Ultimate Hypocrites

[Light]

On June 14 2002 :

The White House called the suicide car bombing outside the U.S. Consulate in the Pakistani city of Karachi which killed 11 people a "deplorable act of terror"

On Jan 15 2006:

18 people were killed in a U.S. missile strike in Pakistan including women and children. Neither Rice nor McClellan offered apologies

Yet Bush said he considers Pakistan a valuable ally in the war on terror.I have news for him. This will eliminate any doubts in the minds of people in that area as to whether the U.S. is there as a partner or will stab (or bomb) its friends in the back when they are not looking.Is it any wonder that the world hates us.

You cannot cold bloodedly and deliberatly murder innocent people in the name of apprehending a murderer without being called a murderer.

I would have more respect for the U.S. military and government if they would come out and be honest about their own intentions and brutality rather than hiding behing the screen of hypocritical 'we're the good guys"rhetoric after seeing carnage of young children as a result of U.S. airstrikes. If that's the good guy,can there be a bad guy?

[lsbets]

Light - innocent people don't invite Al Queda's #2 over for dinner. Sorry.

[Light]

Apparently they didn't. He wasn't there.

[lsbets]

Several of his aides were there, but I guess that doesn't matter to you.

[Light]

Bombs and missiles cannot tell the difference between innocent and guilty.

[Steve 'StatMan']

And innocent people don't hide Al Quida's leaders in their homes and villages. The CIA had very seriously reason to believe that Al Quida's #2 leader was there. Otherwise, the actions wouldn't have been taken. Those who harboring terroists will be paying a high price for it, and all those around them as well. They're bringing the attacks to wherever they go. That's why they supposedly stay in mountain caves and sparsely populated, extremely remote areas.

[Light]

Do you honestly think that the U.S.would treat its own citizens this way. If someone invited a terrorist to their home in this country. Would they bomb their home. Ludicrous.

[lsbets]

Bombs and missiles cannot tell the difference between innocent and guilty.

I will never deny that innocent people die in war, I'm too familiar with the consequences of war. Its one of the things that sucks about reality - innocent people die. There is a big difference when innocent people are targeted. Despite what you (light) think of our nation and our military, we do not intentionally target innocents, however, the people we are fighting do. If you take Al-Queda's leaders into your village or home, you've lost the protection of innocence. Sorry, that's reality, and if the choice of who dies comes down to some supposed innocent who invites #2 to dinner, and my neighbors - that is the easiest choice in the world.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Do you honestly think that the U.S.would treat its own citizens this way. If someone invited a terrorist to their home in this country. Would they bomb their home. Ludicrous.

Of course not - the surrounding neighborhood of the U.S. home should be safe enough that we can send in a S.W.A.T. team! Doesn't mean that innocent neighbors or S.W.A.T. team members won't get hurt of killed by flying bullets if those terrorists start shooting out of the home trying to avoid capture.

The situations are vastly different! In the lawless areas of Pakistan/Afganistan, the people are carrying automatic rifles and can hide in any number of places, let alone the shooting coming from the Terrorists. It'd be very dangerous to send troups (the S.W.A.T. team equivilent) in there.

[lsbets]

Actually Steve, sending troops would be an invasion, and no way Musharef would have allowed it. Despite the public rhetoric (which is designed to save his ass) I have little doubt that Musharef knew about the strike before it happenned and it happenned with his blessing. He has been walking a very fine line between supporting us and maintaining power - he probably figured he could handle a small airstrike if there was a high probability of getting the #2 guy (don't forget - Al Queda has tried to assininate Musharef a bunch of times the last few years). The outrage from his administration is nothing more than PR for his countrymen.

[JustRalph]

Hey Light........... you loggin in from the Sat Phone? Where the hell are you?

[Light]

The point is our government will take painstaking measures to save the lives of innocent Americans in this country in a standoff or hostage situation and wont think twice about blowing the brains up of a 2yo as long as he or she is not of U.S. descent.Your war arguments don't apply to Pakistan. We are not at war with them.But keep it up and we may be.

[lsbets]

The point is our government will take painstaking measures to save the lives of innocent Americans in this country in a standoff or hostage situation and wont think twice about blowing the brains up of a 2yo as long as he or she is not of U.S. descent.Your war arguments don't apply to Pakistan. We are not at war with them.But keep it up and we may be.

Actually Light the men and women who wear the uniform in service of our nation go to extraordinary measures to not kill civilians, many times placing themselves at greater risk because of the caution. Sometimes its unavoidable. Like I said, reality sucks.

[Steve 'StatMan']

We're at war with Al Quida. Among their many hideouts are area of Pakistan and Afganistan. I know the villagers aren't seeing the difference, and you don't see the difference. But we're not interested in attacking Pakistanis because they're Pakistani. We're interested in capturing and/or destroying Al Quida members, wherever they are, in the most efficient means possible. I surely don't expect the locals that hide them to like it. They want us to leave them alone, give us the Al Quida members, and turn away from their missions of hate and plans against the U.S. and our allies.

[Light]

LS

You're right about Pervez Musharraf. Demonstrators demanded the resignation of Pakistan's president. This government is really good at destabalizing other governments.

[lsbets]

Light - demonstrators demand the resignation of Bush everyday. Doesn't mean its going to happen.

[Light]

I'm still holding out assuming anyone was hiding terrorists. I think this may have been another embarressing mistake like the bombing at a wedding that killed everyone while claiming terrorists were on the guest list.Turned out to be bogus PR.

[Steve 'StatMan']

LS

You're right about Pervez Musharraf. Demonstrators demanded the resignation of Pakistan's president. This government is really good at destabalizing other governments.

If the angry mobs in Pakistan REALLY want the U.S. to attack them, all they have to do is replace their President with a Pro-Al Quida leadership. Using force isn't nice, it isn't supposed to be. It's supposed to discourage them and make them give up, not our own people and media (trying to lead the people) give up.

[Light]

Light - demonstrators demand the resignation of Bush everyday. Doesn't mean its going to happen.

Pakistan is not nearly as stable as the U.S. for a coup

[Steve 'StatMan']

Since Light and I posted at about the same time, I'll refer readers to my most recent post as a response.

[Light]

Steve

Using force is supposed to make people give up? I don't think so.

[lsbets]

Pakistan is not nearly as stable as the U.S. for a coup

There is a huge difference between Musharef and Bush. Musharef is a dictator who took power in a coup. The only way a coup against him could succeed is if the military were behind it, and he came from the military. I would think that over the last few years he has purged the security services and military of people who were allied with the Taliban and Al Queda and could be a threat to him. While dealing with Musharef is a neccesary evil for us, he is not a nice guy by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure that Pakistani interrogation uses actual real, brutal torture, not the "we'll make fun of you till you cry" so called torture that we've been accused of using. Despite promising democratic reforms, Musharef has taken steps to cement his control on power. I would imagine several of those who might have been able to mount a coup against him have disappeared over the last few years. Dictators tend to take extreme measures when they feel threatened.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Steve

Using force is supposed to make people give up? I don't think so.

Took a long time, but it worked with Germany and Japan. Sure wasn't easy or cheap though.

[Tom]

Bottom line: Pakistan is harboring Bin Laden and other Al Qeda members. We have the right to do whatever it takes to go and kill them. Who gives us that right? We do! Try and stop us. With us or against us...remeber that phrase? This is it in action.

Maybe some other rock sucking Pakis's will think twice about they break bread with.

My opinion, if we thought he was in the area, we shold have nuked it. Like horseshoes, close counts with nukes.

[Tom]

Took a long time, but it worked with Germany and Japan. Sure wasn't easy or cheap though.

And we fire bombed cities to do it. We leveled the whole damn country. We took out churches, homes, schools - we got the job done. Sad, horrible for those who had to do it and then live with it, but it had to be done - what were the alternatives?

[Secretariat]

Took a long time, but it worked with Germany and Japan. Sure wasn't easy or cheap though.

Good point. Biut a few others:

1. We weren't primarily alone in that fight.

2. We weren't facing the deficits we have today.

3. The violence isn't over yet so we don't know the true cost.

4. We were not dealing with Islam as a factor in either of those situations.

A better look is the success of the Crusades. Study them because that's what you're facing, not a meglomaniac leader like Hitler, OR a miltiary gone mad under Tojo. You're dealing with a Civil War insurgency in Iraq with outside terrorists using Iraq as a training ground to foment attacks agaisnt the US, AND you're dealing with a delveloping nuclear threat in Iran, and a dicator in Pakistan who is a one shot or car bomb away from having Pakistan become another Iran. btw.. Pakistan does have nuclear weapons.

And in the midst of this all is Islam which is an all encompasing rally cry for people of that region.

The cost is a lot of lives, a lot of money, and a lot of time and instability. It will take longer than Germany or Japan. A lot of time, and a lot of taxes to pay for that fighting, and a lot of loans from China. Wars aren't monetarily cheap.

[lsbets]

Secretariat: Good point. Biut a few others:

1. We weren't primarily alone in that fight.

Against Japan we were.

2. We weren't facing the deficits we have today.

You're right, the deficits were actually much larger as a percentage of GDP in WWII than they are today.

3. The violence isn't over yet so we don't know the true cost.

Could've said the same thing on August 1, 1945.

4. We were not dealing with Islam as a factor in either of those situations.

No, but in the Pacific theater we were dealing with a militarized culture that made surrender a non-option. EVen when faced with certain death, our enemy would engage in suicide assaults to kill as many of our soldiers as possible on their way out.

[toetoe]

Light,

Is your battery dying? :D That's a reference to the new "Light" in the margin.

Your point was great until you said we deliberately murdered civilians (wrong!), and likened it to some sh%thooks leaving a bomb somewhere just to terrify folks and get their rocks off (wrong!). THEN, you implied, in a later post, that we were incompetent fools for making such a stupid mistake. Again, the point about the moral relativism and the "incompetence" of the raid are good, solid positions. Why go beyond that, AND run the risk of contradicting yourself? Inquiring losers that can't even hit the AQ pick-four WANNA KNOW. :)

[Light]

Toe

We have made and continue to make mistakes and create enemies.I'm sorry,but I am a human being first and an American 2nd. If I was ordered to do the bombing knowing knowing children would be blown to bits,I would refuse and probably be courtmarshalled. That's probably one of the reasons the aircraft was an unmanned drone aircraft.Consciencious Israeli soldiers have similarly been punished for refusing similar raids.

[Tom]

Not true at all.

[JustRalph]

3. The violence isn't over yet so we don't know the true cost.

LS is right. Great post!

But I repeat myself..........this is baby shit so far!

go look at this page.........compare it to today. You want to compare the two time periods? This page is kind of hokey.......but it makes the point.....check out the numbers ............the loss of life. ..........Those who scream about the sacrifice have no right. Not at this point. If we allow wingnuts like Bin Laden and his allies including the President of Iran , to go on unfettered, we are going to be in an all out war for our survival. Not only will the American way of life disappear, but the country just might.

http://www.goodolddogs3.com/If-IwoJima-Happened2day.html

[kenwoodallpromos]

All I can say is-
Russia lost in Af!
Better a missle taking out 4 AlQs instead of cars or planes taking out ours!
Pak were the bad guys until Bush forced their hand. Look it up. Next stop Iran!

[toetoe]

Light,

What Israelis do is irrelevant. You shouldn't need them as examples. The moral force of your argument should be enough. You show the difference between yourself and the sh%thooks --- you are a human being first, whereas they are hellraising killers/rapists/torturers/zealots first. I think the military system works fairly well. It's a straightforward process. The soldier hesitates, and the army gets rid of him. I understand both positions, I think. Also, don't be too sure that any government cares much about its poorer citizens. If we were (are?) more hardhearted in attacking kidnappers, thereby endangering hostages, I wouldn't want you to be counting on that analogy. Your point remains a good one: who maintains a safe environment for everyday folks in hellholes like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? When the choice is Hussein, Ayatollah Come Stainie, or US soldiers, they're in deep doo-doo already.

[Tom]

Ultimate hippocites - you have to include big-head Ted in this one....

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/13/111837.shtml

Seems Teddy is a bit of a chauvenist.....imagine that, a US Senator, a memeber of a club booted off campus over 20 years ago. Meanwhile, he calls Alito out for a brief membership inanother club. Sort of a hippoctire, it would appear.

[Tom]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/17/105341.shtml

[Tom]

https://www.newsmax.com/adv/doasisay/?PROMO_CODE=16BE-1

[toetoe]

At the Kennedy Family Scramble Golf Tournament, when, by rule, they have to let Uncle Ted drive one hole, especially over a water hazard.

At the lodge, when the tobacco girl has to give Billy Jeff his after-dinner cigar.

At the Chinese New Year, when someone asks John McCain what he did in the war.

At the Kentucky Derby Eve party, when Michael Jackson's opinion is sought on the best three-year-old in the country (or world).

At the taping of the celebrities-for-charity "Wheel Of Fortune," when Pat Sajak exhorts the Colts player and his wife to "take a stab at it."

At the opening of Coldstone Creamery in New Orleans, when a Happy Talking Head asks Mayor Nagin(sp.?) his favorite flavor. (We pray he only likes dark meat, also. -- Ed.)

[JustRalph]

I just heard on the news that 4 active terrorists were killed in this attack. They were part of the party that was to meet Al Zawwwwaaarriiii or whatever the hell his name is. 4 Down...............thousands to go.............

[Light]

Light,

What Israelis do is irrelevant.


Israeli advisers helped train U.S. forces before they went into Iraq in guerrilla warfare including forming assasination squads. You may recall Israel's tactics of using Apache helicopters to launch missiles into busy,public palestinian neighborhoods in seach of killing suspected terrorists.The innocents killed were(are) shrugged aside.The tactics used in this latest Pakistani attack mimics the Israeli strategy against Palestinians including justifying killing many for the one. If you think what Israel or Israelis do is irrelevant,you should check out who advises Mr. Cheney.Thus who creates U.S.policy.

[lsbets]

Light - just who is it that advises Mr. Cheney and sets US policy?

[toetoe]

Light,

Again, while that would be fitting on an Israel-bashing thread, it's not germaine to our alleged hypocrisy. We don't need the crutch of barbarous Israeli advisors to explain/justify/excuse any atrocities. Any and all atrocities we commit are on us. The terrifying conclusion that we dare not leap to is: no more Israel, no more American atrocities and/or unhappy Muslims. Just a big, happy naive-as-hell world family. :eek: :eek:

[Secretariat]

Secretariat: Good point. Biut a few others:

1. We weren't primarily alone in that fight.

Against Japan we were.

2. We weren't facing the deficits we have today.

You're right, the deficits were actually much larger as a percentage of GDP in WWII than they are today.

3. The violence isn't over yet so we don't know the true cost.

Could've said the same thing on August 1, 1945.

4. We were not dealing with Islam as a factor in either of those situations.

No, but in the Pacific theater we were dealing with a militarized culture that made surrender a non-option. EVen when faced with certain death, our enemy would engage in suicide assaults to kill as many of our soldiers as possible on their way out.

We defeated Japan due to a multiple atomic bomb situation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a fire bombing of Tokyo to kill 80,000 people to make it happen. Japan was almost wiped out. That's why we won, and why there was little resistance afterwards. I'm not ready to relive that in today's age, especially since we were the only ones then with the bomb, but NOT now.

Thank you for agreeing we don't know the whole cost yet. After WW II we had a vast manufacturing base to reignite the economy. Today, we have no such manufacturing base. How do you propose bringing down the deficit when as you agree there is no end in sight, AND we have no manufacturing base to speak of since everything has been outsourced. Also China is allied with Iran and prizes Iranian oil. Are you suggesting we borrow money from them to finance war against one of their allies?

As to terrorists we are not fighting a "nation", but an enemy without borders. In Iraq, we're facing something even different, a religious civil war.

Fighting Islam zealots is more like the Crusades than fighting the militaristic machine of Tojo. The suicide pilots on those Zeros were strapped in with only enough fuel to hit a target. The suicide bombers of the fundamentalists are preparing to meet their 40 virgins in the afterlife.

The COST of this "mess" is exorbitant, and to keep spending is like flushing the money down the toilet. Iraq is nothing like the American Revolution and those analogies are absurd. Iraq is much closer to our Civil War with religious factionalism the issue.

Murtha is correct.

[Tom]

Israeli advisers helped train U.S. forces before they went into Iraq in guerrilla warfare including forming assasination squads. You may recall Israel's tactics of using Apache helicopters to launch missiles into busy,public palestinian neighborhoods in seach of killing suspected terrorists.The innocents killed were(are) shrugged aside.The tactics used in this latest Pakistani attack mimics the Israeli strategy against Palestinians including justifying killing many for the one. If you think what Israel or Israelis do is irrelevant,you should check out who advises Mr. Cheney.Thus who creates U.S.policy.

Israel has a history of finishing what others start. They were tenacious in hunting down nazis and bringing them to justice. They did not care how old they were or long it was since they committed autrocities - they persevered. Now they are bringing that thirst for justice/revenge to the table in response to those madmen palestineans who strap on bombs and board buses or walk into restaraunts and blow up innocent people. I applaud their spirit and encourage others to follow it. The palestineans have always had the option to stop the bloodshed, yet they chose to continue it. They pay the prioce for thier stupidity. If they were teaching us things, I hope we took good notes.
Eventually, the phrase "with us or against us" will sink in. The arabs and pakls and palestineans need to understand, all they hav eto do is leave us alone - but if they choose to mess with us, we will not hestitate to retaliate.

[toetoe]

Well, when we decide to totally isolate ourselves, we may as well default on our debts. What, we should fear some international court of deadbeat enforcers? :lol: Bring 'em on. :jump:

[PaceAdvantage]

Boy, this latest little incident really pushed a button in ol' Light (or as I like to call him, horseman #3).

BTW Light, how do you know innocent children were killed in that attack? I haven't had any time to read any details about this incident, so I was just wondering what intel source you are going by to reach this conclusion.

[Light]

Light - just who is it that advises Mr. Cheney and sets US policy?

Up until aug 2005,Douglas Feith,under secretary of defense and #3 man in the pentagon behind Rum and Wolf. Cheney met with him allmost everyday. Here is a little about him: From article:

. Douglas Feith----Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.

How about some other oldies

Paul Wolfowitz----Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz is the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering.

And one more oldie

Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.


O.K. Toe,tell me again how Israeli's and Israel have nothing to do with American foreign policy :D

[Light]

BTW Light, how do you know innocent children were killed in that attack?

Uh,10,00 People demonstrated in the streets of Pakistan about this. It was reported in papers worldwide.Uh,you've never heard of U.S. bombs killing children like in Iraq.Uh.What planet have you been vactioning on?

[lsbets]

Light, you been reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Interesting choices on who sets policy when there are other, much more prominant folks in decision making positions - just a few - Rumsfeld, Rice, and at the time Powell. Oh yeah, almost forgot about the President - you know, Bush.

Sounds like you got those bios from a real nice unbiased source.

What I really laigh about it the line "anti-Arab" policies. Are you sure those weren't actually anti-terror policies which were advocated. Or do you believe that being anti-terrorism makes one anti-Arab?

[lsbets]

Boy, this latest little incident really pushed a button in ol' Light (or as I like to call him, horseman #3).

BTW Light, how do you know innocent children were killed in that attack? I haven't had any time to read any details about this incident, so I was just wondering what intel source you are going by to reach this conclusion.

PA - if Al Queda says it, it must be true.

Oh yeah - four confirmed terrorists dead in the attack. You still withholding judgement Light?

[Steve 'StatMan']

Up until aug 2005,Douglas Feith,under secretary of defense and #3 man in the pentagon behind Rum and Wolf. Cheney met with him allmost everyday. Here is a little about him: From article:

. Douglas Feith----Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.

How about some other oldies

Paul Wolfowitz----Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz is the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering.

And one more oldie

Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.


O.K. Toe,tell me again how Israeli's and Israel have nothing to do with American foreign policy :D

Can you direct us to this article or source? It would give a good frame of reference knowing who is calling members of our government 'pro-Israel extremists'.

[toetoe]

Light,

I said Israel SHOULD not be blamed. We're big boys! Judge us by our actions, please. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that, if only we had Curtis LeMay or Ed Meese or Caspar Weinberger in there, those little babies would be alive today.
Those are serious charges. How long have you known of them? :)

[Tom]

Ultimate hippocrites - George W Bush - claiming to wage a war on teror and refusing to protect our borders. duh?
Also failing to protect Iraqi borders while foreign insurregents flock in.

Did he fail high school social studies? Does he not know what a border is?
Is it that you cannot protect what you cannot spell? Did all that coke and booze fry his brain?

[46zilzal]

2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim

By Eric Lichtblau / New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 - A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.

Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department's intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send "25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers" filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The White House later acknowledged that the charge, which played a part in the decision to invade Iraq in the belief that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear program, relied on faulty intelligence and should not have been included in the speech. Two months ago, Italian intelligence officials concluded that a set of documents at the center of the supposed Iraq-Niger link had been forged by an occasional Italian spy.

[46zilzal]

Is it that you cannot protect what you cannot spell? Did all that coke and booze fry his brain?
nothing more sanctimonious that a retired hooker or an old alky.

[lsbets]

2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim

By Eric Lichtblau / New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 - A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.

Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department's intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send "25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers" filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The White House later acknowledged that the charge, which played a part in the decision to invade Iraq in the belief that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear program, relied on faulty intelligence and should not have been included in the speech. Two months ago, Italian intelligence officials concluded that a set of documents at the center of the supposed Iraq-Niger link had been forged by an occasional Italian spy.

Read an interesting piece on this article today:

"Reread the opening paragraphs from Lichtblau again. He deliberately varies from one question to the other as if the two have an identical meaning. It's the same trick employed in Wilson's original op-ed; both start off by talking about the fact that no sale had been completed -- a true statement -- and then substitute that for no attempt to purchase uranium had been made, a complete falsehood that Wilson's own report proves.

Bush, in fact, turned out to be correct in his "sixteen words," a fact not lost on British intelligence, who have all along insisted that Saddam had tried to buy uranium, and not just from Niger. The SSCI report makes this dodge very transparent, but the Paper of Record never bothers to research its findings whenever reporting on this subject. "

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006174.php

[46zilzal]

"Reread the opening paragraphs from Lichtblau again. He deliberately varies from one question to the other as if the two have an identical meaning.
unless you talked to him PERSONALLY, there is NO way to know that.

I, for one, am sorry that many folks had to risk their buts over a fib

[lsbets]

unless you talked to him PERSONALLY, there is NO way to know that.

I, for one, am sorry that many folks had to risk their buts over a fib


Okay, than he doesn't understand. Not much of a difference.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Up until aug 2005,Douglas Feith,under secretary of defense and #3 man in the pentagon behind Rum and Wolf. Cheney met with him allmost everyday. Here is a little about him: From article:

. Douglas Feith----Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.

How about some other oldies

Paul Wolfowitz----Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz is the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering.

And one more oldie

Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.


O.K. Toe,tell me again how Israeli's and Israel have nothing to do with American foreign policy :D

I decided to find out the source myself. I did a Yahoo searce on the phrase 'feith is a pro-isreal extremist'. I got many hits. The exact same information exactly as it is seen above appears on many websites in the first 20 hits I found, thses sites mostly attacking or complaining about how the U.S. is being hijacked by Zionists, as well as a website dedicated to a late U.S. based Muslim doctor. So far, I've not been able to readily determine, (and have not seriously attempted to determine) who was the originator of this 'research' and opinions are.

So if you want to get some interesting information on where Light gets his information and where he's 'coming from', do the search yourself. I assure you, you will see things that you may or not agree with. I've only scratched the surface with what I've read so far, and am personally skeptical of what I've seen and read. His information does not appear to be coming from neutral sources, to say the least.

[lsbets]

I did a similar search Steve, and found almost the same words on the website of a very notorious ex-candidate for governor in Louisiana.

[46zilzal]

yes a BLOG has more resources than the New York Times....Well that's something new. Seems the guy that the rutabaga sent there tends to agree that THEY blew it all out of proportion to get their "war." Doesn't the CLOWN always say "I am a WAR president?"

[lsbets]

I decided to find out the source myself. I did a Yahoo searce on the phrase 'feith is a pro-isreal extremist'. I got many hits. The exact same information exactly as it is seen above appears on many websites in the first 20 hits I found, thses sites mostly attacking or complaining about how the U.S. is being hijacked by Zionists, as well as a website dedicated to a late U.S. based Muslim doctor. So far, I've not been able to readily determine, (and have not seriously attempted to determine) who was the originator of this 'research' and opinions are.

So if you want to get some interesting information on where Light gets his information and where he's 'coming from', do the search yourself. I assure you, you will see things that you may or not agree with. I've only scratched the surface with what I've read so far, and am personally skeptical of what I've seen and read. His information does not appear to be coming from neutral sources, to say the least.

Steve - you got me really curious, so I did a search on a couple of different engines and went to the websites to see if the exact description, not just a couple of words, was used. I found the exact description, just as it was written above, used on many different sites - all of them were either white supremacist or radical muslim web sites. I'm not surprised that two groups, which would on the surface seem polar opposites of each other, would share the same outlook and information. Going back to the relationship between Hitler's Germany and then Persia, white suppremacists and radical Muslims have a long history of collaboration and some shared common goals. I wonder if the NSA noticed that I went to those sites today! :lol:

[Steve 'StatMan']

I looked at quite a few of those matching websites from Light's post. Amazing, and very disturbing. Nothing like a bunch of related anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-Christian, anti-war (hey, nobody really 'wants' it!) other extremist groups listing every Jewish person and a number of Christians in the government, and calling them Pro-Israel extremists and Christian extremists for various reasons, accusing all these alleged extremists with orchestrating a large number of events. Mighty disgusting. Makes the stuff Zil writes actually look neutral! One site even alleges that God spared Muslim's from an even worse fate if Gore and his larger numbrer of Christian Extremists had gotten into power in 2000 instead of Bush! Wild stuff!

"Light", I've gotta say, I've got hard time trusting you, where you're coming from, what you're presenting and why you might be presenting it. I may disagree with some of the others, but at least I think I know where they're coming from. I'm sorry to have to say that, at least until proven I should believe otherwise.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I wonder if the NSA noticed that I went to those sites today! :lol:

Gads, I sure hope they're aware of these sites. Wonder if the NNS noticed too. :eek:

Really, people on both sides of this war issue should check this out. You might find out who's supporting and spreading some of the information and stories you see, and you may not be comfortable with who and what some of these people are. I saw a site anti-Bush and anti-Israel site carrying on the alleged story about how the U.S. Government staged the 9-11 attacks themselves. One claimed that the powerful Israeli interests used the Monica Lewinski Scandal to blackmail Clinton into a missile attack in 1998. One had an alleged 'rabbi' posting anti-Israel and anti-Bush administration rallying points on a blog, but making comments that no rabbi would ever make (about how Isreal should be destroyed), etc. Lots of phony baloney and/or sick stuff, or people who are likely supportive of our enemies.

Seriously. Check it out. Whether you agree or disagree with any of these sites and what they talk about, they certainly are not 'fair and balanced' by any means.

[toetoe]

I admit that accurate news is hard to come by, but these sites are hardly reliable. One, newswckkk.com, has no home, just a page of screed. Then there's Al Jazeera; The Arab-American Institute, which makes me nervous, as any race-based agglomeration does; timbuk3.com, which doesn't really identify itself, but is seemingly a way-left site that settles for shilling for Democrats and demonizing Republicans, and many others, some very amateurish, with "not found" links, etc. I still say this is tangential to the thrust of the thread. :confused:

[Secretariat]

Feith...he's a stauch neocon hardliner. He was undersecretary of defense during 911 when Wolfowitz was deputy defense secretary. He has never advocated any kind of peace process, but fomented the old "peace through strength" approach which simply means we'll beat them into submission or unconditional surrender. He worked closely with the OSP to bring in Chalabi for consultation after 911 who said anything the neocons wanted to hear about Iraq, and we know now was wrong (as even GW has admitted).

Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams...these are all very powerful men, and have an immense affect on American policy. Their primary concern is not the welfare of the US, but the preservation of Israel at all costs. They've said as much. They of course argue that the preservation of Israel is in America's interest, and that is their justification for everything.

Do I think they're bad or evil people for this? No, not at all. However, there priority is on a foreign state, not the US. Almost everything they write or advocate deals with Israel. They are more like Israel citizens than American ones since that seems there overriding concern.

Here's an insight into Feith.

"According to Bob Woodward's book, Plan of Attack, Feith was described by the military commander who led the Iraq invasion, Gen. Tommie Franks, as "the f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth," referring to the bad intelligence fed to the military about Iraq and the extent of possible resistance to a U.S. invasion."

"Feith is a self-proclaimed Zionist – not a Labor Zionist, but a right-wing Zionist close to the Likud party and the Zionist Organization of America"

"Criticizing the George H. W. Bush administration's attempt to broker a land for peace deal, Feith warned, "If Western statesmen openly recognized the problem as a clash of principles, they would not be able to market hope through the launching of peace initiatives." "

"In 1997 the Zionist Organization of America honored Dalck Feith and Douglas Feith at its annual dinner. It described the Feiths as "noted Jewish philanthropists and pro-Israel activists." "

"According to Feith, Israel would directly benefit from the installation of a sea-based, wide-area missile defense system, which would supplement Israel's own national missile defense system that the U.S. helped develop."

"Feith is also well known for his participation – along with neoconservative big wigs Richard Perle and David Wurmser – in a 1996 study organized by the Israel-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, which urged scrapping the then-ongoing peace process. The study, titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," advised Prime Minister-elect Benjamin Netanyahu "to work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll back" regional threats, help overthrow Hussein, and strike "Syrian military targets in Lebanon" and possibly in Syria proper. "

"Feith is no stranger to intelligence scandals. In 1982 he left the National Security Council under the shadow of an FBI investigation of administration officials suspected of passing intelligence information to Israel."

His record pretty much speaks for itself where his priorities lie.

[lsbets]

toe -

I think its very relevant to the thread when someone says Israel controls our policy and then uses bios found on sites like newswckkk.com as an example of the Jews who control Bush. Especially when that person is the one who started the thread, it is very relevant, and I don't think it is unreasonable for the folks on the board here to say WTF and ask for an explanation. In terms of the credibility of the poster, the sources where the information he presented (without links, remember we had to search to find it) are very relevant to who he might be and what he believes.

[Light]

Steve

There is no secret as to where I'm coming from. Israel and Israeli's have a huge influence on our foreign policy and I'm just pointing that out.If you find what I quoted not factual,I am open to be corrected.

But to say that I must be pandering some radical muslim web sites just because you disagree with the content without disproving the content is pure bias on your part.

[lsbets]

Light - your quotes can be found verbatim on various hate sites related to white supremacy and radical Islam throughout the web. No need to go further debating any points you think you might have made - your sources tell us all we need to know.

[PaceAdvantage]

Uh,10,00 People demonstrated in the streets of Pakistan about this. It was reported in papers worldwide.Uh,you've never heard of U.S. bombs killing children like in Iraq.Uh.What planet have you been vactioning on?

I'm talking specifically about THIS incident. Not past US bombings. You say 10,000 people demonstrated. They would be demonstrating no matter who was killed, so this is proof of nothing.

I'd like to know how you know children were killed in this specific attack. Who and what are your sources.

[toetoe]

LS,

I think we agree, but you're simply taking Light up on his demonization of Israel, whereas I'm saying, "Dude, you're hijacking your own thread."

Sec,

Kind of the same thing here. You say Feith has US interests in mind, just not his primary interest. Kind of a muddle, as you also imply he doesn't give a damn about his own country (I presume he's American).

[JustRalph]

This attack has reaped a bountiful reward................

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986

U.S. Strike Killed al Qaeda Bomb Maker

Jan. 18, 2006 — ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.
Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of four known major al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit in the village of Damadola early last Friday morning.

~see more at the link above~

[Steve 'StatMan']

Light, I've always thought your posts were coming from the 'thou shalt not kill', please don't take innocent life, peace to all peoples angles. I didn't catch that your real concern is about Israel.

I'm of the position that Israel, like all our allies, are important to us in the U.S., and we need to do what we can to prevent them from being destroyed - that includes England, France (yes, France!), and all the N.A.T.O. countries, and a whole big list of of other friends like Kuwait, Jordan and the U.A.E.. I'm not for expanding Israel further, and am not sure if the existing Israel is within their 'biblical Promised Land' borders (from, I'm trying to recall, the banks of the Wadi, to the great river, the Euphrates.) But Israel sure has a lot of people that want to wipe them off the face of the earth, as well as all Jewish people, no matter where they live now. So they're obviously more in need of protection than you avergae ally nation, to say the least.

I'm sure they make a lot of suggestions, and help provide a lot of intelligence on the Middle East region, but far from the only source. I very seriously doubt that the U.S. merely does Israel's bidding, whether Wolfowitz's sister lives in Israel or not.

So much for my former theory that you were a horseplaying member of the clergy, like some of my late racing friends have been.

I'm just trying to do some understanding. Understanding is important.

Speaking of understanding people, but at a far lower level than either of us or hopefully anyone here in this forum of course, but I recall you were the one that advocated trying to understand child molesters.

[Steve 'StatMan']

This attack has reaped a bountiful reward................

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986

U.S. Strike Killed al Qaeda Bomb Maker

Jan. 18, 2006 — ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.
Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of four known major al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit in the village of Damadola early last Friday morning.

~see more at the link above~

Wow! That is great news!

So much for being concerend about our military bringing bombs and violence to an innocent community.

[toetoe]

Steve,

Oh, no. Not the CM words again. :faint: :bang:

[JustRalph]

Dearborn?

[Steve 'StatMan']

This attack has reaped a bountiful reward................

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986

U.S. Strike Killed al Qaeda Bomb Maker

Jan. 18, 2006 — ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.
Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of four known major al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit in the village of Damadola early last Friday morning.

~see more at the link above~

"He wants to cause mayhem, major death, and he puts his expertise on the line. So the fact that we took him out is significant," said former FBI agent Jack Cloonan, an ABC News consultant, who was the senior agent on the FBI's al Qaeda squad. "He's the man who trained the shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, as well as hundreds of others."

So yes, clearly the U.S. had a good reason to take action as they did. I know it's ugly and difficult, and sometimes things don't work out like they'd planned and the bad guys don't get wiped out at the expense of some unknown, and occasionally some innocent people. But this time, at leasst, they got some really key bad people.

[Tom]

yes a BLOG has more resources than the New York Times....Well that's something new. Seems the guy that the rutabaga sent there tends to agree that THEY blew it all out of proportion to get their "war." Doesn't the CLOWN always say "I am a WAR president?"

You mean the guy who was trying to p[ump up sales of his book? Now look at Paul Bremeer - directly contradicting himself in tapes interviews in his book. Every knucklehead with a book will say anything to sell a few more copies. Let's talk to people who don't have books out. Tony Blair and Brittish Intelligence have far more creditbility than the local Borders Boys.
should be a new rule - nobody can publish a book until out of government service at least 10 years.

But bottom line, see lsbet's post in another thread - ample WMD have been found and taken out to service to justify the war, especially when couples with actual nukes Lybia surrendered as a direct result of them seeing that we will not tolerate this nonsense.

[toetoe]

One point about toxic weapons. I guess we can find them anywhere. Do we have a safe way of dismantling and/or disposing of them? There must be tons of stuff all over. Can some of it be safest where it is, like the paint in my garage?

[Tom]

We could always use them on Iran! ;)

[Light]

So much for my former theory that you were a horseplaying member of the clergy, like some of my late racing friends have been.

Speaking of understanding people, but at a far lower level than either of us or hopefully anyone here in this forum of course, but I recall you were the one that advocated trying to understand child molesters.

Unless you want a barrage of personal attacks,I suggest that in the future,you stick to the subject.

[Light]

Light - your quotes can be found verbatim on various hate sites related to white supremacy and radical Islam throughout the web. No need to go further debating any points you think you might have made - your sources tell us all we need to know.

So what? Are you saying anything in those quotes is not true?

[lsbets]

So what? Are you saying anything in those quotes is not true?

You really didn't think anyone would look it up and find out where you are coming from. Must've shocked you that it took only a couple of minutes to find it out.

Sorry pal, there is zero need to debate you - you have revealed yourself, and its pitiful. So much for the peace to all, loving Light. I knew with time you would come out, your kind are way too easy to deal with.

Thanks for the laugh threatening Steve, I bet he's quaking in his boots.

[Light]

I'd like to know how you know children were killed in this specific attack. Who and what are your sources.

I know as much about that as those who are claiming 4 terrorists died in the attack. No bodies of terrorists have been found. All speculation. So Why did I say it? If you can come to the conclusion that 4 terrorists were killed without a body ID,I can come to the easier conclusion that one or more of the civilians killed is a child.AS far as I know no victim bodies have been found.

[Light]

You really didn't think anyone would look it up and find out where you are coming from. Must've shocked you that it took only a couple of minutes to find it out.

Sorry pal, there is zero need to debate you - you have revealed yourself, and its pitiful. So much for the peace to all, loving Light. I knew with time you would come out, your kind are way too easy to deal with.

Thanks for the laugh threatening Steve, I bet he's quaking in his boots.

You said nothing to refute those quotes except a cheap personal attack.Is that all you got?

[lsbets]

You said nothing to refute those quotes except a cheap personal attack.Is that all you got?

A cheap personal attack? No, simply the truth. You have shown yourself to be the scum of the earth. You're really coming unglued now that the image of Light as this peace to all guy has fallen apart, aren't you?

[Light]

A cheap personal attack? No, simply the truth. You have shown yourself to be the scum of the earth. You're really coming unglued now that the image of Light as this peace to all guy has fallen apart, aren't you?

I simply presented a point of view. If you cant rebutt it with a valid argument,there's no need to humiliate yourself by putting others down.

[lsbets]

Here's the thing Light. To me, debating guys like you - whether you are a white supremacist/NAZI or an islamo fascist/radical muslime - is the equivilant of negotiating with terrorists. There are other ways to deal with the enemies of our nation (which all of the above groups are). You still don't have the guts once called on the carpet to say "This is who I am and what I believe." You don't even have the courage to stand behind your beliefs. Thats pitiful.

[boxcar]

Bombs and missiles cannot tell the difference between innocent and guilty.

Define "innocent"! And if "innocents" were killed -- if -- then they deserved to die by the sheer virture of the fact that they were in the company of thugs! They died by their own stupidity! Didn't these "innocents" know that the U.S. is waging war against the lowest lifeforms known to man?

Boxcar

[Steve 'StatMan']

The clergy members I mentioned were valued, trusted friends of mine and our community. I meant that part of my remark as having respected your possible backgrounds, since I thought up to now, you've been approaching all thigs from a moral background, given you call yourself 'Light'. Hopefully you actually are, even if we disagree.

I struggled quite awhile before leaving that other point, but decided that since you were quite clear about the need for people to be understood (making me wonder if you were a councelor, or a therapist, or something, given that ugly CM topic we were on).

It was obvious you didn't write the decriptions in your post. So, some people see people as religious extremists, other see them as people supporting an opinion or having a belief. Some people refer to people who are Pro-Life as religious zealots or extremists and sometimes Christian Extremists. Personally, I would view any Pro-Life person who resorted to violence as a dangerous Pro-Life extremist, and way out of line, even if we shared the same faith.

We often see Islamic Extremists as carrying AK47's and shooting at our troups. Others see them as Freedom Fighters. Plenty of decent Palastinian and Israeli people. But some commit violence against each other, and advocate that. Those I would consider Palistian Extremists, and Israeli Extremists. I'm not comfortable about any of these types of extremists.

So, when you make a post, esp. not of your own origin, to be understood, it should be known HOW you mean it.

Sec's post that one of these people, in a published book that we know the source of, from Ret. Gen. Tommy Franks said he's an idiot. I find that helpful, gives me far more insight. I bet a lot of military people think the politicians are idiots, and I'd bet they're right, too!

But still, what you've posted doesn't tell us why the government is hypocritical, or that we're doing this only because Israel is telling us to do it.

I was surprised, though, to see what types of groups say and pass along this information. Since only the ones with the most hits rise to the top of the list, yes, there seemed to be extreme groups out there. You don't necessarily have to believe or follow any of that. You might have gotten the same information from another, unrelated website, far down the list of search sites.

So is the information you posted correct? In the eyes of the still unidentified author it is. Who calls the shots with the U.S. policy, frankly, a lot of people make suggestions, but it's the President and his Cabinet who make the decisions.

So, do tell us, why you feel this information is accurate, and since it is not of your own writing, who's thinking you feel gives you the confidence to believe it's true and explains why you feel the way you do.

[toetoe]

LS,

Two little things.

Telling somebody what he thought is too, too superior-sounding, unintentionally, I'm sure.
"Your kind" is as irreducibly wrongheaded as the other fellow's crude attempt at "painting" with the dreaded magic words "child molesters."

I understand the reaction to the threat, albeit a mild threat. It's also possible Light meant it in the sense of, " ... to TRIGGER a barrage ... " by all. Maybe?

[Light]

Here's the thing Light. To me, debating guys like you - whether you are a white supremacist/NAZI or an islamo fascist/radical muslime - is the equivilant of negotiating with terrorists.

Wow. And I thought I was just a regular joe.

You still don't have the guts once called on the carpet to say "This is who I am and what I believe." You don't even have the courage to stand behind your beliefs. Thats pitiful.

If you know who I am,please tell me. I've been struggling with that my whole life doctor.

[lsbets]

Light - you could do yourself a favor and dig out of that self dug hole if only you would say "here is where I get my information from and here is how I look at things". As Steve said, until you do that, everything you say is suspect.

Why are you so afraid to do something so simple?

[Light]

since I thought up to now, you've been approaching all thigs from a moral background, given you call yourself 'Light'.

O.K. There's been a few references to my name. 3 reasons for it.1)All our cells are made of Light 2)Light dispels darkness 3)Light accompanies awareness

It was obvious you didn't write the decriptions in your post.

Can you quote what I wrote that is so upsetting to you. I really don't know what is upsetting you or LS so much.It would help get to the point.Verval abuse will get you nowhere.

[Light]

Light - you could do yourself a favor and dig out of that self dug hole if only you would say "here is where I get my information from and here is how I look at things". As Steve said, until you do that, everything you say is suspect.

Why are you so afraid to do something so simple?

I can't reply to you either unless you quote me.I don't know what you are referring to.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Here's the post from earlier, with the decriptions that appear on numerous websites.

Up until aug 2005,Douglas Feith,under secretary of defense and #3 man in the pentagon behind Rum and Wolf. Cheney met with him allmost everyday. Here is a little about him: From article:

. Douglas Feith----Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.

How about some other oldies

Paul Wolfowitz----Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz is the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering.

And one more oldie

Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.


O.K. Toe,tell me again how Israeli's and Israel have nothing to do with American foreign policy :D

[Light]

So what's wrong with it?

[lsbets]

So now you know the quotes referenced (as if anyone believes you didn't know).

Why are you so afraid to answer that one, simple question?

[Steve 'StatMan']

How do we know what's true? Who is the source? Are and and/or all of these people really war mongerers, Israeli agents, etc? Lots of different groups present these things as facts. Is Perle actually leading the media efforts? Who's website did you get this from? Some things are obvious, some things are opinion. Does all this reflect your opinion? Does the website you got the information from reflect your opinon?

If you hadn't used copied text from a website, I wouldn't have gotten verbatim matches on so many websites. So now I'm left to wonder how you came to your opinion, rather than just accepting what you wrote as your opinion only.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Some people quote Fox or CNN News, maybe RNC & DNC websites, some the NY Times, papers from Great Brittian. Both liberal and conservative leaning websites, all kinds. Tells us about the news and opinion to take into context, plus credits the source. You didn't give us a source in your original post. That's what got me wondering to begin with.

[Light]

It's not a big deal.This is the web site which I don't really frequent.

http://rense.com


And this is where the article came from:

http://www.rense.com/general35/lpobby.htm

Still don't see anything unfactual in what I quoted. I have other sources that can verify whatever you think is unfactual,but you aren't being specific.

[lsbets]

If its not that big a deal, than why so long to post it?

Reading down the left side and many of the articles, that site sounds like it could have been written by the President of Iran. Do you believe what's on there about the Holocaust being a myth?

[rastajenk]

Rense is among the moonbattiest of the moonbat sites.

[Steve 'StatMan']

An interesting site - thanks for the source, Light. It helps to consider what the source is, lots of opinions on this site. Lots of things presented as facts and opinions, not sure what are facts I can agree with and which ones I'm skeptical of, as well as opinions and interpretations of facts. But, that's why we all have opinions and decide.

This article is actually from another website, one that came up in my hits. Interestingly, it appears it was originally written on '3-4-3' probably a non-U.S. styled date, so it could be 3rd of April, 2003 or March 4th, 2003, I don't know, but certainly before the 2003 Iraq Invasion. Comes from a website called No War For Israel, and a link: http://www.nowarforisrael.com/articles/bush_israeli_advisors.html

Other interesting notes from the article include their description of person number 32:

32). Colin Powell-----Secretary of State, ex-chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, of Jamaican origin, he has one Jewish ancestor on his father's side. He grew up in a heavily Jewish-populated neighborhood in New York, and speaks Yiddish. The first day of being picked (12/16/2000) he said he wanted to toughen sanctions on Iraq, and will work to "re-energize the sanctions regime," even though he knows the embargo has killed 2 million Iraqi civilians.

At least it's helps to know somebody else remembered that the sanctions against Iraq weren't resolving the problems, and killed a lot of Iraqi's. Anyone remember how many Iraqi's have died from the invasion of Iraq and outster of Sadam?



Interesting other paragraphs near the end:
Now that Bush has hired these pro-Israel Jewish lobbyists to the highest positions in the land, they have escalated the fanatical war-mongering against Iraq, all the while they support the Israeli war-criminal Sharon in his terrorism and mass-killings of Palestinian civilians. It seems that the price of the acheiving the White House involves selling out to the Israeli lobby, much like Clinton, before him.

and a paragraph futher down:

The question that remains unanswered is, will the Israeli lobby use (or create) some scandal to blackmail Bush into attacking Iraq, like they used Monica Lewinsky against Clinton to force him to launch "Operation Desert Fox," in December 1998? Watch how many of the media outlets and some politicians are blaming Bush for the all the corporate scandals and the huge recession the U.S. is going through.

Interesting. Say, I don't know what listed in the original post is fact or not. Not saying anything isn't, just don't know all of it is, or that I would agree with the interpretations. That's why I was wondering about the source, and where it came from. When I did a Yahoo Search on just the phrase 'Feith is a pro-Israel extremist' , and found numerous verisions of the same text descriptions of the people (Feith, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle) I was wondering which one it came from, one I maybe had or hadn't seen, since it could mean the author, and perhaps yourself, could be coming from a whole number of different places (do the search yourself, it might suprise you how many places it is, and some of the varied positions those sites take.)

While I may not agree with the things in the article and some things on the rense.com website, it is a free opinion website, so I can understand it better as well, and I Thank You, Light, for letting us know where it came from, and sheding some more Light on your perspective, plus I will note you may not necessarily agree with anything you did not post from the article.

[lsbets]

No War for Israel is a David Duke run site.

That is an interesting, to say the least, description of Colin Powel. I wonder is he knows he's a Jew. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Steve 'StatMan']

No War for Israel is a David Duke run site.

Now THAT is interesting to know, esp. since reading the article, it appears that it might be the original source of the descriptions of the administrations people, both of the people from the original quote (Feith, Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl) as well as the quotes I presented regarding Colin Powel, and the opinions and anaylsis that was expressed.

This information sure got posted a lot of places. Don't know how many people agree or disagree with it, or would even know of it's real origin, wherever it's been posted.

Sure has been a couple of interesting days with 'Fun With The Internet and Search Engines,' eh?

[lsbets]

One more interesting note Steve - the article was dated 3-4-3, and on March 5, 2003 on David Duke's radio show, he spke on the exact same subject as the article - the Jews who run the Bush administration.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Wow. Not that I plan on listening, but is that on an archive of his (Duke?) Or a list? I wouldn't remember a horse's name that ran on a date 2 years ago. Is there a list? (The 'ole source question).

[lsbets]

Okay, its a slow day, I'm finding this whole thing interesting:

No War for Israel was started on Fen 5, 2003. Here is the whois search for ownership:

"Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. provides the data in the directNIC.com
Registrar WHOIS database for informational purposes only. The information
may only be used to assist in obtaining information about a domain name's
registration record.

directNIC makes this information available "as is", and does not guarantee
its accuracy.


Registrant:
The Duke Report
PO Box 188
Mandeville, LA 70470
US
985-626-7714
Fax:985-624-3351


Domain Name: NOWARFORISRAEL.COM

Administrative Contact:
Manager, Domain webmaster@davidduke.com
PO Box 188
Mandeville, LA 70470
US
985-626-7714"

Duke had Bruce Allan Breeding run the site for him. Previously, Breeding worked for Duke's Congressional campaign, and before that he was a regional organizer for the National Alliance - the group run by William Pierce who wrote The Turner Diaries, the book that inspired Timothy McVeigh. On the original version of the web site, all of the articles had outside authors with their names listed, except for the one in question in this thread, which was listed without the name of an author. I think it is reasonable to assume that the article in question was written by either the site owner - Mr. Duke, or the man who runs the site - Mr. Breeding.

The other funny thing in the article is the statement that the Israeli Lobby engineered the Lewinsky scandal to blackmail President Clinton. If that were the case, with all the money the Israeli lobby has, don't you think they would have hired a good looking chick to guarantee success? Or did they have reason to believe Clinton had a proclivity for chubby girls?

[Steve 'StatMan']

Turns out Duke does have a link to the 3-5-03 speach on his website.

[JustRalph]

If that were the case, with all the money the Israeli lobby has, don't you think they would have hired a good looking chick to guarantee success? Or did they have reason to believe Clinton had a proclivity for chubby girls?

Boy, you have really thought that one through...............Good Point!

[cryptic1]

Having just read this entire thread I must thank you Steve and lsbets
for taking the time to delve below the surface to find the sources of
the garbage cited by Mr. Darkness. There really is no point arguing with
people with the mindset of the Prince of Darkness because, they are so
blinded by hate, that they believe any vile screed that reinforces their
belief system. All of the so called facts cited in the article he posted are
nothing more than half truths and innuendo. Only those with a built in
bias wouldn't recognize the obvious malevolence and malice in the posted
article. The fact the poster didn't post the web site initially, and only
later, after repeated prodding, shows how disingenuous he is. I think
I shall be turning off this Light in the future.

cryptic1

[toetoe]

cryp,

Biased, okay. Blinded by hate? No. You contradicted yourself. First, owing to his congenital bias, he failed to recognize the redundant duo of malevolence and malice. Then, he was pure evil and presumably able to recognize the maleficent duo. Sort of a mal-function (they can be fun if cute women attend). I vote for the first option, bias. I DO think Light was asking for it, starting this thread. Not flaming, but smoldering, kinda.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Thank you very much Cryptic1 and others.

I still feel compelled to add that, in my heart of hearts, I'm still hoping that this was just a case of Light having searched through a large number of internet opinions that have expressed opposition to the war and the loss of innocent lives, that this was just a site that he stumbled across. I'd mostly gotten the theme of an adamant opposition of lives lost from Light's posts. I know people quote a lot of sources, some pretty adamant in their opposition in to the war and the attributes and the names they hang on members of the Administration. But since the descriptions seemed to be rather hateful, and go far beyond the normal issues he'd presented, and sensing he written the descriptions especially for us, I felt compelled to find out where it came from. I'm hoping that the original author's hiding of the real source his outrage expressed in the article are not actually held by Light at all. I'm hoping it isn't what it seems. It's my nature, part of the more well known, other 'Light', that leads me as long as I'm willing to follow. I don't claim to be faultless, of course. Just one of many trying to follow the Light.

[Light]

So I am against killing. And I get condemned for that.

I don't like either sides approach. None is better than the other. I especially dont like when one side claims itself OK to kill and denounces the other side for practicing the same business. That is the Ultimate hypocrite.

We're all going to die. One thing I know 100% that happens close to death is that a person takes a good look at themselves in a way they rarely do. And I can tell you that every person on both sides comes to the same truth. You have no right to take another life. This is not taught but erupts from an automatic truth within. Eventually everyone is forced to look within wether they like it or not. And the truth does not accept excuses.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm against killing as well. I would venture a guess that 99.99999% of the people who have ever posted on this message board are also against killing.

[Suff]

It's hard not to get tangled up with the anti-semitics when you try and discuss Christian and Jewish Zionism.

It's a trap, , worse than that, its a minefield.

Yet we all know it exists at the highest levels of both Countries.

Fulfilling Prophecy has always been the angst of the Powerful.

Pat Robertsons "woe to any prime minister that divides Isreal" is the latest example of a Christian with a Biblical Interest in Isreal, and as a function of that, support for the Jewish faith.

It's a very hard subject to discuss/.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionists

[boxcar]

So I am against killing. And I get condemned for that.

I don't like either sides approach. None is better than the other. I especially dont like when one side claims itself OK to kill and denounces the other side for practicing the same business. That is the Ultimate hypocrite.

We're all going to die. One thing I know 100% that happens close to death is that a person takes a good look at themselves in a way they rarely do. And I can tell you that every person on both sides comes to the same truth. You have no right to take another life. This is not taught but erupts from an automatic truth within. Eventually everyone is forced to look within wether they like it or not. And the truth does not accept excuses.

Light, it's one thing to kill and another to murder. This, too, is a "truth within".

And while I'm at it, I think it's pefectly justifiable to kill some "innocent" bystanders when killing a few bad guys in order to save the many (which includes all the clueless peaceniks in this country). It's one thing, sir, to indiscrimanately murder targeted civilians, and quite another to uninentionally kill some innocents when killing the bad guys.

As I stated earlier, if the "innocents" are stupid enough to wine and dine with the bad guys, knowing the U.S. is after them -- then those "innocents" died by their own stupidity. Those innocents should have acquired more discriminating tastes -- been a little bit more particular with whom they associate.

Boxcar

Be a Liberal! Rewrite the Past. Lie about the Present. And offer no hope for the Future.

[Tom]

I'm against killing as well. I would venture a guess that 99.99999% of the people who have ever posted on this message board are also against killing.

And there is that 0.0000001% of us! :lol:

[toetoe]

'car,

Forgive the phrase, but I THINK I know what you mean. I just wouldn't say "perfectly justifiable," and no, I don't have a better term even though I pretty much agree with your sentiment. In other words, even though it's imperfectly put, I wish *I* had said it. :bang: :D :ThmbUp:

[Indulto]

Boxcar,

“There you go again!”

Your disagreement with one individual’s thinking was understandable and well-stated. Your subsequent gratuitous broad-brushed, negative painting of all individuals who have arrived at a subset of that individual’s conclusions with different justification detracted from a statement that might have otherwise stood on its merits.

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

“There you go again!”

Your disagreement with one individual’s thinking was understandable and well-stated. Your subsequent gratuitous broad-brushed, negative painting of all individuals who have arrived at a subset of that individual’s conclusions with different justification detracted from a statement that might have otherwise stood on its merits.

Would you mind restating that with specifics and in plain ol' American English? :D

Be a Liberal! Rewrite the Past. Lie about the Present. And offer no hope for the Future.

[Tom]

“There you go again!”


...and in normal fonts? ;)

[Indulto]

Boxcar,

What offers no hope for the future is that an intelligent, articulate person such as yourself chooses to divide rather than unite. At the risk of inciting further ridicule, I want to thank Statman and lsbets for conducting their inspired investigations and sharing the results in an objective, cogent, and non-inflammatory manner. That gives me hope!

[Light]

I'm against killing as well. I would venture a guess that 99.99999% of the people who have ever posted on this message board are also against killing.

Does not come accross that way.The #1 poster on this board has advocating bombing people and/or certain countries into oblivian. Others seem to agree with him.Certainly alot here in favor of the death penalty as we saw in the Tookie and child molester threads. This board is loaded with advocates of death.

[JustRalph]

Maybe a better way to state it would be, Advocates of Justice........and righteousness............. not advocates of Death per se. Sometimes there is a confluence of justice, righteuousness and the result would be an unfortunate death or killing to preserve what is right. Ultimately resulting in a greater good and ultimate justice.

[Steve 'StatMan']

So I am against killing. And I get condemned for that.

I don't like either sides approach. None is better than the other. I especially dont like when one side claims itself OK to kill and denounces the other side for practicing the same business. That is the Ultimate hypocrite.

Now that some of the tension has died down, let's take a look a this.

Yes, much disagreement has been over the death and killing issue in other posts, but I don't think you realize that that wasn't this issue that had gotten the posters in this thread so concerned and upset.

What had many of us concerned was that we found that the original source of what you had posted was actually written by and/or for David Duke, the former leader of the KKK, a proponent of much violence to say the least. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke) While you have advocated against the actions of the war, so has he, but his hidden message is not an anti-death one, but to stop the disruption of the foreign people he really wants to do the violence he can only dream of doing from the U.S. Since Duke's article appears deceitful, and your quoting it and being evasive as to the article's origins was suddenly and uncharacteristicly giving us the impression that you might be a supporter of his, and adding to that level of deceit. That's what we were trying to get at. When I read posts of yours like #2 & #3, I'm hopeful that this was just an honest mistake on your part, rather than adding you to the set of hypocrites that this thread you started is about. So please, tell us it was an honest mistake, so that we can all feel better. If it wasn't, well, it's a free country, still, so I can't say you can't choose an opinion, even if I disagree with it.

Does not come accross that way.The #1 poster on this board has advocating bombing people and/or certain countries into oblivian. Others seem to agree with him.Certainly alot here in favor of the death penalty as we saw in the Tookie and child molester threads. This board is loaded with advocates of death.

Wow, we could talk about the issues about this one for weeks.

Each person's perspectives and expressions may be different, yet some may be more like my own, so I'll toss out my own perspectives that shed some light on my own thoughts, and speculate on others. But I'll try not to fill up too much space or spend hopefully no more than another hour carefully wording my response. The thoughts are many and the emotions are deep, the issues so very complex.

Snapshots: War, myself and many of us honestly don't want violence and killing. War, just the threat of war, is supposed to be a deterent, and a motivator to make nations work through the differences. However, when the nation is facing hidden attacks, it is clear that negotiations are a weak response that do not stop those attacks, but rather enables more. A strong defense, plus the ability to mount an overwhelming offense when needed is the best way to assure that one's nation will have needed strength to have the serious edge in assuring that what we strongly feel is good and right gets accomplished, rather that giving up that edge to opponents or other groups that would force things we find seriously wrong if not downright evil.

For me, to not face the threats and dangers, as well as stop them when they attack our weaker allies and key interests that can be against us and our allies, would be the worst thing.

To summarize it in a bit of a humorous but pointed story/parable/paradigm, I have this awful vision of our nation being conqured by either a weak defense if not a strict following of the 'it is never right to kill anyone, ever' reasoning. I imagine myself doing hard, forced labor in a prison camp with another prisioner. The other prisoner says to me as we're working "These captors are tough on us, but at least I'll be morally justified by the creator when I die because I told everyone we shouldn't be fighting back and killing them when they were conquering us." In all the times I look at this vision, I still cannot imagine having the strength not to take the shovel I'm holding and bludgeon this fellow prisoner repeatedly.

As for the crime and punishment, much of what I sense you see is anger and
frustration, but over so many issues. Much of the anger is of outrage for the harm caused to the victims, and that enough justice is done. But most of us can clearly see that the system is broke in many places, but many of those who are advocating changes are, in my eyes at least, advocate turning into what results in a reward for crime system, instead of a dual punishment and rehabilitation system.

Rehabilitiating certainly has a value, but if it takes commiting a crime, especially a violent crime, for society to pull someone aside and work with them and teach them not to do the things our family and school system was supposed to do, then it's like we're making the victim, the community and tax payers pay the price to attempt to make turn this person into the person we'd hoped they would have tried to be when they were younger. That clearly isn't fair to those who've suffered as well as all who have to pay for this.

The prison system is often perceived as broke. Yes, it is a frighteningly haunting place, filled with many bad people, most not getting any better despite the hopes for rehabilitation. Many just use the time to learn from their fellow prisoners how to commit their crimes better, or learn of new schemes. Internal gangs rule take control over others. We hear the stories of the rape of fellow prisioners, and the joke: "This is your asshole on drugs 'o'. This is your asshole in prison for doing drugs 'O'. Why are we paying for a system that often trains others to become worse criminals, and sets up a great bullying and control network for people that most of us in society cannot stand. This seems like such a waste. It too is supposed to be a deterent, but it isn't.

Yet for heinous crimes, it seems appropriate that people should know up front that some crimes are so awful, so bad, and people so dangerous, that we're not going risk them harming others, or paying for their upkeep, or letting them become the prison bullies and have the upper hand in their prison world.

Some prisoners we are learning are being coaxed into false confessions, often through a plea bargaining process. We need to put a stop to that. While I know it is helpful to convince the guilty to confess and get the justice started, it isn't right to scare the innocent into admitting to things they didn't do just because they believe the D.A. can actually make a case that a jury will believe that someone commited a crime that they really didn't do. The innocent and the guilty will both adamantly plead innocent, making the task of finding out the real truth that much more difficult. Good lawyers can get a guilty person off. But a bad lawyer, and intimidatable false suspect with no laywer, and the person is doomed because they don't have anyone standing their ground, including themselves.

The crime and punishment issue is just too deep.

Shoot, my hour for this is about up.

OK, quick thoughts.

Worst of crimes, we hope the threat of the Death Penalty will deter enough, but we know it is not a total deterent.

We resent and are suspect of the system that handles prisoners. Prison isn't enough of a deterent either. Rewards seem to go to the criminal (a new chance, learn a new career, learn self control, forced into giving up an addiction that by not having comminted a crime against someone, that they were unwilling to do themselves.

The best deterent would be to stop criminals before they commit the crime. But nobody wants a Big Brother environment. If we knew that people who looked at child porn sites were 80%-100% likely to commit pedofillia, yes, it would help to know who they are so we can deal with them before a child is harmed (or more children are harmed).

But since we don't want to live in a monitored world, and therefore not free, we are left with a never ending set of victims, and dealing with criminals that were not detered by what ever punitive actions they should know are the cost to them if and when they are caught.

Bottom line: The world is far from perfect, and the main cause is people. No surprise, eh?

[46zilzal]

while we are talking about hypocrites

[Lefty]

46, not even close to analgous. Nixon was forced to resign because his guys broke into the dems office in order to gain an advantage for Nixon in upcoming elections, not to protect the country. Once again, I state, you libs(there's that word you hate but apropos)have noo sense of nuance or proportion.

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

What offers no hope for the future is that an intelligent, articulate person such as yourself chooses to divide rather than unite. At the risk of inciting further ridicule, I want to thank Statman and lsbets for conducting their inspired investigations and sharing the results in an objective, cogent, and non-inflammatory manner. That gives me hope!

I see you ducked the issue.

But I'm jumpin' for joy that two fine conservatives like LS and SM are able to inspire hope in you. Who knows...maybe there is some hope in your future. :D

Boxcar

Be a Liberal! Rewrite the Past. Lie about the Present. And offer no hope for the Future.

[46zilzal]

46, not even close to analgous. Nixon was forced to resign because his guys broke into the dems office in order to gain an advantage for Nixon in upcoming elections, not to protect the country. Once again, I state, you libs(there's that word you hate but apropos)have noo sense of nuance or proportion.
ah yes very Machiavellian :THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS

[Lefty]

GW, trying to protect this country. Why are you libs so all fired worried about the rights of the Talibon? Every pres from Lincoln to FDR has claimed very broad powers in wartime. No diff with GW.

[boxcar]

46, not even close to analgous. Nixon was forced to resign because his guys broke into the dems office in order to gain an advantage for Nixon in upcoming elections, not to protect the country. Once again, I state, you libs(there's that word you hate but apropos)have noo sense of nuance or proportion.

I would have added, Lefty...or logic. Libs have a real time handling analogies.
Maybe my next tagline will be: Libs are drownin' in their own analogies. :D

Boxcar

Be a Liberal! Rewrite the Past. Lie about the Present. And offer no hope for the Future.

[46zilzal]

Try VERY HARD to get through a SINGLE response without the words LIB or Dem ....that would be refreshing to depend upon a simple difference of opinion without depending upon the same reference EVERYTIME...You certainly have two things in common with the rutabaga: a lack of imgination and NO verbal ability

[Lefty]

46zilly, I calls em the way I sees em. I love being called a conservative, wonder why you libs don't like being called a lib. When talking about you libs or dems, how can I avoid the words?
Calling the Pres a rutabaga, that's your idea of verbal ability? Oh, my!

[twindouble]

Steve, that's an awful lot to think about and you do make some valid points that can't be argued. So I'm not going to pick at it or select something that's questionable because I think your premises on the subjects deserves respect.

So I'll just give my thoughts. First an foremost we are living difficult complicated times, many issues deal with. Not that other generations didn't find themselves in similar or worst conditions, ominous to say the least for some generations.

It's impossible to separate any one thing from the web of history, It's like a pot of stew, that many had a hand in, good and bad that goes back centuries. There's no way we can season it to suit everyone's taste, here or abroad. To me realizing that is the foundation for change, in other words start another pot of stew that incorporates the realities and truths of our existence on this planet and what we stand for as a people and nation. Without a doubt I would say our survival at any cost is the broth and ultimately the stew to feed the world. I think others before us gave enough ingredients to succeed, socially, economically and morally. It's about time this generation and those that want to preserve what's good, stand up to the plate and show their worth. That includes your subject matter and many more. Not just bitch, complain, bad mouth and take advantage of the freedoms they have yet to become worthy of.

T.D.

[PaceAdvantage]

You guys suck at keeping a thread on topic.

[46zilzal]

isn't the topics HYPOCRITES, well then it is dead on

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah, makeing a post with nothing but the the nixon/bush pix was really relevent to what SteveStatMan just posted....long, thoughtful post....then you go and try and take everyone in a different direction....

[46zilzal]

Thread STARTED about the current administration's being hypocritcal of bombings in Afgahistan. I agree and show not one but TWO examples of same and that is NOT off the spirit of what people are discussing here.

[Lefty]

46, it's not hypocritical to go after the bad guys; guys that were responsible for 9-11 and atrocities around the world. We did get some of the bad guys and almost got the no. 2 guy. It's only hypocritical if you are on their side and i'm beginning to suspect you are. 46, you are clearly against us. DUCK!

[Indulto]

Statman,
Thank you for exercising restraint and making an effort to avoid jumping to any conclusions that may be unwarranted. You are proving how difficult it is to implement “one size fits all,” but you encourage me to respond later to some of your comments.

Light,
Please understand that in the absence of a disclaimer, some will apply the principles of the following editorial originally printed in the L.A. Times:

Anti-Semitism, the early warning system American Thinker, AZ - Jan 19, 2006
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4236 (http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4236)

Box,
I now see that your self-evident untruths are now implemented as your trailing tag line. For a clear example of an issue ducker, please consult a mirror.:D

[Steve 'StatMan']

Thanks PA, Indulto, Twin Double & others. The subject is SO deep I'm not sure I could do enough in a short space and be too tright, yet I appologize for what there is of it being too long. Thanks PA for fixing a clarity mistake. Too deep a subject, but knew I needed to let Light know some things, and deserved some sort of response to the really tough question but important questions. The observations were tough, but made a point.

Some things and some posters get pretty upset and animated. Some things require tough action. But the tough talk can also get carries away some times. There are times when a lot of us have barks that are much worse than our bites, and some of us, esp. if we bark a lot, can tell the difference. Plus, when someones on a good roll of barks, it kind of messes up things interupting someone on a good bark.

Trust me, if any politician was to actually cater just to people who get riled up when they discuss and argue, they'd never be too close to getting elected. That'd be too ugly even for some of us barkers to vote for.

Well, time for bed. I didn't get much done tonight, and have an early morning. Unlike the prisoners where solitary confinement is considered cruel and unusual punishment, I live alone, work from home, and rarely get out except for burger runs, rare trips to the post office, the store, church less than I want to get there, and rare visits to the track. I spend too much time working and posting and reading. Pretty close to solitary confinement, and I used to be a pretty active, outgoing guy. I don't necessarily think separating prisoners into their own rooms with a TV and a few small things to do, alone, is a bad idea. Not great, but I sort of feel like I'm in solitary myself sometimes, and I didn't even do anything bad!

Heck, give the prisoners a DRF every day, and give them the results the next day, and they'll always be entertained.

The innocent, whether victims of war, or victims of crime, are always getting the worst of it. What is appropriate way to handle each case? The old man who was executed tried from prison to have the witnesses from his first trials killed. Wasn't an old man when he entered Death Row. Got to stay around long enough to be a very old man. Too deep. Too deep.

Good Night.

[boxcar]

Box,
I now see that your self-evident untruths are now implemented as your trailing tag line. For a clear example of an issue ducker, please consult a mirror.:D

"Self-evident untruths"? You're a hoot! The last time a Liberal looked Truth squarely in the face, they had to hook him up to life support systems because the shock was too much for his own system. Consequently, all other Libs have gone into a self-imposed state of Denial of Truth for purposes of self-preservation. :D

Be a Liberal! Rewrite the Past. Lie about the Present. And offer no hope for the Future.

[Tom]

Hippocrites - those who condem us for killing our enemies than turn around and kill thier unborn babies.

[toetoe]

Stat,

First, let me tie this into your post 39 on the "opinion spreading" thread, wherein you yell for joy upon hearing of the murder of a child molester in prison. We gotta talk about that, man. Maybe it could just leave you cold and unmoved, cuz our yelling for joy just greases the skids to you-know-where. Consider who's doing the dirty work of meting out justice, a solemn duty not to be trusted to folks who "only" slashed their old ladies, slit people's throats, or blew some liquor store clerks away for moving too slowly.

Loathe to face it as you are, dealing with violators, or "rehabilitation" if you must call it that, is not to be skimped on out of some vengeful solidarity for victims. When we become adults, we confront the complexities of human interactions, and we do what must be done within the framework of a "civilized," codified legal system.

Your dream of planting the shovel in your colleague's face is one I sympathize with. The thing is, we can't do that as a society, as we're acting for the whole. Same thing with a family. We can't risk being removed from our families for stunts like that, and for our kids to see it happen would be disastrous.

Point taken about Light's sources. Choose not to believe them, but don't fail to debate them ON THEIR POINTS.

This Iranian fool is not quite such an equal-opportunity hater as the term Antisemite denotes. He would have to hate all Arabs as well as Israelis to be an Antisemite. I hate the accusatory buzzwords anyway. He's probably more of an Antigentile than anything else. And never forget, one man's Mede is another man's Persian. :bang:

[Tom]

Philosophical question...


It is not right for oneman to kill another man.
Is it right for two men to decide to kill another man?
10 men?
50 men?
10,000 men?

At what point does the killing of a man become right, how many men.
And when that man is then killed, and the one who kills him meets his maker, does he present a list of all the other men who got together with him and made it right?

Somewhere, we cross the point of wrong to right and the only thing that changes is the number of people inviolved. How many?

God says :Thou shalt not kill.
We say: You were out voted?

Hmmmmm

[Indulto]

Originally posted by Tom,
“There you go again!”

...and in normal fonts?
If only Mondale had come up with such a snappy response.


Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
I'm against killing as well. I would venture a guess that 99.99999% of the people who have ever posted on this message board are also against killing.

Originally posted by Tom (#2),

And there is that 0.0000001% of us!
Originally posted by Light [in response to PA],
Does not come accross that way.The #1 poster on this board has advocating bombing people and/or certain countries into oblivian.

Tom,
Your wit, consistent outrageousness, and clever deployment of smiley faces may have dulled everyone’s outrage including my own. The search won’t accept “Fox” as an argument (any suggestions?) so I couldn’t find your post(s) that I remember advocated the assassination of Vincente Fox to see whether or not you had inserted a smiley face, so I ask you now, were you serious?

Stipulating that Hitler and Sadaam (and his sons) may have justified such action, what is Fox guilty of to deserve such a fate? What slaughters fall at his doorstep? If it is so clear that option is both morally and politically correct, why wasn’t it exercised on Sadaam and his family in place of an invasion?

While I agree that “innocent Iraqi/Afghan/Pakastani lives” do NOT include the hosts of Al Qaeda targets, suicide bombers and their enablers (including family), religious fanatics, or political militants, the term is hardly an oxymoron. Just as we cannot say all killing is wrong, neither can we say it is right simply to achieve political objectives. And saying that saving lives is justification after the fact -- but not before -- is true hypocrisy.

[ljb]

46, not even close to analgous. Nixon was forced to resign because his guys broke into the dems office in order to gain an advantage for Nixon in upcoming elections, not to protect the country. Once again, I state, you libs(there's that word you hate but apropos)have noo sense of nuance or proportion.
"not to protect the country"? And how, pray tell is this one protecting the country? Spending our resources on a personal vendetta in Iraq while Osama runs free and our borders remain porous and China makes it's presence known in South America and the hatred for America grows daily. Gimme a break Lefty, this dudes done more harm then even Nixon on his worst days. Also I am a liberal and proud of it.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Toetoe, thanks for your support on many of the questions and issues. And thanks for call me point out some of the things I've posted as well. As I'd posted in that other thread, I did find myself very glad over Geghan's death, much more so when it was announced, and uneasily a few hours later, as I prefaced that remark with "God help me", I'm not really happy I felt that way. I don't know that I'd have felt that way about others, but that case was special, because Geghan's molesting not only hurt more than just hurt 1 child and one family, he hurt a whole church, from harming our perception and reputation with others. (I had a much longer post at this point, but need to cut it short, I'm working, and it doesn't fit with some stuff in the thread). Just know I'm not always happy with my initial thoughts and emotions. I don't know that many reflective people can be satisfied with their initial reactions 100% of the time. We have to keep trying, and I am and all people should monitor.

Hope you caught my point that the coworker and the shovel story was in the event that I'm forced to live in a conquered nation, ruled by an enemy that does evil. Pope John Paul was forced to work and live through captivity in a forced labor camp by the Nazi's. I sure hope I never have to be put through that test. And I sure hope I'm never tested by fellow would-be prisoners who'd "Rather Be Red Than Dead."

[toetoe]

Of, course. Stat-ler Brother Man. I knew I could be frank (next time You be Frank, I'll be Steve) and without disclaimers. :ThmbUp:

Tom,
I SWEAR I pled for an abortion-free thread. I don't understand it, and I agree the whole world could be wrong, and it shouldn't change our minds, but I gather abortionists feel "it" is inanimate, just a thing. This begs the question, what would happen if I accosted a jubilantly expectant young mom-to-be, and I lightly (surgically, almost) slapped her around so as to cause her to miscarry the child/fetus/whatever? I maintain I would be guilty of assault, kinda like maiming someone. As to the fetus? No rights, man. It never existed. I can decide the fate of something inanimate and be only a vandal or thief.

[Lefty]

lbj, a personal vendetta? That is further ignorance on the part of liberals. He is making us safe by taking down terror cells, giving the afghans and Iraquis a chance at democracy. And yes, listening in on calls between terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.
If it were a personal vendetta it would have stopped when Saddam was captured and he would be dead instead of standing trial.
But facts are wasted on Bush haters because you are socialists and nothing else will do. I understand where you're coming from but quit hanging your arguments on the lies of Michael Moore.

[twindouble]

Steve, it was late for me last night as well, didn't have time to go any further, so today I'll keep in theme of my last post.

Like I said, it's futile to argure one issue without evaluating the source of the problem and not apply the historical significene of the subject matter. Slavery is a good example. In my mind slavery rears it's ugly head even today, it takes many forms and in some cases has no race or ethinic identity. That's another subject but is relivent to my theme.

I made my case in other posts on the hypocrisy of the church when it comes to child abuse and abortion. When you think about it, no good Christian should tolerate abortion yet the greater majority here are Christians. When it come to homosexuality, for as long as I can remember until recent times, being known as one didn't bode well for their future or their life for that matter. So as a young man it was common sense that they would seek shelter in the church and the pedophiles among them would pray on children. So like I said, my warnings fell on deaf ears and I was chastised for suggesting it. So, it was our ignorance about homosexuality and pedophiles that brought about those horrendous crimes. Now we have to deal with it, expecting the church to weed them out when they have a long historical record of protecting them, well what can I say, other than screw the church because I won't except it and my children are very well aware of it. Who in their right mind wouldn't get angry and expresses that anger when an innocent child is destroyed for life. When we can't protect our own children and ignore it, we don't deserve to have them.

T.D.

[boxcar]

Philosophical question...


It is not right for oneman to kill another man.
Is it right for two men to decide to kill another man?
10 men?
50 men?
10,000 men?

At what point does the killing of a man become right, how many men.
And when that man is then killed, and the one who kills him meets his maker, does he present a list of all the other men who got together with him and made it right?

Somewhere, we cross the point of wrong to right and the only thing that changes is the number of people inviolved. How many?

God says :Thou shalt not kill.
We say: You were out voted?

Hmmmmm


No, God said: "Thou shalt not murder." Capital punishment is clearly condoned in the bible. When God instituted human government, he told Noah and his sons:

Gen 9:6
6 "Whoever sheds man's blood ,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God He made man.
NASB

And the apostle when warning Christians about their civil and moral responsibility toward goverment wrote the church at Rome:

Rom 13:1-5
13:1 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing ; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. 5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
NASB

Paul speaks here to the extreme penalty that Christians could suffer under the civil justice system by clearly referencing a commonly used instrument of death at that time, i.e. "the sword".

Capital punishment is unmistakably sanctioned in the bible. And perhaps even more importantly, God leaves it to the discretion of Civil Authorities to determine which crimes are deserving of the ultimate punishment. However, this doesn't mean that God is pleased when civil authorities usurp God's authority through disobedience by abolishing capital punishment. Obedience to God's revealed will is not optional -- either by Man or Government.

Boxcar

Be a Liberal! Rewrite the Past. Lie about the Present. And offer no hope for the Future.

[ljb]

lbj, a personal vendetta? That is further ignorance on the part of liberals. He is making us safe by taking down terror cells, giving the afghans and Iraquis a chance at democracy. And yes, listening in on calls between terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.
If it were a personal vendetta it would have stopped when Saddam was captured and he would be dead instead of standing trial.
But facts are wasted on Bush haters because you are socialists and nothing else will do. I understand where you're coming from but quit hanging your arguments on the lies of Michael Moore.
yadda, yadda, yadda.

[toetoe]

boxcar,

"Whoever ... shall his blood be shed." The never-ending story right there. If that's not what God meant, don't cite it, I guess. I guess the Bible is like scientific studies, statistics and loose ladies --- they can be used to say or do anything.

[Indulto]

TT,

Amen.

[rrpic6]

lbj, a personal vendetta? That is further ignorance on the part of liberals. He is making us safe by taking down terror cells, giving the afghans and Iraquis a chance at democracy. And yes, listening in on calls between terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.
If it were a personal vendetta it would have stopped when Saddam was captured and he would be dead instead of standing trial.
But facts are wasted on Bush haters because you are socialists and nothing else will do. I understand where you're coming from but quit hanging your arguments on the lies of Michael Moore.

My favorite Michael Moore scene is when W. is reading the children's book, My Goat, and one of his aides walks in the classroom to whisper in his ear that the Twin Towers had just been attacked. W. stares into space for 7 minutes before leaving the classroom. So cool how Moore made up this video. That W. look-a-like was so real, but his acting was poor, no one is that clueless in times of tragedy.

[PaceAdvantage]

My favorite Michael Moore scene is when W. is reading the children's book, My Goat, and one of his aides walks in the classroom to whisper in his ear that the Twin Towers had just been attacked. W. stares into space for 7 minutes before leaving the classroom. So cool how Moore made up this video. That W. look-a-like was so real, but his acting was poor, no one is that clueless in times of tragedy.

How do you know what he whispered? Do you know for sure he used the word "attack?" You have no clue, and neither does Moore. But feel free to continue to create wondrous scenarios of what was said, and the subsequent reaction to those fantasy words.

[hcap]

Originally posted by toetoe boxcar,

"Whoever ... shall his blood be shed." The never-ending story right there. If that's not what God meant, don't cite it, I guess. I guess the Bible is like scientific studies, statistics and loose ladies --- they can be used to say or do anything.
As the old saying goes..."Even the devil can quote scripture"

Let me play devil's advocate, a simpler devil than one who broadcasts his version as let us say, Gospel...

King James Version
1-Thou shalt not kill: Exodus 20:13
2-Thou shalt not kill: Deuteronomy 5:17
3-Thou shalt not kill: Matthew 5:21
4-Thou shalt not kill: Romans 13:9

http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=Thou+shalt+not+kill&ver=kjv

Sometimes simpler is better.
How we deal with this issue is ultimitely up to our conscience(s).
Whether that conscience is created by God or men.

Intellectual counting of angels dancing on the head of a pin, don't cut it.
As they might say on american grandstand, FEELing the beat of the angels dancing, is what this is really about.

Can you dance to it box, or are you caught up in your usual convoluted justifications?

A Zen story..

Two monks are walking along and come to a river. A young beautiful women is trying to cross but the current is too strong. One monk puts down his staff and picks her up in his arms and carefully carries her accross. The other monk fetches the staff and goes accross as well. By the time he crosses the young women is off on her way.

Some time passes and the second monk is getting very agitated. Mumbling about "the strict code and rules" of their order. The first monk who carried the woman wonders what the problem could be

"My friend, what is troublin you? Are you upset with me?"

"Yes, you know very well we are forbidden by the head monk and all our venerable teachings not to overly involve ourselves in worldy affairs, and particularly with young women who must remain out of reach until we finish our studies. But yet you picked her up and carried her in your arms. You carried her!!"

The first monk replied " You my friend are still carrying her. I put her down back at the river"

[toetoe]

I want to recommend the writings of Rene Girard, a wonderful mind. His take on violence, and the take of his disciple Gil Bailey, might even get all PA'ers to agree. Now THAT'S a tall order, but he's good. :ThmbUp: ;)

[Secretariat]

How do you know what he whispered? Do you know for sure he used the word "attack?" You have no clue, and neither does Moore. But feel free to continue to create wondrous scenarios of what was said, and the subsequent reaction to those fantasy words.

The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05,Andrew Card whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."

Source - 911 Commission Report and GW himself as well as Card

That is what Card said he told the President and what the President confirmed to CNN.

...Here's Bush's account to CNN

"QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack.""

There's just one thing:

There is a problem with Bush's above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.

One more goof up or outright lie by GW. You can't see a video that has never been made before hand can you?

[lsbets]

Yes, he should have jumped up, ripped open his shirt to reveal the costume with the giant W, let the cape hang in the wind, run outside, and then up up and away .........
:bang: :bang:

[toetoe]

Can it be his recollection was mistaken?

[46zilzal]

his recollection of MOST things is screwed up. Why should that be any different?

[Lefty]

lbj posts: yadda, yadda, yadda.
_________________________
Usual liberal response when he has no counter argument.

[boxcar]

Originally posted by toetoe
As the old saying goes..."Even the devil can quote scripture"

Let me play devil's advocate, a simpler devil than one who broadcasts his version as let us say, Gospel...

King James Version
1-Thou shalt not kill: Exodus 20:13
2-Thou shalt not kill: Deuteronomy 5:17
3-Thou shalt not kill: Matthew 5:21
4-Thou shalt not kill: Romans 13:9


Sometimes simpler is better.
How we deal with this issue is ultimitely up to our conscience(s).
Whether that conscience is created by God or men.

Mr. 'Cap, here you go again...pretending to be a bible scholar when, in fact, you know next to nothing about scripture (and I'm being generous). While simpler is sometimes better, an aversion to intellectual lethargy and dishonesty, however, are always far superior. In other words: You get an F on your exceedingly superficial "homework".

Here is how some of the best translations available read in Ex 20:13:

Ex 20:13
13 "You shall not murder.
NASB

Ex 20:13
3 "You shall not murder.
NIV

Ex 20:13
3 "You shall not murder.
NKJV

Ex 20:13
13 " You shall not murder.
NASU

Ex 20:13
13 You shall not commit murder.
AMP

Ex 20:13
13 "You must not murder.
TLB

Ex 20:13
3 "Do not murder.
NLT

Ex 20:13

13 You shall not murder.
NRSV

Ex 20:13
13 "Do not commit murder.
TEV

Ex 20:13
13'Thou dost not murder.
YLT

It might (although I seriously doubt it) interest you to know, also, that a man named Jesus Christ was right in sync with the OT teaching on this subject, since no one knew it better than he did. How does Mat 5:21 read in some of the best translations:?

Matt 5:21
21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.
NASB

Matt 5:21
21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
NIV

Matt 5:21
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'
NKJV

Matt 5:21
" You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
NASU

Matt 5:21
21 "Under the laws of Moses the rule was, 'If you murder, you must die.'
TLB

Matt 5:21
21 "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.'
NLT

Matt 5:21-22
"You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.'
NRSV

Matt 5:21
21 "You have heard that people were told in the past, 'Do not commit murder; anyone who does will be brought to trial.'
TEV

Matt 5:21

21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.
NASB

Matt 5:21

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
NIV

Matt 5:21-22

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'
NKJV

Matt 5:21-22

" You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
NASU

Matt 5:21-22
21 "Under the laws of Moses the rule was, 'If you murder, you must die.'
TLB

Matt 5:21

21 "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.'
NLT

Matt 5:21-22

"You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.'
NRSV

Matt 5:21

21 "You have heard that people were told in the past, 'Do not commit murder; anyone who does will be brought to trial.'
TEV

Matt 5:21

21 "You have heard that people were told in the past, 'Do not commit murder; anyone who does will be brought to trial.'
TEV

Brief Greek Lesson:

foneuoo

NT:5407 foneuoo;
to kill, slay, murder; absolutely, to commit murder
(Thayer's Greek Lexicon)

phoneuo

NT:5407 phoneuo (fon-yoo'-o); from NT:5406; to be a murderer (of):
KJV - kill, do murder, slay.
(New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary.)

Most of the leading original language experts agree that the above GR term, as well as the Hebrew term should be rendered "murder". In fact, there are are other terms in the original languages that are ususally translated "kill" and "slay".

Moreover, another strong evidence that this is the proper rendering is that this avoids contradictions with other passages, such as the ones I quoted earlier. The translation "murder" , harmonizes with these other passages -- just in case you're interested in keeping things "simple".

Please do us all a favor 'Cap: Occupy yourself with piling all your Zen stories as high as you can on a pinhead of your choosing. Who knows? Perhaps you'd achieve fame by making it into the Guinness Book of World Records. But for certain, we'd all be spared from your rampant and incurable mendacities of the intellectual nature.

Boxcar

Be a Liberal! Rewrite the Past. Lie about the Present. And offer no hope for the Future.

[Light]

Steve

Re Quote: If the source of what I quoted turns out to be from a criminal,so be it. I only quoted what I wanted to make a point. I only quoted what I agreed with. It is you,LS and Ralphie boy who were looking for the source. I didn't think it was relevant,but since you guys were starting to think I was a Jihadist,I did you the courtesy. Still nobody has refuted anything from what I quoted.

Re Killing: I'm not stupid enough to say if someone comes after you with a butcher's knife and you shoot him in self defense that's a no,no. What I'm saying is that too many Americans subscribe to the ideas dished out by our hypocritical government regarding war and collateral damage.

Have you ever considered that the ultimate hypocrates in Congress have approved billions for wars and at most maybe 1% have had their kids see combat in the 2 gulf wars and the Vietnam war put together? That's just the tip of the iceberg.

[boxcar]

boxcar,

"Whoever ... shall his blood be shed." The never-ending story right there. If that's not what God meant, don't cite it, I guess. I guess the Bible is like scientific studies, statistics and loose ladies --- they can be used to say or do anything.

And you would have done well to have added to that last phrase, "especially by those of us who don't like its message."

Boxcar

Be a Liberal! Rewrite the Past. Lie about the Present. And offer no hope for the Future.

[Secretariat]

Box,

Can you help me with these two Bible quotes? I reference the King James Version and the New International Version

Exodus 35:2 [KJV] Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. [NIV] 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.

Question #1 - Is the Bible advocating here that we should kill people from Walmart who work on Sunday? or pro football players who play for money on Sunday? or policemen? or firemen, or peopel who have to work two jobs? Help me here on this one.

Lev 25:44 [KJV] Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. [NIV] Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

Question #2 - Is the Bible saying we shoud only take slaves from Mexico and Canada if we're Americans? Help me on this one as well.

[Tom]

Adulto....YES. No smiley face, I was serious and am still serious.
Fox is an enemy of America - enough said. Blast his worthless ass to hell.
His death will be cause for celebration.
Ditto the SOB in N Korea, Iran, Sudan.

Had we done the dame thing to Bin Laden when we had the chance, things would a lot different today.

[toetoe]

box,

Let me spell out my previous message, then move on to defusing your h-blasting-cap.

My point was that if you kill a killer, you become a killer. You can try to justify it, especially if he diddled children, as no politically savvy person would dare to ascribe rights to a child diddler, but however you excuse it, it seems you're violating the cited Scripture. Any killer can come up with a reason, and then after you kill the killer, his clan can come after you, presumably.

You start with hcap by implying he's ignorant, nescient even, of Biblical Scripture. Then you call him a liar. Which is it, mistaken or mendacious?

[PaceAdvantage]

The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05,Andrew Card whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."

I don't want to rehash this again....being told that America is under attack makes the look on his face even more understandable.....

What exactly could Bush have done that morning in the 5 or 10 minutes you say he wasted staying in the classroom, that could have saved lives on 9/11? Answer: NOTHING.


Have there been DEADLY terrorist attacks all around the world since 9/11, including attacks in non-Middle Eastern nations? Answer: YES

Have there been anymore terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 while Bush has been president? Answer: HELL NO!

You can't argue with success....it doesn't matter how long he sat in that classroom, because from the moment he left that school, he's kept his word to keep America safe from attack. And that's a fact you can't spin.

[Secretariat]

I don't want to rehash this again....being told that America is under attack makes the look on his face even more understandable.....

What exactly could Bush have done that morning in the 5 or 10 minutes you say he wasted staying in the classroom, that could have saved lives on 9/11? Answer: NOTHING.


Have there been DEADLY terrorist attacks all around the world since 9/11, including attacks in non-Middle Eastern nations? Answer: YES

Have there been anymore terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 while Bush has been president? Answer: HELL NO!

You can't argue with success....it doesn't matter how long he sat in that classroom, because from the moment he left that school, he's kept his word to keep America safe from attack. And that's a fact you can't spin.

I'm not going to revisit all of this again either, but I responded to a comment you made. Here is your comment:

"How do you know what he whispered? Do you know for sure he used the word "attack?" You have no clue, and neither does Moore. But feel free to continue to create wondrous scenarios of what was said, and the subsequent reaction to those fantasy words."


My point is that Moore knows exactly that the word attack was used when Card whispered to GW that day, because both Card and GW have testified and it is part of the record of the 911 Commission that the word attack was used. Your assertion above that Moore is making up those words is inaccurate. Source- GW and Andrew Card and 911 commission. They're not "fantasy" words as you state, unless GW and Card are lying to us and to Moore and to the 911 Commission and I would doubt that.

[Tom]

Sec, that was a while ago..refresh my memory. Was this during the 42 minutes that Kerry, by his own admission, sat motionless, unable to function during the attack, or was it after he came to and RAN from the building?

I couldn't remember. :sleeping:

[Indulto]

Originally posted by toetoe
You start with hcap by implying he's ignorant, nescient even, of Biblical Scripture. Then you call him a liar. Which is it, mistaken or mendacious?

TT,
Steward or referee, a cooler head is indispensable when offense is the defense of choice. It sure works for the “Glove”, why not a “Box”?;)

[boxcar]

Box,

Can you help me with these two Bible quotes? I reference the King James Version and the New International Version

Exodus 35:2 [KJV] Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. [NIV] 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.

Question #1 - Is the Bible advocating here that we should kill people from Walmart who work on Sunday? or pro football players who play for money on Sunday? or policemen? or firemen, or peopel who have to work two jobs? Help me here on this one.

Lev 25:44 [KJV] Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. [NIV] Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

Question #2 - Is the Bible saying we shoud only take slaves from Mexico and Canada if we're Americans? Help me on this one as well.

Sec, these passages are easily enough to uderstand in their contexts -- i.e. the entire context of the bible. The long and the short these passages is that these passages were relative to the Israelites under theocratic rule of the Mosaic Covenant (often referred to in the NT as the "Old Covenant". During Christ's first advent (with his death, burial and resurrection) he instituted the "New Covenant" which was prophsied in the OT. Under this "better covenant" (Heb 7:22; 8:6), there is no longer a nation with physical borders under theocratic rule, as there was under the Old Covenant arrangement. God's rule these last couple of thousand years or so is over his invisible but universal church, which is spread across the world. His kingdom (of God or Heaven) is invisible and spiritual in nature. Therefore, the passages you quoted were essentially for another time -- for another covenant -- for an entirely different kind of kingdom.

As discussed previously on this form, slavery was tolerated by God for a "season", but Christians were urged to be freemen, if possible. And Christian slave owners were solemnly charged with treating their "bondservants" with dignity and respect and love.

I also stated quite often here, that God's soteriological goals are concerned with individuals and personal relationships (both on the horizontal and vertical levels), not governments per se. This is why Paul could write the way he did in the passage I quoted in this thread earlier. And why Christ could say what he did in Mat 22:18ff. Such words as Christ's were never uttered under the Old Covenant economy of theocratic rule.

Likewise, sabbath breaking was a capital offense under the Old Covenant. Some Christians believe there is no longer a literal sabbath day -- that the sabbath now is a believer's "spiritual rest in Christ". (I hold to this position.) Other Chrisitians believe there is still a sabbath, but it's no longer the 7th day, but the "8th" day -- i.e. the 1st day of the week, which is the day Christ rose from the dead. However, capital punishment for disobedience has been abolished under the New Covenant arrangement.

Now a question for you: Besides testing me, what other purpose did you have for asking?

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

My point is that Moore knows exactly that the word attack was used when Card whispered to GW that day, because both Card and GW have testified and it is part of the record of the 911 Commission that the word attack was used. Your assertion above that Moore is making up those words is inaccurate. Source- GW and Andrew Card and 911 commission. They're not "fantasy" words as you state, unless GW and Card are lying to us and to Moore and to the 911 Commission and I would doubt that.

You are 100% correct. Thank you for clarifying what words were actually spoken. I'm not sure how it bolsters your position, given that at least one other major politician has gone on record stating he himself sat there STUNNED for something like 45 minutes when he heard what was going on in New York City that day. You have corrected me, and I am 100% thankful for you doing that.

However, it does not negate my follow up post.

No attacks, and no terrorist related deaths on US soil since 9/11. Way to go GWB! You're coming through when it actually counts. Go ahead, let the naysayers state that you sat in your chair 8 minutes too long. You couldn't have done anything about it anyway, it had already happened. And you're certainly not superman....you reacted like a human being. Good for you GWB. At least you didn't sit there for 45 minutes like Kerry said he did....that must be why GWB is still President.

Who wants to elect a guy who is going to sit around stunned for 45 minutes after our nation is attacked?

[Light]

PA

Besides 911 and the car bomb in the basement of the WTC in 1993 ,we havent had any attacks on U.S. soil. It's more the norm for us rather than any credit to Bush.

[Lefty]

light: Besides 911 and the car bomb in the basement of the WTC in 1993 ,we havent had any attacks on U.S. soil. It's more the norm for us rather than any credit to Bush.
______________________________________
That's right light, let's not give this pres any credit. After all, he thinks the oval office is for conducting the country's business.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA

Besides 911 and the car bomb in the basement of the WTC in 1993 ,we havent had any attacks on U.S. soil. It's more the norm for us rather than any credit to Bush.

But wait! We're supposedly the Great Satan! This President is supposedly pissing off more and more Muslim extremists with his Iraq invasion. You keep telling us how he's creating rather than eliminating more terrorists with this policy of aggression. Osama releases new tapes every couple of months telling us how we are about to get bombed.....

Yet, bombs blow up subways in England and trains in Spain, yet nothing happens here (thank God)! Are these Muslim extremists lost? Can they not find their way to America, the Great Satan, the HOLY GRAIL of targets?

Or maybe, just maybe, the policies put into place by this administration have been successful in thwarting further attacks against our mainland.

Nahhhhhh, Bush never does anything right....I forgot....only bad and wrong things emanate from the Bush Whitehouse....

[hcap]

Boxhead,

The fact that the bible is not innerant shown by conflicting versions of the bible. There are many, many translations and many many interpretations. What makes you so sure your further literal manipulations are closer to moral truths let alone spiritual truths?

You may not be aware of the multitude of divisions within Christianity. It may explain your ignorance of other views. Or is it your inability to see past the literal? You prefer fire and brimstone of the old testament to turning the other cheek of the new. Many of us disagree.

I never claimed authority in biblical scholarship. Unlike you.
I am only pointing out a larger pond you refuse to swim in.
Ah!, to be safe in your self-defined tiny portion of spiritual scholarship.
You are a biblical scholar in your own mind. Who can intrude on such slumber?

The Hebrew word “ratsach” is central to this. Some translate as “kill” and others as “murder.” As for “the original Hebrew,” that source is lost forever – there are no original documents available. We only have copies of copies of copies.... etc.

No one fully understands ancient languages. The best experts on the meaning of ancient Hebrew or classical Greek and Latin were those who spoke it and wrote it as their first languages – and they are all dead, of course.

So you can quote later versions of the bible that prefer the translation of “ratsach” as murder, but the earlier versions used "kill". If the bible is innerant and internally self evident, which version is correct. If God guided the hands of every biblical transcriber as required by the theory of innerancy, why is God loosing track of what he told those who did the King James version?

So all of your quotes use the later translation of "ratsach" using "murder".
All of mine were from King James that use "kill".

Dueling quotes.

Oh by the way, Zen is relevent to your literal biblical world view.
Here's what happens when the disciple fixates on the stick the Roshi (teacher) uses to point at the moon, not seeing the moon itself.

The stick arrives quickly.
WHACK, smack on the disciples' head

[hcap]

Further box, your greek lesson supports my contention.

You say
NT:5407 phoneuo (fon-yoo'-o); from NT:5406; to be a murderer (of):
KJV - kill, do murder, slay.Sooo.., the KJ version uses kill first, and NT uses murder first.

Did God loose track of his loyal stenographers? Or could humans somehow be mistaken. As perhaps you or I?

A couple of other problems. In innerancy
Now since you support "murder" as in premeditated,as the preferred translation, God also desires these folks who may or may not have been doin' any premetitating to suffer his wrath.

From the King James Version of the Bible,

Jehovah required the state to execute a person:

-for a stranger entering the temple: Numbers 1:51 states (in part): ...when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. See also Numbers 3:10, 18:7 and 17:13.

-for proselytizing: Deuteronomy 13:1-10 states that a person who tries to convince an Israelite to convert to another religion must be killed.

-for communicating with the dead: Leviticus 20:27 calls for the execution by stoning of all mediums and spiritists (aka spiritualists), both male and female.

-for black magic: Exodus 22:18 states: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (This is a mistranslation. The original Hebrew word is translated "sorceress" in most other versions of the Bible. "women who engage in black magic, harming others by the use of spoken curses.. )

So are all these folks guilty of premeditated murder?
Like those who talk to ghosts or try to convert an Israelite to another religion? Damn, there are many evangelicals today who try to convert Jews.

Maybe all other charlatans who claim inside knowlege of supernatural events should also be executed. Or maybe what was wriiten 2000 years ago should not be used literally.

Oh a few more

-for adultery: Leviticus 20:10 states: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. This is repeated in Deuteronomy 22:22
-for incest: Leviticus 20:11 states: And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death... See also Leviticus 20, verses 12 and 14. Verse 17 prescribe excommunication for incest with one's sister or step-sister.
-for temple prostitution: Leviticus 20:13 states: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.... This verse is often incorrectly interpreted to refer generally to homosexual behavior. See also Deuteronomy 22:24. Both verses, in the original Hebrew, refer to homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples, which was a common religious practice in the tribes surrounding the Israelites.
-for bestiality: Leviticus 20:15 states: And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast.... See also Exodus 22:19.
-for sexual activity before marriage: Deuteronomy 22:13-21 concludes: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die...".. Note that this applied only to women who had been presented as virgin brides and could be proven to have engaged in intercourse before being engaged or married. There appears to have been no penalty for men who engaged in pre-marital sexual activity.
-for sexual activity with both a woman and her mother: Deuteronomy 20:14 requires that all three be burned alive.
-for being seduced if engaged: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 states: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die. Note that this applied only to engaged women. Her fiancé could (in some cases) have sexual access to her, but no other man was permitted to engage in such activity as soon as she became engaged. There appears to have been no penalty for engaged men who seduced women.
-for rape of an engaged woman: Deuteronomy 22:25 states: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. A man who raped a single woman who was not engaged would only have to marry her and give 50 shekels of silver to her father.
-for prostitution Leviticus 21:9 states: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Executing someone by burning them alive appears to be reserved for a narrow range of criminal acts.

Premeditating murder evidentally is not what is required to strike out in olden times. God himself is not clear on when his people can righteouslly kill another.

[Tom]

PA

Besides 911 and the car bomb in the basement of the WTC in 1993 ,we havent had any attacks on U.S. soil. It's more the norm for us rather than any credit to Bush.

Don't forget the Cole, and various embassies. We had a parade of attacks against America until Bush retaliated after 9-11. They hit other countries, but they don't hit us.

[boxcar]

Boxhead,

The fact that the bible is not innerant shown by conflicting versions of the bible. There are many, many translations and many many interpretations. What makes you so sure your further literal manipulations are closer to moral truths let alone spiritual truths?

You may not be aware of the multitude of divisions within Christianity. It may explain your ignorance of other views. Or is it your inability to see past the literal? You prefer fire and brimstone of the old testament to turning the other cheek of the new. Many of us disagree.

I never claimed authority in biblical scholarship. Unlike you.
I am only pointing out a larger pond you refuse to swim in.
Ah!, to be safe in your self-defined tiny portion of spiritual scholarship.
You are a biblical scholar in your own mind. Who can intrude on such slumber?

The Hebrew word “ratsach” is central to this. Some translate as “kill” and others as “murder.” As for “the original Hebrew,” that source is lost forever – there are no original documents available. We only have copies of copies of copies.... etc.

No one fully understands ancient languages. The best experts on the meaning of ancient Hebrew or classical Greek and Latin were those who spoke it and wrote it as their first languages – and they are all dead, of course.

So you can quote later versions of the bible that prefer the translation of “ratsach” as murder, but the earlier versions used "kill". If the bible is innerant and internally self evident, which version is correct. If God guided the hands of every biblical transcriber as required by the theory of innerancy, why is God loosing track of what he told those who did the King James version?

So all of your quotes use the later translation of "ratsach" using "murder".
All of mine were from King James that use "kill".

Dueling quotes.

Oh by the way, Zen is relevent to your literal biblical world view.
Here's what happens when the disciple fixates on the stick the Roshi (teacher) uses to point at the moon, not seeing the moon itself.

The stick arrives quickly.
WHACK, smack on the disciples' head

You know...I believe I can a more intelligent conversation with a spider monkey long before you'd catch up to that monkey's intellectual integrity level.

Innerancy has nothing to do with interpretation. It has everything to do with the original languages in the source manuscripts from which scholars translate. And while there are differing scholarly opinions at times on the proper translation of a particular passage, a serious student is able to arrive at resonable conclusions most of the time -- usually due to the science of hermeneutics.

Furthermore, your inane and unfounded objection to the translation "murder" in many OT and NT passages militates violently against Reality. (But hey...Rreality, as many of us know it, has never slowed down a fool who was hell-bent to jump into a hot tar pit.) A Real World Fact: All civilized societies recognize the difference between killing and murder, so it's reasonalbe to think that the man's Creator does, too.

And moreover, if God didn't know the diff, then he's a murder or a killer, which gives us all a license to kill -- just like 007 in the Hollywood Fantasy World, for example.

So, please, 'Cap, feel perfectly free to toss the bible since you feel no one knows really knows what it's saying. I know it will certainly make you feel good. And we all know how very important this is to you. (It's a shame, though, that your brain doesn't get nearly the exercise that your emotions or passions do, though.)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Further box, your greek lesson supports my contention.

You say
Sooo.., the KJ version uses kill first, and NT uses murder first.

Did God loose track of his loyal stenographers? Or could humans somehow be mistaken. As perhaps you or I?

A couple of other problems. In innerancy
Now since you support "murder" as in premeditated,as the preferred translation, God also desires these folks who may or may not have been doin' any premetitating to suffer his wrath.

From the King James Version of the Bible,

Jehovah required the state to execute a person:

-for a stranger entering the temple: Numbers 1:51 states (in part): ...when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. See also Numbers 3:10, 18:7 and 17:13.

-for proselytizing: Deuteronomy 13:1-10 states that a person who tries to convince an Israelite to convert to another religion must be killed.

-for communicating with the dead: Leviticus 20:27 calls for the execution by stoning of all mediums and spiritists (aka spiritualists), both male and female.

-for black magic: Exodus 22:18 states: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (This is a mistranslation. The original Hebrew word is translated "sorceress" in most other versions of the Bible. "women who engage in black magic, harming others by the use of spoken curses.. )

So are all these folks guilty of premeditated murder?
Like those who talk to ghosts or try to convert an Israelite to another religion? Damn, there are many evangelicals today who try to convert Jews.

Maybe all other charlatans who claim inside knowlege of supernatural events should also be executed. Or maybe what was wriiten 2000 years ago should not be used literally.

Oh a few more

-for adultery: Leviticus 20:10 states: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. This is repeated in Deuteronomy 22:22
-for incest: Leviticus 20:11 states: And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death... See also Leviticus 20, verses 12 and 14. Verse 17 prescribe excommunication for incest with one's sister or step-sister.
-for temple prostitution: Leviticus 20:13 states: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.... This verse is often incorrectly interpreted to refer generally to homosexual behavior. See also Deuteronomy 22:24. Both verses, in the original Hebrew, refer to homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples, which was a common religious practice in the tribes surrounding the Israelites.
-for bestiality: Leviticus 20:15 states: And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast.... See also Exodus 22:19.
-for sexual activity before marriage: Deuteronomy 22:13-21 concludes: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die...".. Note that this applied only to women who had been presented as virgin brides and could be proven to have engaged in intercourse before being engaged or married. There appears to have been no penalty for men who engaged in pre-marital sexual activity.
-for sexual activity with both a woman and her mother: Deuteronomy 20:14 requires that all three be burned alive.
-for being seduced if engaged: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 states: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die. Note that this applied only to engaged women. Her fiancé could (in some cases) have sexual access to her, but no other man was permitted to engage in such activity as soon as she became engaged. There appears to have been no penalty for engaged men who seduced women.
-for rape of an engaged woman: Deuteronomy 22:25 states: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. A man who raped a single woman who was not engaged would only have to marry her and give 50 shekels of silver to her father.
-for prostitution Leviticus 21:9 states: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Executing someone by burning them alive appears to be reserved for a narrow range of criminal acts.

Premeditating murder evidentally is not what is required to strike out in olden times. God himself is not clear on when his people can righteouslly kill another.


You need to go back and read what I wrote to Sec. God is very clear on when "his people can righteously kill another". Capital punishment under the Old Covenant theocracy was part of the Israelites's civil law.

What part of "theocracy" don't you understand?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

box,

Let me spell out my previous message, then move on to defusing your h-blasting-cap.

My point was that if you kill a killer, you become a killer. You can try to justify it, especially if he diddled children, as no politically savvy person would dare to ascribe rights to a child diddler, but however you excuse it, it seems you're violating the cited Scripture. Any killer can come up with a reason, and then after you kill the killer, his clan can come after you, presumably.

You start with hcap by implying he's ignorant, nescient even, of Biblical Scripture. Then you call him a liar. Which is it, mistaken or mendacious?

Again, you don't understand the bible. Even under the Old Covenant arrangement, no Israelite was permitted to take the life of another on his own. Capital punishment was (and still is in all civilized societies) administred by the judicial system as found in the civil laws of those socieities.

And in the case of 'Cap, I offer no apologies. "Mendacious" was the correct term.

And, yes, he's equally ignorant of scripture. He just feels he knows of what he speaks.

Boxcar

[toetoe]

boxcar,

Of course I'm just nitpicking, as when you continue to call hcap a liar while arguing that he's merely mistaken. I'm being the debate police, which gets old fast, I'm sure. I am religiously non-religious, and it follows that I do not know the Bible well. However, I think Bible interpretation is a very worthwhile pastime. Much to chew on there. I wish we could interpret without the recrimination more understandable with politics, e.g. I forgot to mention in my Rene Girard touting that his work is heavy on the Bible interpretation, and of course, as pointed out here, more sensical when NOT taken literally.
Quick thread-hijacker's quiz:
How many of Jesus' miracles are really just warmed over versions of the feats ofHeracles, another half-man/half-god?

[toetoe]

Okay, my ultimate word on the point. I now see that you give God's followers credit for decoding his complex message, which is that you may not murder, but you may kill. I thought it was much more simplistic, apt to lead to much confusion.

As to your point about all having a license to kil, well, that's what I thought was going on, based on the Bible. So we CAN have some schmuck pulling the switch in good conscience, and we as a state take the heat/credit/blame. :) l

[GaryG]

As to your point about all having a license to kil, well, that's what I thought was going on, based on the Bible. So we CAN have some schmuck pulling the switch in good conscience, and we as a state take the heat/credit/blame. :) lAbsolutely...Texas' lead is not insurpassable.....let em rip!

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

[Lefty]

As a deterrent, execution works everytime. That particular murderous bastard will never kill again.

[boxcar]

Okay, my ultimate word on the point. I now see that you give God's followers credit for decoding his complex message, which is that you may not murder, but you may kill. I thought it was much more simplistic, apt to lead to much confusion.

No, that's not what I said. "You" may not kill. The "state" (i.e. civil authority) has the license to "kill" (read: implement capital punishment, declare just wars, kill life-threatening crooks in the commission of crimes, etc.) Maybe you should to go back and re-read Rom 13:1ff -- one of the central NT passages dealing with civil authority.

The only exception to what I just said is when one kills in self-defense -- when someone else is threatening his life -- or even someone else's life. In such cases, this isn't murder. It's killing in self-defense.

Boxcar

[Light]

But wait! We're supposedly the Great Satan! This President is supposedly pissing off more and more Muslim extremists with his Iraq invasion. You keep telling us how he's creating rather than eliminating more terrorists with this policy of aggression....


You just don't get it. You are praising a president who has never been as weak and as humiliated as 9-11. Tell me what other president had a foreign terrorist attack of that magnitude on our soil? Tell me what other president had a foreign terrorist attack on our soil besides 1993 and 2001.

That Bush allowed the signs of an attack of 9-11 to go unheeded is a disgrace.If you are keeping score, Bush has been the worst president to guard us from terrorist attacks.And yes he is making more enemies. The recent bombing in Pakistan created 5000 people in the streets yesterday chanting "Death to America" and "Long live Osama". Nice containment George.

[toetoe]

Light,
You're overstating Bush's guilt here. These things build up over time and, while I would characterize Clinton as the most corrupt, fiddle-while-Rome-burns Prexy of all, even he can claim the seeds were sown during prior administrations.
boxcar,
Somebody is pulling the switch, right? Unless it's God himself, it's a human being, right?
Re. John McAsswipe: Why not deter every fetus, every dissenter, every non-believer right into oblivion? All of my brethren that I can not allow to be swayed by this jackass will be saved by the deterrent of putting John out of his misery.

[boxcar]

Somebody is pulling the switch, right? Unless it's God himself, it's a human being, right?

Correcto. And human government is instuted by who, according to Rom 13:1ff?

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

You just don't get it. You are praising a president who has never been as weak and as humiliated as 9-11. Tell me what other president had a foreign terrorist attack of that magnitude on our soil? Tell me what other president had a foreign terrorist attack on our soil besides 1993 and 2001.

That Bush allowed the signs of an attack of 9-11 to go unheeded is a disgrace.If you are keeping score, Bush has been the worst president to guard us from terrorist attacks.And yes he is making more enemies. The recent bombing in Pakistan created 5000 people in the streets yesterday chanting "Death to America" and "Long live Osama". Nice containment George.

Damn right I'm praising his results. Countries much smaller than America couldn't protect themselves from terrorist attacks (England comes to mind immediately), yet this President has so far been able to protect America, which in many parts of the Arab world is referred to as THE GREAT SATAN (and has been way before Bush ever took office).

How has Bush been able to keep America attack free since 9/11? To what do you attribute his success? Like you say, we have the most enemies out of any country out there, yet they can't seem to find their way over here? Are they lost? Do they need geography lessons?

Or are they secretly waiting with their crafty plans like some like to say?

Baloney. If they could strike us, they would have since 9/11. We're going on FIVE YEARS now.

I guess Bush must be doing something right.

[GaryG]

Baloney. If they could strike us, they would have since 9/11. We're going on FIVE YEARS now.

I guess Bush must be doing something right.This is a great point. These terrorists love anniversaries and if they could have had another 9/11 every year since then they surely would have. They are scattered, decimated and on the run. The war on terror is clearly working. Have to impeach him for something else...:rolleyes:

[Steve 'StatMan']

You just don't get it. You are praising a president who has never been as weak and as humiliated as 9-11. Tell me what other president had a foreign terrorist attack of that magnitude on our soil? Tell me what other president had a foreign terrorist attack on our soil besides 1993 and 2001.

That Bush allowed the signs of an attack of 9-11 to go unheeded is a disgrace.If you are keeping score, Bush has been the worst president to guard us from terrorist attacks.And yes he is making more enemies. The recent bombing in Pakistan created 5000 people in the streets yesterday chanting "Death to America" and "Long live Osama". Nice containment George.

I'll contend that if the Clinton was presidency would have been 9-12 years, or if Gore had taken office in 2001, or anyone else, these attacks would still have happend. The vast majority of the planning and set up of the attacks had already taken place before GWB ever took office. The attackers likely didn't care who was in office when they finally put has their pieces in place and found their opportunitys to exploit the holes. Why it didn't happen 8-9 months earlier when Clinton was still President? They'd already had all their motivations years before. Maybe the terrorists were just slow workers.

[Secretariat]

Sec, these passages are easily enough to uderstand in their contexts -- i.e. the entire context of the bible. The long and the short these passages is that these passages were relative to the Israelites under theocratic rule of the Mosaic Covenant (often referred to in the NT as the "Old Covenant". During Christ's first advent (with his death, burial and resurrection) he instituted the "New Covenant" which was prophsied in the OT. Under this "better covenant" (Heb 7:22; 8:6), there is no longer a nation with physical borders under theocratic rule, as there was under the Old Covenant arrangement.

Whew...a lot here. So what you're saying is this Old Covenant was flawed and it took Christ to get it right, so i suppose all those who followed the Old Covenant pretty much screwed up following those old passages I quoted. A lot of people unnecessarily hurt. Wonder why God didn't mention something about this to Moses. Oh well.

Now, the part that interests me is that under this "better" covenant is there is no longer a nation with physical borders. So goodbye to the ole USA, and let anyone come in here. And why is Israel building a fence to keep Palestinains out of their country since there are no physical borders? Is that in violation of the "better" convenant?



God's rule these last couple of thousand years or so is over his invisible but universal church, which is spread across the world. His kingdom (of God or Heaven) is invisible and spiritual in nature. Therefore, the passages you quoted were essentially for another time -- for another covenant -- for an entirely different kind of kingdom.

As discussed previously on this form, slavery was tolerated by God for a "season", but Christians were urged to be freemen, if possible. And Christian slave owners were solemnly charged with treating their "bondservants" with dignity and respect and love.

Wow...a "season" of slavery. Glad i wasnt born during that "season". Was it the fall, spring, winter, or fall? Seems slavery went on for more than a season. God "tolerated" slavery. That kind of makes him fallible doesn't it? Not so omniscient if he tolerated slavery. But hey, if they treated their slaves kindly, I'm sure that makes up for it.


I also stated quite often here, that God's soteriological goals are concerned with individuals and personal relationships (both on the horizontal and vertical levels), not governments per se.

So you're saying God approves of separation of church and state?



This is why Paul could write the way he did in the passage I quoted in this thread earlier. And why Christ could say what he did in Mat 22:18ff. Such words as Christ's were never uttered under the Old Covenant economy of theocratic rule.

Likewise, sabbath breaking was a capital offense under the Old Covenant. Some Christians believe there is no longer a literal sabbath day -- that the sabbath now is a believer's "spiritual rest in Christ". (I hold to this position.) Other Chrisitians believe there is still a sabbath, but it's no longer the 7th day, but the "8th" day -- i.e. the 1st day of the week, which is the day Christ rose from the dead. However, capital punishment for disobedience has been abolished under the New Covenant arrangement.

Nice of them.



Now a question for you: Besides testing me, what other purpose did you have for asking?

Because I wanted to hear what kind of justification you would offer. Old convenant, new convenant? Is there a GW covenant?

[Secretariat]

You are 100% correct. Thank you for clarifying what words were actually spoken. ...You have corrected me, and I am 100% thankful for you doing that.


No problem.

[Indulto]

Sec,Hcap,TT

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo.

Now I remember why as a kid I was fascinated by tag-team wrestling before I realized it was preordained.:D

[Tom]

I have similar memories, only they involve the 3 Stooges. :D (cleverly deployed):rolleyes:

[Indulto]

Originally posted by Tom:
I have similar memories, only they involve the 3 Stooges. :D (cleverly deployed) :rolleyes:
The way I remember it, Larry’s Moe was Curly, Tom’s Dick was Harry, and they all desired to wrestle Jane Russell after defeating Box’s regularly deployed trio of dubious disciples -- Distortion, Distraction, and Deception -- in de basement of de bunker. ;) (derangedly deployed) :cool:

[Suff]

Baloney. If they could strike us, they would have since 9/11. We're going on FIVE YEARS now.

I guess Bush must be doing something right.

Its Childish to think we have'nt been attacked due to protective measures.

Your talking about people who are accused of building Nuclear Bombs! Yet they lack the wherewithall to manufacture fake credentials and enter the US legally or illegally through one of our borders?

Its mindboggling juvenile to think for a minute that they cannot.

I'm hopeful that our intelligence agencys have in fact stopped attacks, and deterred attacks. But I am stumped that people think this enemey is such a threat that we are at war, but yet so inept that they can't get into the Untied States? Thats nonsensical.

If they are unable to get here and obtain a stick of Dynamite, then we absoltuely have nothing to fear.

So much of what people are saying about the current policy seems to me, as common sense.

They admit the intelligence was wrong, they admit they did'nt forecast the insurgency, Colin Powell says it was the Biggest mistake of his career, Bush's guy who ran the country , Paul Bremmer, admits to many miscues and errors, It is not unreasonable to think Murtha speaks for a silent bunch at the Pentagon, We're missing 8 billion unaccounted for dollars in Iraq, The Judge in Hussiens Trial is stepping down, Violence continues...

Have you heard of the CIA Rollup in Iran? This administration leaked (accidently?) a document that allowed IRAN to scoop up all our CIA agents there? Google it up. Thats the Fuss. lol. Seriously. They're bungling so much these guys!!.
We have no CIA in IRAN now... that is why we can't get a real protest from within there. Its a mess.

Just google CIA rollup...the search within results for IRAN.

A NUTHA THING>.... just for the record. This Iranian President that is running his mouth? He has no power..:lol: His position is ceremonial. Like Queen Elizabeth. Listening to him is like listening to Pat Robertson on American Foriegn Policy....:lol: The country is run by the Supreme Leader, The Military, then the Judicary, then the Expediency Council... On which a few seats are taken by the Gaurdein Council.....of which the President is a member.

The Country is a threat..a real danger. But its important to keep things in Perspective. Pat Robertson calling for thr Assination of Hugo Chavez was as "Bright" as this Iranian Presidents comments are.



Botched CIA operations may have handed Iran vital information on how to make nuclear weapons and betrayed the identities of America's spies in the country, according to a new book on US intelligence.



The latest account of American intelligence failures includes details of how the CIA allegedly tried to slip Teheran some Russian designs for an atomic bomb, which contained hidden flaws that would have made any device inoperable.


The Iranians, however, were tipped off by the very agent sent to give them the documents



In a separate incident, the book claims a CIA officer mistakenly sent an Iranian agent - who turned out to be a double agent - information that was used to arrest virtually all of the agency's spies in Iran




I don't care where you come down on the Threat of Fundemental Islam. No one in thier right mind (in the dark of night) has complete confidence in Bush/Rumsfeld. If you do................check yourself.

Seriously.

[Suff]

At least you didn't sit there for 45 minutes like Kerry said he did....that must be why GWB is still President.

Who wants to elect a guy who is going to sit around stunned for 45 minutes after our nation is attacked?

Bush's daddy sat even longer. He was in Washington DC on 9-11-01. He was in meetings with Defense Dept Contractors and Investors.

You know who Bush Sr. was with that Morning?

Osama Bin Ladens brother. Mahmoud Ahmad Bin Laden.

Now WTF you think the chances that Bin Ladens brother would be meeting with Bush Sr on the same morning Osama drils NYC? huh:jump: LOL.

I have so much fun with facts...:lol:

I have a few more but i wanna give um to yea in small dose's:lol:

[Tom]

Maybe we have thwarted some attacks from itelligence obtained by:

1. Strong interogation techniques (lib torture)
2. Wire taps

*****
And so far as I know, Bin Laden's brother is no terrorist nor suspected of being one. Do we assume because he is a relative he is guilty of the same crimes?
Joe Kennedy had mob ties - do we assume Ted is a mobster because of his father?

[Suff]

And so far as I know, Bin Laden's brother is no terrorist nor suspected of being one. ?

So therefore, if he, or any Bin laden calls the USA from Pakistan then they should'nt be wire tapped. Correct?
:D
The point of the post was the Irony! Bin Ladens Brother is meeting with Bush Sr in DC when Osama takes down NYC?

Veddy veddy interesting.
Pink Panther.

[Secretariat]

So therefore, if he, or any Bin laden calls the USA from Pakistan then they should'nt be wire tapped. Correct?
:D
The point of the post was the Irony! Bin Ladens Brother is meeting with Bush Sr in DC when Osama takes down NYC?

Veddy veddy interesting.
Pink Panther.

Of course not Suff, they should just be given a free flight out of the country whenever they want.

[PaceAdvantage]

Its Childish to think we have'nt been attacked due to protective measures.

Your talking about people who are accused of building Nuclear Bombs! Yet they lack the wherewithall to manufacture fake credentials and enter the US legally or illegally through one of our borders?I never said that in the almost 5 years since 9/11, they haven't been able to get into the country. I was exaggerating with my "can they read a map" comment to make my point.

Its mindboggling juvenile to think for a minute that they cannot. How many times are you going to call my thinking childish and/or juvenile, when you couldn't even interpret correctly what I was stating?

I'm hopeful that our intelligence agencys have in fact stopped attacks, and deterred attacks.IF SO, DOES THIS NOT COUNT AS PROTECTIVE MEASURES?????!!!!!????

But I am stumped that people think this enemey is such a threat that we are at war, but yet so inept that they can't get into the Untied States? Thats nonsensical.Again....the third time....jeez.....

I don't care where you come down on the Threat of Fundemental Islam. No one in thier right mind (in the dark of night) has complete confidence in Bush/Rumsfeld. If you do................check yourself.You know, you can be a real ass at times. Where in the world did I state I had complete confidence in Bush/Rummy? WHERE? WHERE?

What I was merely doing was giving CREDIT where CREDIT was due, something you guys are completely incapable of doing, even if it's staring you SQUAW IN THE FACE.

:rolleyes:

[Lefty]

lightgushes: You just don't get it. You are praising a president who has never been as weak and as humiliated as 9-11. Tell me what other president had a foreign terrorist attack of that magnitude on our soil? Tell me what other president had a foreign terrorist attack on our soil besides 1993 and 2001.

That Bush allowed the signs of an attack of 9-11 to go unheeded is a disgrace.If you are keeping score, Bush has been the worst president to guard us from terrorist attacks.And yes he is making more enemies. The recent bombing in Pakistan created 5000 people in the streets yesterday chanting "Death to America" and "Long live Osama". Nice containment George.
__________________________________________________ __
If we hadn't had the "wall" put up by dems maybe 9-11 could have been prevented. Now you holler about 9-11 and condemn the very practice that can help prevent another one.
Those Pakistan people were dancing in the streets right after 9-11 so we're not making more enemies; they were there all the while.

[ljb]

Lefty, If the Pakistans have always been our enemy, why have we not gone in and eliminated Osama bin forgotten and why was W schmoozing with the President of Pakistan just a couple of days ago ? Hypocracy looms almost as large as corruption and cronyism in this administration. Turn off faux and face the facts.

[Suff]

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage]I

You know, you can be a real ass at times.



yea think?:lol: :jump: :ThmbUp:






Where in the world did I state I had complete confidence in Bush/Rummy? WHERE? WHERE?

What I was merely doing was giving CREDIT where CREDIT was due, something you guys are completely incapable of doing, even if it's staring you SQUAW IN THE FACE.



I'm speaking in generalizations ...not to you. I quoted your caption to address the point. I am not and do not intentionally insult your thinking. Your one of the smartest guys I've ever met, and one of the warmest and generous persons that comes to Saratoga every year.

[Suff]

.

:rolleyes:

btw... While I have you here. Security at the WTC was handled by a company by the name of Securacom.

On 9/6/01 they asked for and recieved a "Power Down" on floors 50 and above in the WTC. The reason given was to exchange some electronic surviallence equipment. There was no Power on Floors 50 and up for 36 hours. Hence, no video or electronic records of the comings and going that weekend.


Securacom is co-owned by Marvin Bush. George's brother.

And as circumstance had it.........he was in NYC on 9-11-01.

go figure.

[Lefty]

lbj, I have the facts you just need to get a clue. I thght you guys liked diplomacy? We don't have bin ladin but he has been reduced to making tapes from deep within the bowels of some cave. He has been marginilized and now it's you libs that don't want us to wiretap terrorists so we can get him and other terrorists. Yuh just keep wanting it both ways don'tcha?

[Tom]

btw... While I have you here. Security at the WTC was handled by a company by the name of Securacom.

On 9/6/01 they asked for and recieved a "Power Down" on floors 50 and above in the WTC. The reason given was to exchange some electronic surviallence equipment. There was no Power on Floors 50 and up for 36 hours. Hence, no video or electronic records of the comings and going that weekend.


Securacom is co-owned by Marvin Bush. George's brother.

And as circumstance had it.........he was in NYC on 9-11-01.

go figure.

I saw the tapes on TV - Two Planes flew righ into those towers. No mistaking it - they were planes alright.

[toetoe]

suff,

Yer point in mentioning the power-down? Equine behinds want to know. :confused:

[Suff]

suff,

Yer point in mentioning the power-down? Equine behinds want to know. :confused:

No video or electronic Records for the weekend of 9/8/01 exist due to no power on Floors 50+


Paragraph 10 from this link

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml


Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.


Check that site. Particulary the new section added 1-14-06. he reference's the many inquires and address's them. This is one of the Premier Civil Engineers in the world. (university of Sydney). His theory is that the Planes did cause the collpase.



I have varied thoughts on 9-11-01. One quick one that I frequently entertain is this.

beirut 219 Marines? The USS Cole, African Embassy's, Somalia. WTC 1993.

America was getting its Balls kicked in around the world and the American public showed no outrage. Beyond the Miliatry and other interested Americans. Rarely , after an attack on our forces abroad did the General Public show an appetite for War.

I'd imagine the hawks, and the military elite thought to themselves...Until America see's up close and personal how serious the threat is, the Military is handcuffed. So they either turned a blind eye, or outright manipulated the events to happen.

I do believe that the ideal situation was that the Planes hit the WTC on a weekend. OBL double crossed them?

I'm not convinced of this thought....but it does'nt sound prepostorous to me. Does it you?


People like to say Clinton had a shot at OBL and passed or messed it up. But two months prior to 9-11-01, OBL was in Dubia at an American Hospital and the CIA met with him there.

Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html



Additionally. OBL has Kidney Disease and requires Dialysis multiple times a week. You mean to tell me he is getting Dialysis in a cave? With Internet access?:D


Listen... I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Or debate anyone. I find this interesting. Its my bag. I'd rather do this than watch American Idol. Thats all I can tell you.

[lsbets]

Suff - do you have any links to verifiable information about the power down? I did a google search and all it turned up was variations on the same article referencing what someone who worked at one of the companies said, but I didn't find anything beyond that to verify it.

[Suff]

Suff - do you have any links to verifiable information about the power down? .

Not presently no.

[schweitz]

I'm not convinced of this thought....but it does'nt sound prepostorous to me. Does it you?





YES!

[Suff]

YES!

You mean.. Manipulating the American Public to support a war? Or Manipulating the American Public to support a War on terror in 2001? Because I can prove to you that the DOD and its intelligence allies in the Govt have done it. It is well documented that it is in thier Play book.

Vietnam. Gulf of Tonkin 1964


An investigation was soon launched by Congress (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Congress) to determine if an actual event took place. McNamara reported that there was definite proof of a second, un-provoked attack. This led Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Gulf%20of%20Tonkin%20Resolution) which was the closest thing to a Declaration of War (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Declaration%20of%20War) that would happen during the entire Vietnam War (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Vietnam%20War). McNamara also claimed that the ships standing by were not supporting the raids, and the crew had no knowledge of military actions in North Vietnam. He later admitted this was not true (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=true), and that the crew of the Maddox were fully aware of the raids and were concerned for their welfare (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=welfare) in the event of a retaliation.


Later on at a conference in Washington DC, Daniel Ellsberg (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Daniel%20Ellsberg) (former advisor to during the war) said:

"Did McNamara lie to Congress in 1964? I can answer that question. Yes, he did lie, and I knew it at the time. I was working for John McNaughton (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=John%20McNaughton)... I was his special assistant. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. He knew McNamara had lied. McNamara knew he had lied. He is still lying. (Former Secretary of State Dean) Rusk and McNamara testified to Congress... prior to their vote... Congress was being lied into.. what was to be used as a formal declaration of war. I knew that.... I don't look back on that situation with pride."

Ellsberg also revealed:

"What I did not reveal in the summer of '64... was a conspiracy (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=conspiracy) to manipulate the public into a war and to win an election (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=election) through fraud (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=fraud)...

which had the exact horrible consequences the founders of this country envisioned when they ruled out, they thought as best they could, that an Executive Branch (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Executive%20Branch) could secretly decide the decisions of war and peace (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=peace), without public debate or vote of Congress... Senator Morse, one of the two people who voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution told me in 1971, '...had you given us all that information... seven years earlier, in 1964, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution would never have gotten out of Committee (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Committee). And, if it had, it would never have passed...' But there was a time in my life later... knowing the consequences of all these policies... when I did say to myself that I'm never going to lie again with the justification (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=justification) that someone has told me I have to... I've never been sorry I've stopped doing that."




[

[lsbets]

Suff, don't you always get all over Lefty for bringing up what has happenned in the past? ;)

[Suff]

Suff, don't you always get all over Lefty for bringing up what has happenned in the past? ;)

I'm highlighting the existence of these types of things. I don't trust. I simply do not trust Govt. I don't. I do not find it far fetched. I find it plausible.

Scwietz says its prepostorous that the GOVT would manipulate facts to garner public support for Policy decisions. I don't find it so. I simply gave an example of it happening. It happens. I'm cognizant of that fact.

[lsbets]

Not to speak for Schweitz, but I don't think he was saying it was preposterous for the Gov't to manipulate facts, I think he was saying it was preposterous that the gov't was behind 9/11.

[schweitz]

Not to speak for Schweitz, but I don't think he was saying it was preposterous for the Gov't to manipulate facts, I think he was saying it was preposterous that the gov't was behind 9/11.

Yes, that is what I was saying---thanks lsbets.

[Tom]

Suff said:
"America was getting its Balls kicked in around the world and the American public showed no outrage. Beyond the Miliatry and other interested Americans. Rarely , after an attack on our forces abroad did the General Public show an appetite for War."

If it makes you feel any better, I was calling for a major ass-kicking session in the middle east since the 1972 Olympics in Munich and the Israeli olympic team.

I thought the USS Cole was more than enough reson to start leveling cities over there. Were it up to me, Yemen would be nothing more than a myth by now - Atlantis II. People heard of it but could never find it. Ocean would still be about 900 degrees around there. Global warming would have been replaced wtih global boiling!

[Secretariat]

I'm highlighting the existence of these types of things. I don't trust. I simply do not trust Govt. I don't. I do not find it far fetched. I find it plausible.

Scwietz says its prepostorous that the GOVT would manipulate facts to garner public support for Policy decisions. I don't find it so. I simply gave an example of it happening. It happens. I'm cognizant of that fact.

I agree Suff, but unless you've incontrovertible proof you've nothing but conspiracy theory.

The Gulf of Tonkin is an excellent example. Problem is it takes a lifetime to get to the bottom of things, and sometimes you never do.

[JustRalph]

I thought the USS Cole was more than enough reson to start leveling cities over there.

I thought for sure that was the last straw. Bill and his boys decided to lay down. I was flabbergasted. Absolutely flabbergasted at the non reaction. I had never missed Ronald Reagan more than that week. Until 9-11 that is.

[boxcar]

Whew...a lot here. So what you're saying is this Old Covenant was flawed and it took Christ to get it right, so i suppose all those who followed the Old Covenant pretty much screwed up following those old passages I quoted. A lot of people unnecessarily hurt. Wonder why God didn't mention something about this to Moses. Oh well.

I'm beginning to think that you and 'cap are joined at the hip. The only flaws around here are those that abundantly abound inside your head. :D

No, Christ didn't come to correct the "flaws" in the OT; for there were none to correct in the scheme of progressive revelation given in the context of human history. He came to fulfill the Law and Prophets (the OT in case you're wondering what this means). The Old Covenant predicts and anticipates Christ. The New Covenant fulfills the Old and fully reveals all its types and shadows, thereby interpreting the Old..


Now, the part that interests me is that under this "better" covenant is there is no longer a nation with physical borders. So goodbye to the ole USA, and let anyone come in here. And why is Israel building a fence to keep Palestinains out of their country since there are no physical borders? Is that in violation of the "better" convenant?

When was the last time you were in your right mind? Go back and read what I said in its context. God no longer has a covenant with any nation with physical borders. I never said God abolished nations and national borders.

Wow...a "season" of slavery. Glad i wasnt born during that "season". Was it the fall, spring, winter, or fall? Seems slavery went on for more than a season. God "tolerated" slavery. That kind of makes him fallible doesn't it? Not so omniscient if he tolerated slavery. But hey, if they treated their slaves kindly, I'm sure that makes up for it..

Slavery was very much part of all the Eastern cultures. Again, God’s soteriological plans and purposes didn’t include reforming governments, societies or cultures – except to the extent that Christ’s disciples, in this New Covenant economy, would be able to influence governments, societies, etc. for the good vis-à-vis a grassroots movement. God is a personal Being who desires personal relationships with individual people. He is a covenantal God who enters into covenant relationships with his chosen people – individuals, not groups or governments

So you're saying God approves of separation of church and state?

You really need help.

While scripture doesn’t address this issue directly, nonetheless in principle it does. God, as sovereign King of his creation, sets up kings (rulers, authorities, etc.) and tears them down according to his sovereign purposes which, again, are soteriological in nature. God punishes the wicked, rebellious, godless nations of this world by giving the people of those nations the kinds of governments they deserve – giving the people rulers that are as wicked and corrupt as they are. Even a cursory study of OT Israel will reveal that for the most part, Israel was led by wicked kings because the people broke God’s covenant and became a thoroughly apostate nation. Therefore, God dealt with the nation accordingly.

Likewise, in this day and age, we see a world full of wicked and godless nations, and these nations are impoverished and their poverty drives all kinds of other human miseries, e.g. sicknesses, diseases, malnutrition, etc. Not only this -- but the leaders of these nations are just as godless and wicked as the people they rule. When you look at all the nations in the world, there really is only a relatively few whose economies remotely resemble anything healthy and vibrant. The U.S. is what it is (at the top by a large margin) because at one time we largely subscribed to the Judeo-Christian ethic. However, I believe the U.S. in now in a steep decline because, as a nation, we have been straying for the last century and half or so, farther away from God with each succeeding generation.

To answer your question, then: No, I don’t believe that God is pleased that his church has failed to influence society for the better. Nor is he pleased with those who would prohibit the church from playing a larger role in government and society. Therefore, we can fully expect that God will continue to raise up the kind of leaders we rightly deserve.

Because I wanted to hear what kind of justification you would offer. Old convenant, new convenant? Is there a GW covenant?

Don’t know. But why are you concerned about whether God has a covenant with "GW"? You should be concerned about whether you have one or not!

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

btw... While I have you here. Security at the WTC was handled by a company by the name of Securacom.

On 9/6/01 they asked for and recieved a "Power Down" on floors 50 and above in the WTC. The reason given was to exchange some electronic surviallence equipment. There was no Power on Floors 50 and up for 36 hours. Hence, no video or electronic records of the comings and going that weekend.


Securacom is co-owned by Marvin Bush. George's brother.

And as circumstance had it.........he was in NYC on 9-11-01.

go figure.


Did you look at the 9/11 thread I started a few months ago? I have only found one source for this "power down" story, and it isn't the most credible one....do you know of any other sources?

If you have more to add, we should really start a new thread, or better yet, continue it here:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23758&highlight=9%2F11

[Lefty]

Unbelievable. Now the Bush's, not Bin Ladin are being blamed for 9-11. How low can the libs' cause go?
Which Bush was on the grassy knoll?

[hcap]

OK, all I found initially was the same article by Margie Burns re: SecuraComm and Marvin Bush. However I did dig up some other stuff including an old trademark infringement case.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=992043P
http://www.asksam.com/cgi-bin/as_web6.exe?Command=DocName&File=Alito_Opinions&Name=Securacomm%20Consulting%2C%20Inc.%20v.%20Secu racom%20Incorporated


Guess who the presiding judge was?
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALITO, Circuit Judge

And there is confirmation of Kuwati involvement on some level as the Burns article mentions.

"In May 1996, SecuraComm Pennsylvania and Libengood amended their complaints to add KuwAm Corporation"


Also the principals mentioned in the Burns article OTHER than Marvin are confirmed by this:

http://www.business.com/directory/real_estate_and_construction/property_management/safety_and_security/stratesec_incorporated/profile/

Stratesec Incorporated
14360 Sullyfield Circle
SUITE C
Chantilly, VIRGINIA 20151 +1 703 961-5683 +1 703 631-5163

Stratesec Incorporated. The Group's principal activity is to provide comprehensive technology based security solutions to large and medium sized commercial and government facilities. The services include consulting and planning, engineering and design, systems integration and maintenance and technical support. The Group provides services to airports, hospitals, prisons, corporations, utilities, universities and government facilities. The customers of the Group include Dallas Fort Worth Airport, EDS, Wachovia Bank, MCI WorldCom, Inc, Alltel Corporation, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force and the department of justice.


Stratesec Incorporated People:

Chairman - Wirt D. Walker III
President, Chief Executive & Chief Financial Officer - Barry W. McDaniel



And here is an article THAT PREDATES THE BURNS ARTICLE.
Reprinted from The Wal Street Journal, FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 1998

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:jyQ7rJn2YI8J:securacomm.com/pdf/wsj.pdf+Securacom&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14

THE FRONT LINES
Thomas Petzinger jr


"THE OTHER Securacom, it
turned out, was a younger
company, but no trifle. Its
owners included Mishal al-
Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal
family, and Marvin Bush, a son of the
president best known for rescuing Kuwait
from Saddam Hussein. Both investors were
friends of a Washington, D.C., venture
capitalist named Wirt Walker III, who is
Securacom’s chairman (and who last year
took the company public)."

And some more confirmation about Marvins' connections. Again before the Burns article.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/102900/Business/Influence_and_bailout.shtml

"Stratasec: Marvin was recruited to join the board of this secretive Virginia security company that serves international corporations and governments. The company is awash in ex-government security and military personnel. Among them: Barry McDaniel, who served during the Reagan years as deputy director of readiness for the U.S. Army Materiel Command; and retired U.S. Air Force General James A. Abrahamson, who served as director of President Reagan's "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative.

The company touts such major customers as Dulles airport near Washington, as well as Los Alamos National Laboratories (where former scientist Wen Ho Lee pleaded guilty to improperly downloading nuclear weapons design secrets).

KuwAm Corp.: The investment company, with roots in Kuwait (the country "liberated" by President Bush's Gulf War), is a large backer of Stratasec. Stratasec chief executive Wirt Walker also is a managing director of KuwAm. And KuwAm chairman Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah also sits on Stratasec's board."

[hcap]

http://www.secinfo.com/dS7kv.5g.htm

KuwAm Corporation 4,761,465 73.1%
2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 (1)

Special Situation Investment Holdings, Ltd. 4,332,534 66.5%
c/o KuwAm Corporation

2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 (1)

Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah (2)(4) 294,038 4.5%

Wirt D. Walker, III (3)(4) 352,479 5.4%

N. Gene Criss (4) 153,334 2.4%

Stephen R. Buren (4) 5,600 *

Dean N. Thomas (4)

From the SEC itself. Confirmation that Bush was on the board.

Archived info
FORM S-1

REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1037453/0000925328-97-000013.txt
FILER:

COMPANY DATA:
COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: SECURACOM INC
CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0001037453
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: []

FILING VALUES:
FORM TYPE: S-1
SEC ACT: 1933 Act
SEC FILE NUMBER: 333-26439
FILM NUMBER: 97594818

BUSINESS ADDRESS:
STREET 1: 50 TICE BLVD
CITY: WOODCLIFF LAKE
STATE: NJ
ZIP: 07675

MAIL ADDRESS:
STREET 2: 50 TICE BLVD
CITY: WOODCLIFF LAKE
STATE: NJ
ZIP: 07675
</SEC-HEADER>
<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>S-1
<SEQUENCE>1
<DESCRIPTION>S-1 FOR SECURACOM, INCORPORATED
<TEXT>


AS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON MAY 2, 1997
REGISTRATION NO. 333-


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

Enter "bush" and search the entire humongous page

MANAGEMENT

The directors and executive officers of the Company are:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

NAME AGE POSITION

<S> <C> <C>
Wirt D. Walker, III....................... 51 Chairman and Director
Ronald C. Thomas.......................... 52 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Larry M. Weaver........................... 47 Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
Charles C. Sander......................... 48 Senior Vice President
Franklin M. Sterling...................... 64 Senior Vice President
Albert A. Weinstein....................... 66 Vice President
Matthew V. Wharton........................ 35 Vice President
Michael V. Toto........................... 52 Vice President
Jon W. Balakian........................... 39 Vice President
Mishal Yousef Soud Al Sabah............... 36 Director
Marvin P. Bush(1)......................... 40 Director
Robert B. Smith, Jr.(1)................... 60 Director

[Tom]

Unbelievable. Now the Bush's, not Bin Ladin are being blamed for 9-11. How low can the libs' cause go?
Which Bush was on the grassy knoll?

Jeb. :rolleyes:

Actually, you have probably opened a can of worms, Lefty. Sec will be posting quotes like," ....a fourth shot was believed to be fired from a "bush" on the grassy knoll."

:lol: :lol: I think we have stumbled onto the lib fountain of knowledge here! :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Mystery solved....who was on the grassy knoll?

[Lefty]

hcap, can you make one post, one argument on your own without posting links galore?

[Suff]

http://youtube.com/w/State-of-the-Union-2006----Bush-Impression?v=upTUbqc5Pso


:lol:

[46zilzal]

hcap, can you make one post, one argument on your own without posting links galore?
that is called documentation: a unknown idea for you

[Tom]

CROCKumentation might more like it! :D

[Tom]

SOTU = RED!


:jump:

[toetoe]

suff,

I figured out that Cheney was sitting in the background. Who was the guy next to him, Hastert? Also, who's the distinguished Boomer Esiason type?

[46zilzal]

SOTU = RED!



Heiroglyphics again

[hcap]

Lefty,

Duh, WSJ, SEC fillings Real dull. Unlike Rush-eh Mr. dittohead?.

I was interested if there was any truth to the article Suff linked.
I was unaware that Marvin Bush was connected to the security firm that handled the WTC, and also connected to Kuwaiti interests. Although the "power down" is speculation, the other points in the article seem well established.

Btw, there's always Neil. Of S&L fame. Now there's a REAL GRASSY KNOLL shooter

[JustRalph]

Heiroglyphics again

SOTU means "State of the Union"

I will leave the rest of it up to you to figure out.........Ask a nurse..........

[hcap]

When bush was asked if he plans to write his own STOTU, he said
"No I will jest RED it"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[toetoe]

F-S Z.,

I want to tell someone "FYI," with the last initial standing for "idiot." What do I do? :confused:

[Lefty]

hcap says: When bush was asked if he plans to write his own STOTU, he said
"No I will jest RED it"
_________________________
hcap, now I realize why you need to constantly provide links.

[Secretariat]

No, Christ didn't come to correct the "flaws" in the OT; for there were none to correct in the scheme of progressive revelation given in the context of human history. ....God, as sovereign King of his creation, sets up kings (rulers, authorities, etc.) and tears them down according to his sovereign purposes which, again, are soteriological in nature.
Boxcar

Box,

There's so much crap in your post I can't play the game anymore.

But I'll address two of your points above. So since there were "no flaws" in the OT as you state above, then I guess slavery is OK since its stated as permissible there.

And jeez, I didn't know God set up kings, rulers, etc. So are you saying we have God to blame for setting up Saddam Hussein? Maybe that's the true purprose of the Star Wars project - to keep GOD from setting up any rulers GW doesn't like.

Box, you're certifiable.

[toetoe]

Lefty,

Read my lynx: No new Texas. :cool: :confused:

[Tom]

Sec pondered:
"And jeez, I didn't know God set up kings, rulers, etc. So are you saying we have God to blame for setting up Saddam Hussein? "


No. SH took control by murdering elected officials and stealing the government. The RIGHT thing to do was to remove him. SH had absolutely no claim to ruling Iraq at any time, ever.

[Secretariat]

Sec pondered:
"And jeez, I didn't know God set up kings, rulers, etc. So are you saying we have God to blame for setting up Saddam Hussein? "


No. SH took control by murdering elected officials and stealing the government. The RIGHT thing to do was to remove him. SH had absolutely no claim to ruling Iraq at any time, ever.

But that violates what the Bible says according to Boxcar. God determines who the leaders are. Go back and read his post.