I turned 15 (permit age in Georgia is 15, not 16... we get our provisional license at 16). I turn 15 in 2002, on May 22. It was on that very day that I first filled a car with gas and helped pay for it.

4. I know the problems with Hybrids. Which is why I'm also considering other alternatives.

[The Rover]

When the Tonight Show with Jay Leno is availble to watch for the March 26th show....

You need to see the Parody of an Obama - Clinton Debate MC'ed by Leno.

http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_J.../episodes.shtml

The spoof is available now! It's in Chapter 2..

[ledzeppIV]

Does the Koran say that? Maybe you should find out before

you condemn every last Muslim man, woman, and child, eh?

And what about some of the extremist passages in the Bible, eh? -->

--------------------

Leviticus

20:9

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

20:10

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his

neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

20:13

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of

them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

25:44-45

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

Deuteronomy

22:20-1

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

20:10-17

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

7:1-2

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Exodus

35:2

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a

Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

21:20-21

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

-----------------

Is all that to be taken literally? If not, then why would you condemn

all Muslims over a literal interpretation of extremist passages in the Koran?

I belive only one of those passages came from the new testament which I put more credibility to than the old. and none were from the books of the Apostles were they? The worst thing you took from the new testament was "a woman should basically be treated as less of an equal to her husband". This was not from Jesus! They are not HIS words. I cant read the Koran as i dont understand the language nor do I care to read it. I know a bit about their beliefs. But I have heard many a person say that it states to rid the earth of christians and jews. Where does it say in the new testament to rid the world of any race?

[Wesley]

Where does it say in the new testament to rid the world of any race?

The race of heathens and hedonists are constantly targeted.

[ledzeppIV]

The race of heathens and hedonists are constantly targeted.

Not by Jesus himself. Bibles are written by men who sometimes tend to throw in their own doctrines. The hatred my the Muslims is off the charts.

[Walter]

The Bible, as I am sure you all know, was passed down by word of mouth for many generations - so you can throw any truth out the window when it comes to that! I have seen Christian hatred off the charts as well, against gays, abortion doctors/clinics, etc.

Back to the earlier discussion - after 5 years we are waiting for Bush's plan to "bloom"?! What has Bush ever done that has "bloomed" successfully? Kill all of the "bad guys"? When you kill one, three more are lined up behind to take their place. Reality check!

[ledzeppIV]

The Bible, as I am sure you all know, was passed down by word of mouth for many generations - so you can throw any truth out the window when it comes to that! I have seen Christian hatred off the charts as well, against gays, abortion doctors/clinics, etc.

Back to the earlier discussion - after 5 years we are waiting for Bush's plan to "bloom"?! What has Bush ever done that has "bloomed" successfully? Kill all of the "bad guys"? When you kill one, three more are lined up behind to take their place. Reality check!

You are correct about the Catholic church especially in the middle ages. Not as much these days do they preach hate. I dont think there are many religions that openly accept homosexuality. But if an obvious gay goes into a church and prays he certainly isnt going to get tossed out. As for the word of mouth thing, there is much evidence that supports that there is much truth in the new testament. Im not saying everthing can be proven. But whether you are a believer or non believer, you must admit one thing is quite incredible. Two thousand years after a man walked this Earth two thirds of the population of the planet believes he was the son of God. Some very extraordinary things had to happen for that to occur. Go ahead and have the last word. Thats all I will say on this matter.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

Kill all of the "bad guys"? When you kill one, three more are lined up behind to take their place. Reality check!

Then kill them too,.....,so what doyou suggest?

KB

[bigstickbonzo]

Hi all,

No,that is not their objective.

KB

If you read your history and studied alittle into the Al-Qaeda agenda, you'd see this is clearly their main objective.

[zepyep]

hi all,

If you read your history and studied alittle into the Al-Qaeda agenda, you'd see this is clearly their main objective.

Really,didn't go as planned.Then why the bombings in Madrid and London?To ruin our economy?No because they were on our side,fighting on their turf.Then why the Pentegon attack?

These 'people' want us the hell out of the middle east and the destruction of Israel. OBL is aslo pissed that the house of Saud(Saudia Arabia) is in cahoots with the US,not to mention the US infidels in Afganastan.

KB

[bigstickbonzo]

hi all,

Really,didn't go as planned.Then why the bombings in Madrid and London?To ruin our economy?No because they were on our side,fighting on their turf.Then why the Pentegon attack?

These 'people' want us the hell out of the middle east and the destruction of Israel. OBL is aslo pissed that the house of Saud(Saudia Arabia) is in cahoots with the US,not to mention the US infidels in Afganastan.

KB

I'm referring to their objective against the US. Not the rest of the world. The 9/11 attacks were solely to achieve one objective: fear. If our government used fear as its weapon, it would use it to gain support for spending as much money as possible to get 'the bad guys.'

You're right about Israel and the Middle East, but at the same time, Israel is also an aggressor itself. There are many sections along the border that actually belong to the Palestinians that the Israelis have occupied for years. It's been on the news before, but doesn't receive much international acclaim because we are shown the Palestinians as the bad guys. Suicide bombings are a cowardish and dispicable act, but the Israelis have a tendancy to be stubburn when it comes to actually wanting to change the way things are over there. Not to mention, you throw in the rift between the two rival religions and its not good.

Bin Laden is mainly upset with us because we turned our back on him when he started getting 'too radical' for our cause. Same thing happened with Saddam in the 1980s. Once the international community went nuts that he gased all those Kurds, we secretly cut ties with him. So what does he do? Invades Kuwait, our # 1 oil well in the Middle East at the time.

Edit to Add: There was a special on NBC News the other night and it was also on the Daily Show in which it was discussed what US Soldiers have been forced to do. They hand out money to would-be insurgents just to stay on our side.

Little known fact: The Shiite's were originally our Allies in Iraq, up until about 2006. Then, when they wouldn't get their acts together, we abandoned them and started funding the Sunnis (who make up almost all of Al-Qaeda).

Fact: The Middle East hatred for us is our foreign policy, not our religion. Religion is used as an easy scapegoat for people trying to rally the herd to their cause. Its no wonder they're pissed off at us. We've been cutting ties, turning backs and making shady deals with every single type of cleric that roams the region since we first set foot in the sand back in the late 1960s.

[Uncle Bill]

Hillary WASN'T LYING! Bosnia gunfire footage discovered..

[ledzeppIV]

Hillary WASN'T LYING! Bosnia gunfire footage discovered..

Boy I thought the fighting on this message board was bad at times. did you see what they are saying to each othere on your link. Whew.