Iran's President's troubles with women

[highnote]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1964075,00.html

Interesting story. Not all fun and games for Iran's president. Talk about walking the fine line of trying to keep your constituents happy.

[PaceAdvantage]

Perhaps an impeachment, "Iranian Style" is in order here?

[Ponyplayr]

What sends chills down my spine is knowing that he isn't conservative enough and could be replaced with someone more radical.

[highnote]

What sends chills down my spine is knowing that he isn't conservative enough and could be replaced with someone more radical.


Maybe Jerry Falwell. :D

[luv_america]

Just so you know, Jerry Fallwell has never called for the death of every person who is not a Christian, nor has he called for the elimination of an entire country of inncoent people. Amaziningly, somehow you might think he's as radical as a guy who does that.

[highnote]

Just so you know, Jerry Fallwell has never called for the death of every person who is not a Christian, nor has he called for the elimination of an entire country of inncoent people. Amaziningly, somehow you might think he's as radical as a guy who does that.


Just so you know, I was being facetious.

I thought the smiley face was a dead giveaway as to my intention.

[Indulto]

Just so you know, Jerry Fallwell has never called for the death of every person who is not a Christian, nor has he called for the elimination of an entire country ofinncoent people. Amaziningly, somehow you might think he's as radical as a guy who does that.No he hasn’t, he’s just guaranteed they’re going to Hell when they do. By “innocent people” were you including disciples of Meier Kahane who was perhaps best known for his statements to the effect that the only good Arab was a dead Arab?

I thought I'd take this opportunity to share with you, HA, that last night, one of my local PBS stations had a pledge drive showing an encore presentation of Bill Moyers’ documentary, “Capitol Crimes.” This was a powerful summary of the Washington lobbying scandals. It profiled Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, Michael Scanlon, and Tom Delay. It chronicled their rise to power -- describing their strategy and impact, and tracing the discovery of those indicted as well as any prosecutions prior to the program’s original screening.

In listening to the quotes and interviews describing these Republican Party operatives’ plans for gaining and securing power through deceptive, exploitative fund raising from -- and manipulation of -- Christian groups and Indian tribes, I couldn’t help but be reminded of your initial take-no-prisoner posts here. And what do you know, here you are this morning with an inspired defense of Nightline’s favorite reverend. :D

I was also anticipating references to Abramoff-AIPAC connections once suggested here by Sec, but none were forthcoming. It’s treatment of Karl Rove was the only thing I would criticize. While never specifically connecting him with any of the bad stuff, they clearly implied that Abramoff and some of the other K Street lobbyists had access to him, and they always used unflattering video shots of him.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/capitol/index.html (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/capitol/index.html)

So, enjoy the above link, HA. After watching it, you are invited to express your preference as to whether I should forever associate your chosen pseudonym with the visual image of a scowling Jack Abramoff or a smiling Jerry Falwell. Either way, I’m sure your decision will be accompanied by another of your tirades on how the left is both Anti-Christian and Anti-Jewish. Cheer up, though. Even I wouldn’t suggest that a smirking Ralph Reed would be a suitable alternative. :lol:

[luv_america]

another crappy moral equivelence attempt between jihadists, Islamo-facists, and terrorists to the religious right. When will you guys ever learn that most people see terrorists as terrorists and don't want them defended or compared to our country's religious leaders. And you wonder why you can't get a President elected because you can't win in the South.

To prove this, just watch Hilary start going to church.

[highnote]

And you wonder why you can't get a President elected because you can't win in the South.


Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and LBJ did pretty well for boys from the South.

Can't remember if they won the South, but they did manage to run the Office of the President of the United States of America.

[JPinMaryland]

another crappy moral equivelence attempt between jihadists, Islamo-facists, and terrorists to the religious right. When will you guys ever learn that most people see terrorists as terrorists and don't want them defended or compared to our country's religious leaders. And you wonder why you can't get a President elected because you can't win in the South....

The dems just won the Senate and the House, maybe you could time these outbursts of yours a little better.

Falwell also said that one of the teletubies was gay.

Then he blamed 911 on homosexuals. So yeah just keep quoting him.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's just odd how more than a few folks on this forum try and MINIMIZE the threat of Islamic terrorism, while MAXIMIZING the threat of the religious right. I think that is the genesis of luv's remarks.

Indulto dares to bring up the fact that Fallwell has condemned some folks to HELL???!?!?!?!?!? :lol: Are you kidding me? Yup, that sits on the top of my list of high crimes as well.......:rolleyes:

[Tom]

Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and LBJ did pretty well for boys from the South.

Can't remember if they won the South, but they did manage to run the Office of the President of the United States of America.

Yikes! The Three Stooges of Presidents in my lifetime.

Woo woo woo woo!

[luv_america]

It's just odd how more than a few folks on this forum try and MINIMIZE the threat of Islamic terrorism, while MAXIMIZING the threat of the religious right. I think that is the genesis of luv's remarks.

Yes, PA, exactly my point. They are more scared of a man with a Bible then a Muslim with a sword.

[Suff]

Indulto dares to bring up the fact that Fallwell has condemned some folks to HELL???!?!?!?!?!? :lol: Are you kidding me? Yup, that sits on the top of my list of high crimes as well.......:rolleyes:

I'll lay a few on you, just for shits and giggles.


1. How about that America got what it deserved on 9-11?


"What we saw on 9-11, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if in fact, if in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," Falwell said
2. How about one opposite your suggestion that the Left views the Religious Right as a larger threat than terrorism?


In May, he argued that the threat to the United States from activist judges was "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."

3. How about one where he threatens the US with a Nuclear attack?


In 2003, Mr. Robertson said "maybe we need a very small nuke thrown" at State Department headquarters "to shake things up.


4. How about a quote threatening genocide against millions of Americans?


"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus"living fossils"so we will never forget what these people stood for." - Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post,
5. That threat was later supported by a sitting US Senator.


"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." - Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas)
6. How about supporting additional terror attacks on NYC?


"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to The New York Times building." - Ann Coulter, The New York Observer.

You, and other people continue to speak of ISLAM as our enemy. Perhaps it is. I'm not suggesting it is or is not. I think you should know what your President said at the UN and is posted right on the White House Web site.


I'd like to speak directly to the people across the broader Middle East: My country desires peace. Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false, and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/mideast/


The Chicken Hawks need to at least get on the same page. I would think.

[DJofSD]

Yikes! The Three Stooges of Presidents in my lifetime.

Weren't there 4 stooges originally?

[Indulto]

I'll lay a few on you, just for shits and giggles.
1. How about that America got what it deserved on 9-11?

"What we saw on 9-11, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if in fact, if in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," Falwell said
2. How about one opposite your suggestion that the Left views the Religious Right as a larger threat than terrorism?

In May, he argued that the threat to the United States from activist judges was "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
3. How about one where he threatens the US with a Nuclear attack?

In 2003, Mr. Robertson said "maybe we need a very small nuke thrown" at State Department headquarters "to shake things up.
4. How about a quote threatening genocide against millions of Americans?

"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus"living fossils"so we will never forget what these people stood for." - Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post,
5. That threat was later supported by a sitting US Senator.

"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." - Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas)
6. How about supporting additional terror attacks on NYC?

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to The New York Times building." - Ann Coulter, The New York Observer.
You, and other people continue to speak of ISLAM as our enemy. Perhaps it is. I'm not suggesting it is or is not. I think you should know what your President said at the UN and is posted right on the White House Web site.

The Chicken Hawks need to at least get on the same page. I would think.Suff, darlin'
Y'all are mah celebrity crush and highest inspiration. Ah nevah could resist a smooth-talkin' Constitution defender and Falwellian debunker.:lol:

[Ponyplayr]

I'll lay a few on you, just for shits and giggles.


1. How about that America got what it deserved on 9-11?


"What we saw on 9-11, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if in fact, if in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," Falwell said
2. How about one opposite your suggestion that the Left views the Religious Right as a larger threat than terrorism?


In May, he argued that the threat to the United States from activist judges was "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
3. How about one where he threatens the US with a Nuclear attack?


In 2003, Mr. Robertson said "maybe we need a very small nuke thrown" at State Department headquarters "to shake things up.

4. How about a quote threatening genocide against millions of Americans?


"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus"living fossils"so we will never forget what these people stood for." - Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post,
5. That threat was later supported by a sitting US Senator.


"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." - Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas)
6. How about supporting additional terror attacks on NYC?


"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to The New York Times building." - Ann Coulter, The New York Observer.
You, and other people continue to speak of ISLAM as our enemy. Perhaps it is. I'm not suggesting it is or is not. I think you should know what your President said at the UN and is posted right on the White House Web site.



The Chicken Hawks need to at least get on the same page. I would think.Name me one terrorist attack that has been carried out by these reverends followers. Just one, and if you don't mind please post the number of casualties. Is the Venezuelan Pimp dead yet..State Dept blown up?? Hmmm?

[Suff]

Name me one terrorist attack that has been carried out by these reverends followers. Just one,

The War in Iraq

[Ponyplayr]

The War in Iraq
Well I stand corrected..I wasn't aware that Saddam and the Baathist Party were parishioners of theirs. Shame on them..They have some splainin to do for all those mass graves that have been found..I wonder how much time they will get for being co-conspirators in the gassing of the Kurds? Frigging Christians :mad: :mad:

[Suff]

Well I stand corrected..I wasn't aware that Saddam and the Baathist Party were parishioners of theirs. Shame on them..They have some splainin to do for all those mass graves that have been found..I wonder how much time they will get for being co-conspirators in the gassing of the Kurds? Frigging Christians :mad: :mad:

Well, I was being factitious because I found your defense of the quotes to be glib.

We could talk about where his weaponry came from if we want to talk about co-conspirators, but that's not relative.

Your a Christian? You take offense when I highlight the speech of supposed Christian leaders? I can understand that.

However, its my belief that the speech does represent a portion of the ideology that has worked its way into our Foreign policy.

It certainly has contributed to the anxiety that I, and I think many, have with Evangelical Conservative Republicans.

No Defending Saddam, No Defending these guys either.

[Tom]

Weren't there 4 stooges originally?
Larry, Moe, Curly, Shemp (Shemp first, then Curly, then Shemp again).

[Tom]

How can you say that when you whine and bitch all the time about our precious contitutional freedoms?

Or does free speech only apply to YOUR side?

[Show Me the Wire]

I can't wait to use the tried and true Dem phrase against some Dem lib policy: " It is a true American that dissents."

BTW Tom:

As I expressed many times in the past, as well as others have, free speech, to libs, only is applicable if you agree with their stance. If you are not in their lockstep thinking, you have no right to express an opinion.

[JPinMaryland]

Name me one terrorist attack that has been carried out by these reverends followers. Just one, and if you don't mind please post the number of casualties. Is the Venezuelan Pimp dead yet..State Dept blown up?? Hmmm?

What about those wackos that blow up abortion clinics? Arent they following Christian leaders?

[luv_america]

What about those wackos that blow up abortion clinics? Arent they following Christian leaders?

JP, please tell us the name of the Christian leader who they are following explicity.

[Tom]

If he really doesn't understand the difference, there is no hope for him at all.

[JPinMaryland]

JP, please tell us the name of the Christian leader who they are following explicity.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

[Show Me the Wire]

Jesus Christ of Nazareth.


JPinMaryland:

Could you give me chapter and verse of the Bible, in which, The Nazerene advocates terrorism against innocent civilians or even violence?

Or did you confuse religious scriptures and you were really talikng about the so-called prophet and the koran?

[JPinMaryland]

While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab. Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing the LORD's anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn away from the people of Israel." So Moses ordered Israel's judges to execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just then one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's body and into the woman's stomach. So the plague against the Israelites was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died. (Numbers 25:1-9)

[JPinMaryland]

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. " (2 Chronicles 15:12-13

[JPinMaryland]

Here's a good one, you can just change "foreign gods" to WMD and pretty much get the Bush policy on Iraq:


"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19

[Tom]

I thought LSD was passe!

What is this guy, 46 South???

[Bala]

When one quotes the Christian Bible, Jewish Torah or any ancient text – a sense of history is paramount.

We should not and cannot take the standards of today and impose them on an ancient people group. When I study the Bible, Tannach (Jewish Bible) or the Koran, I am always mindful of the ancient past. To do otherwise would be historically illiterate.

The three ancient holy books were written to the people of the day. For their culture and level of morality. Not for modern evolved sensibilities. Imposing modern moral attributes distorts the real meaning of the ancient text.

The overall quality of life of the common man/woman when the holy books were written are vastly different to the relative ease of today. The text that were sited clearly demonstrate that there are moral consequences to moral actions.

A prime example in todays terms with the text sited may be modern homosexual experiences lead to a much higher probability of contacting HIV/AIDS. {moral action and reaction}

In ancient days the level of corruption and human depravity were far worse than today. Therefore, such extreme consequences were needed to balance the gross vices of yesterday. Things must be seen from its historical context!

For those that are to lazy to read up on ancient history a decent alternative is the DVD profiling Roman Emperor Caligula (http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvenjb/madmonarchs/caligula/caligula_bio.htm). http://tinyurl.com/yatyhu




____________________________
Pull the wool over your own eyes.

[luv_america]

Bala, excellent points.

The major difference between the ancient texts is that modern Christians do not take these passages literally. No one in modern Christianity, or for you hate Christian wackos, fundamentalist or Evengelical Christians are quoting these texts chapter and verse looking to kill any non-belivers. Of course, all we have to do is look at the lunatic in Iran who belives the Koran literally and states clearly that by starting to wipe out the non-belivers he will bring upon us armagenton and his wet dream for the twelveth Imam.

Frankly, this is just another attempt at moral equivelence. People who can't see the difference are the enemy within. They enable our enemies by believing we are just as bad as them. Its sad that they cannot understand American exceptionism. I feel sorry for them who live in such a bleak world with no hope or understanding of human goodness. May God bless them anyway.

[Show Me the Wire]

JPinMaryland:

Were your two posts referencing Jewish Torah the answer to my question regarding the Nazerene asking for chapter and verse?

I asked for you to prove your assertion that Christ is the Christian leader that advocated terrorism against innocent civilians and violence. Your response failed to prove your assertion.

I am still waiting for your cites to chapter and verse in the Bible regarding the Nazerene's teaching about perpetrating violence.

Hint, qouting Jewish scripture, the Old Testament or the Koran will not prove your assertion about the violent teachings spread by the Nazerene nor correctly answer my previous question put to you.

BTW I still think your confusing scriptures of Christianity with the Koran.

[PaceAdvantage]

The Chicken Hawks need to at least get on the same page. I would think.

If you are directing this towards me, then it's obvious you don't read many of my posts in off-topic. I have, on many an occasion, made the distinction between your regular, same as you and me, Muslim folk, and your radical terrorist Muslim folk, whose main agenda is the destruction of Israel and the United States.

Why are we wasting time on the obvious?

[46zilzal]

The major difference between the ancient texts is that modern Christians do not take these passages literally.
you havn't been around many of the evangelicals I have encountered.

[PaceAdvantage]

you havn't been around many of the evangelicals I have encountered.

Where are you encountering all these evangelicals? I've been on this earth for over three decades, and I can't remember encountering even ONE (ok, maybe there was one at work, but I'm not 100% sure if he was an evangelical....maybe just a born-again....there is a difference, is there not?).

Do you live in "Evangelical Central?" Do you go to the local Evangelical bar and hang out with all the "evangelical hags"? Are you a groupie? Enquiring minds want to know!

[luv_america]

PA,

There is always SO MUCH talk on these boards about the Evangelicals that are as bad as the Muslim fundamentalists, yet no evidence is ever produced that approaches the dangers that they attempt to project. For example, look at JP's posts, where he has to go into the Old Testement to find something that remotely resembles violence against non-belivers, yet he fails to understand that all Christians and Jews DO NOT take that text literally.

As far as 46 goes, he lives in a foggy world where the US is the bad guy and Christians are cutting throats and wearing suicide bombs. I understand where he gets it from, but I can't understand why.

[Indulto]

Where are you encountering all these evangelicals? I've been on this earth for over three decades, and I can't remember encountering even ONE (ok, maybe there was one at work, but I'm not 100% sure if he was an evangelical....maybe just a born-again....there is a difference, is there not?).

Do you live in "Evangelical Central?" Do you go to the local Evangelical bar and hang out with all the "evangelical hags"? Are you a groupie? Enquiring minds want to know!:lol:
PA,
That WAS funny.

[JPinMaryland]

I thought Jews believed in the old testament. Wasnt Jesus a Jew?

[Show Me the Wire]

I thought Jews believed in the old testament. Wasnt Jesus a Jew?

JPinMaryland:

If your above qoute is te tenious connection to support your assertion of Jesus being the Christian leader that advocates violence, you should do some research involving the interplay of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Yes, Jesus was born into the Jewish nation (meaning he practiced Judism as a youth and a young adult). It is common belief, Jesus was taught those versus you cited, but that does not prove Jesus encouraged his followers to perpetrate violence and that is why you can't support your faulty assertion with Jesus' personal teachings to his hand-picked disciples and the crowds that listened.

Simply put, Jesus began a ministry and basically many of his teaching conflicted with sacred Jewish teachings being taught prior to Jesus' birth into and during his life in the Jewish nation.

[Show Me the Wire]

Wow Suff,

You confuse rhetoric with real actions seeded in hate. All of those qoutes are about consequences for immoral actions. Not a new concept. People that don't believe in God can also have the same view about immoral actions only it is called Karma or given some other name.

On the other hand the jihadist muslim just doesn't believe 9-11 was
allah's punishment on America for its immoral ways, but will act on that belief and carry out Allah's will to punish.

You need to distinction between rhetoric used to shake people up to change their behavior to make what certain believers a moral society should be and actual actions seeded in hate against the peerceived immoralty.

Big diffence Suff. Fawell may condemn people to hell, doubt he has the power, but the true believer (muslim) will actually try to send your there by killing you in Allah's name to make his society a moral society.

Both groups are not morally equivelant. Yes both want moral societies based on their perceptions of morality. But and this is a big but, one uses only rhetoric and the other acts upon its rhetoric to actually physically cause death and human suffering to punish in the name of morality.

[Suff]

Wow Suff,

You confuse rhetoric with real actions seeded in hate. All of those qoutes are about consequences for immoral actions. Not a new concept. People that don't believe in God can also have the same view about immoral actions only it is called Karma or given some other name.

Big diffence Suff. Fawell may condemn people to hell, doubt he has the power, but the true believer (muslim) will actually try to send your there by killing you in Allah's name to make his society a moral society.

.

I only contributed one editorial comment to the thread. That the hawks need to get on the same page. Other than that, I simply posted the quotes. Your comments should be on the quotes, not on my view of the quotes.


On the other hand the jihadist muslim just doesn't believe 9-11 was
allah's punishment on America for its immoral ways, but will act on that belief and carry out Allah's will to punish.


Falwell said as much when he said 9-11 was God's Punishment , and that America deserved it.


I make no statement on the previous quote. I post them. Reverend Falwell Believes that the Attack on America was deserved. He shares an ideology with the Jihadist. By his own word, not mine.

[Show Me the Wire]

So what is your point Suff. Why post qoutes in a vaccum if you are not editorilizing?

I was responding to your meaning and now your stated editorial that Falwell's quote proves "He shares an ideology with the Jihadist. By his own word, not mine.".

Using rhetoric as a catalyst to change behavior is the same as using physical violence to accomplish a behavioral change?

How in Falwell's qoute can you elicit he shares the same ideaology as the perpetrators of 9-11?

Falwell statement is a logical argument based on rhetoric:

The attack happened,
God allowed the attack to happen,
therefore since God allowed the attack to happen we must deserve it.

The above-mentioned line of thought is totally distinct from the line of thought America is an immoral society spreading its evils across the world as defenders of the faith and as true believers we must physically eradicate America and its immoral people from the face of the earth to DO allah's will.

So your point is you do not understand the difference in reasoning explaining why God allowed something to happened (Falwell) versus I am going to perpetrate a violent act to make something happen to please God (jihadist muslims)?

Suff if you and others can not differentiate between the two thought processes then God help us.

[chickenhead]

are you saying that since God wanted it to happen, then he also wanted the jihadists to do it? I mean, otherwise, they wouldn't have been able, right?

I've always had problems with people claiming they know Gods mind. It is an irrefutable argument, but one in which anything and everything could be justified as Gods Will, and therefore righteous.

[highnote]

are you saying that since God wanted it to happen, then he also wanted the jihadists to do it? I mean, otherwise, they wouldn't have been able, right?

I've always had problems with people claiming they know Gods mind. It is an irrefutable argument, but one in which anything and everything could be justified as Gods Will, and therefore righteous.


That's the thing about belief systems... whatever one believes is true -- at least to the believer.

That's why an atheist has a hard time convincing a born again Christian there is no God -- and vice-versa -- a born again has a hard time convincing an atheist there is a God.

[Show Me the Wire]

are you saying that since God wanted it to happen, then he also wanted the jihadists to do it? I mean, otherwise, they wouldn't have been able, right?

I've always had problems with people claiming they know Gods mind. It is an irrefutable argument, but one in which anything and everything could be justified as Gods Will, and therefore righteous.

No, I am differentiating between the thought processes Suff editoriled as being equal.

Additionally, I am not advocating Falwell's view of why it happened. Aslo as I indicated in my previous post that many cultures besides some Christians believe in consequences to their society or personal well being due to immoral behavior. It sort of a universal ideaology.

Personally, I am a beleiver in free will of man and many terrible things happen because of man's free will.

Basically, Suff was posting Falwell is more of a threat than jihadist muslems to the American way of life. I was debunking his faulty premise and illustrating why a jihadist with a weapon is more dangerous than a preacher using rhetoric to stimulate change in society, although they both want to change society.

[Suff]

[QUOTE]So what is your point Suff. Why post qoutes in a vaccum if you are not editorilizing?

I post them because they exist. I post them as contributions to the debate. These are things men say in public. Do you think they tone it down in Private? Or do you think if they were to obtain power they would'nt execute these idea's?

I don't view these men as anything other than what they present.




I was responding to your meaning and now your stated editorial that Falwell's quote proves "He shares an ideology with the Jihadist. By his own word, not mine.".


He does. He absolutely does. As do many. I talked to a conservative last week who told me to check the Court Transpcripts from the 1993 Convictions for thr first WTC bombings. He said:

They said in thier testimony, that the attack because America has Gays, and Movies, and abortion, and alcohol...etc...etc...
----------------------------------------------
So who's the appeasers? Liberals? Or Conservatives? Conservatives believe if they stop Abortion the Islamofacists won't bomb us? Who's the appeasers?

Using rhetoric as a catalyst to change behavior is the same as using physical violence to accomplish a behavioral change

Iran has not invaded a country in 250 years,,,,,but the rhetoric coming from that country has us readying for war? We invaded Iraq because we did'nt want to wait until the promises came true.

?

How in Falwell's qoute can you elicit he shares the same ideaology as the perpetrators of 9-11?


How can you not? He said America is immoral, America deserved to be attacked....and!!! We will be attacked again if we don't do what he says....



Falwell statement is a logical argument based on rhetoric:

The attack happened,
God allowed the attack to happen,
therefore since God allowed the attack to happen we must deserve it.



:rolleyes:



\

So your point is you do not understand the difference in reasoning explaining why God allowed something to happened (Falwell) versus I am going to perpetrate a violent act to make something happen to please God (jihadist muslims)?

Suff if you and others can not differentiate between the two thought processes then God help us.


God allowed it? God could of stopped 9-11 but chose not to? Because? Massachusetts passed Gay marriage? I suppose God could of stopped that and he did'nt so America deserved that to?

The side benefit of posting the quote is seeing your attempt to explain them.

[Show Me the Wire]

are you saying that since God wanted it to happen, then he also wanted the jihadists to do it? I mean, otherwise, they wouldn't have been able, right?

I've always had problems with people claiming they know Gods mind. It is an irrefutable argument, but one in which anything and everything could be justified as Gods Will, and therefore righteous.

I feel there is sincerity in your question regarding what I personally believe, so I hope the following is a better answer.


As I said Ibelieve in free will and God and this is an easy way to demonstrate the relationship between God's will and man's free will. Speaking for the majority of Jewish thought and Cristian thought, it is God's will that we as humans have our earthly presence end in a physical death. So God wills our death.

However, the Jewish faith and the majority of Christians believe in the ten Commnadments which contains a commandment prohibitting murder. Why would there be a prohibitation of murder, if God wills we should die? Everyone that killed someone would be doing god's will right?

No, God wills our earthly presence to end but not through the actions of another human being, but God does not prevent murder. God does not stand in the way of free will so it is the actions of human being exercising his free will contray to the will of God that causes the murder.

The will of God is violated by these acts of murder, (ending of life through human actions). Therefore one can not conclude since something happened it is God's will, one can only conclude it was not prevented because God honor's man's free will.

[Indulto]

I don’t know which is the more serious religious conversion taking place before my eyes: 1) The conversion of the War on Terrorism into a religious war, or 2) the conversion of HA from a Jack...off clone to a Jerr...ell one. Since terminating double consonants seem to be yet another of their attributes in common, I’m going to settle on JackA$$ to honor their commitment to (or because of) raising money for right-wing political causes.

A perfect example of the danger posed by Falwellian influence is its ready acceptance by well-intentioned, sincere believers such as SMTW. When such a person is willing to accept the proposition that ALL Muslims want to murder ALL non-Muslims as a matter of faith and, consequently, that ALL non-Muslims should unite and subject ALL Muslims to incarceration, bombing, or whatever form of annihilation is most practical, one might question their perception of reality.

Their own willingness to accept their leaders’ invocation of divine instruction makes perfectly reasonable the fear that others with a similar reliance on a supreme being -- but which is providing conflicting instruction -- pose the ultimate threat. At least the guru is consistent ... his perception IS his reality.

What those here who want us to become holy warriors neglect is, that for every period of conflict among them, there have also been periods where Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived and traded together while praying separately. In fact our nation is constituted on the basis of that ideal.

What is the reality that can be agreed upon?

1) There exist collections of individuals, from various Muslim sects -- mostly from various nations inhabited predominantly by Muslims – whose sole purpose is to engage in terrorist activities against the inhabitants of western style democracies (WSD), and predominantly Muslim countries whose governments support and trade with those WSDs.

2) Because most of the members of these groups subscribe to a subverted subset of mainstream religious thought which successfully promotes sacrificing one’s life to achieve its objectives, it is the preeminent threat to our society, and possibly civilization as we know it.

3) Traditional, conventional police and military techniques, tactics, and tools are insufficient to combat and deter this threat which is politically and socially as well as religiously motivated.

4) Resources must be deployed to develop new devices and strategies to deter and defeat the operations of these groups domestically, immediately.

5) Coalitions must be created with other functioning WSDs to cooperate in combating this movement which is acquiring Muslim recruits within all such countries as well as many predominantly Muslim countries.

6) These groups are willing to take the lives of Muslim as well as non-Muslims.

7) There do exist variations and components of representative governments among predominantly Muslim countries suggesting that Islam practiced outside of the United States is not totally incompatible with secular interests.

8) There is no indication that any but an extremely miniscule segment of the U.S. Muslim citizenry have even been suspected of any ties with terrorists or being involved in terrorist activities.

9) Terrorism is spreading like a cancer in the world’s body.

How come nobody’s brought up the IRA which as far as I know was comprised only of Catholics? Perhaps someone can confirm whether those terrorists (/freedom fighters?) were motivated more by politics than religion.

Whether or not one is religious, an overwhelming majority of the U.S. population and that of the world believes that intentionally taking life other than in self-defense is murder. Even the terrorists believe it, but they think it’s justifiable. The problem is that the political right now does also. Whether or not Suff was tongue-in-cheek, I agree with him that our invasion of Iraq can be construed as a terrorist attack, and is in fact viewed that way by most of the rest of the world.

What the political left in this country understands is that freedom and democracy are not always one and the same. This country became a democracy because it was free to do so. The applicable slogan here was NOT “Give me DEMOCRACY or give me death.” The colonies rebelled to obtain freedom from oppression. Understanding that the terrorists feel they represent an oppressed group is NOT the same as condoning, supporting, or aiding them, and wanting them to win. It is ONE approach to addressing the CANCER.

Until the religious right understands that religious intolerance is the greatest threat to our society from within as well as from without, they haven’t a prayer of continuing to be able to pray.

So tell me JA, what’s the next step in your holy war? I mean, why stir the pot without a plan?

1) Should the U.S. immediately incarcerate all of its citizens or inhabitants who are Muslim?

2) Should the U.S. then convince (force?) its allies with a minority Muslim population to incarcerate any of their inhabitants who are Muslim?

3) Should Congress should then declare war on all countries whose populations are predominantly Muslim (one at a time, of course)?

4) If any predominantly Muslim country tries to resist, should they then be nuked?

Inquiring minds, etc.

[Show Me the Wire]

A perfect example of the danger posed by Falwellian influence is its ready acceptance by well-intentioned, sincere believers such as SMTW. When such
Should the U.S. immediately incarcerate all of its citizens or inhabitants who are Muslim?


Sigh, well I guess I should thank you for saying I am sincere. How did I become the poster boy of Falwellian influence when in my prior post I expressly said I did not agree with his interpretation and in my response to chickenhead I squarely put myself at odds with Fawellian thinking by stating the events are a result of the actions of man's free will and not God's will?

And yes I am consistent as I refer to jihadists muslems and not all muslems. I recognize the threat to western society from this segment and I am not afraid to speak out about the threat.

What is ludicrous to me is people like suff and apparently you are more afraid of rhetoric based on the premise of logical argument than a person with a weapon intent on killing you. And the feeble attempts, through your obtuse say nothing posts, to elevate any Christian to the level of a muslim terrorist are pathetic.

[46zilzal]

through your obtuse say nothing posts, to elevate any Christian to the level of a muslim terrorist are pathetic.
Our side good, EVERYONE else bad.......Wasn't that schoolyard logic?

[Indulto]

... What is ludicrous to me is people like suff and apparently you are more afraid of rhetoric based on the premise of logical argument than a person with a weapon intent on killing you. And the feeble attempts, through your obtuse say nothing posts, to elevate any Christian to the level of a muslim terrorist are pathetic.SMTW,
You're missing the point which is that quality of life is more crucial than life itself. We send our troops into battle potentially sacrificing their lives in order to defend our freedoms, foremost among them our freedom of religion.
When Christians or ANY religious group imposes their version of the Supreme Being and his teachings/instructions on others, the are violating the freedom Americans are supposed to be willing to die for.

And just what is YOUR plan for the holy war? Or is it sufficient to just take the position that your religion is superior to any other and that all there is to it?

[Show Me the Wire]

So you are saying Christians started the war in iraq to force Christians beliefs on muslims. Interesting.

It maybe a Holy War (jihad) for some muslims. For me I call it self preservation from lunatics intent on killing westerners.

Really it has nothing to with my faith. The only connection to my faith is the ludicrous attempt by you and suff to paint all Christians akin to jihadist muslems.

[Indulto]

... The only connection to my faith is the ludicrous attempt by you and suff to paint all Christians akin to jihadist muslems.If you believe that I believe that all Christians are Jihadists then you need a new set of beliefs. ;)

[46zilzal]

So you are saying Christians started the war in iraq to force Christians beliefs on muslims. Interesting.


Little earlier than that. They are still pissed about the Crusades.

[Show Me the Wire]

Little earlier than that. They are still pissed about the Crusades.

Interesting point you make. The muslem leaders started that conflict too through their expansion policies.

[46zilzal]

There was also the Byzantine empire, ruling from Constantinople, whose emperor at this time was Alexius Comnenus. To his East, the Turks were rapidly encroaching on his empire, and had begun attacking pilgrims on their way to - and in - Jerusalem, causing him great distress. He wrote to his friend Robert, the Count of Flanders, in 1093, telling him about supposed atrocities committed by the Turks on the Christian pilgrims, and Robert passed this letter on to Pope Urban II. Urban, an opportunist, saw this as a perfect way to solve some of his local problems. He personally promoted a Holy Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands from the barbarian Turks. Thus, the First Crusade was launched in 1096 CE.

guess you are correct, but in true fashion they over-reacted

[JPinMaryland]

WHy are they so pissed about the crusades anyhow? They won them.

[46zilzal]

you know, folks always yearn for their "heyday" when they conquered a lot of land around the Mediterranean and Spanish peninsula.

[Show Me the Wire]

WHy are they so pissed about the crusades anyhow? They won them.

No they didn't as the muslims did not spread Islam to the whole known world. That was there goal then and their present goal to spread Islam as the only religion and law.

Additionally, they lost their initial conquests in Spain and Hungary, as well as Jerusalem.

[JPinMaryland]

No they didn't as the muslims did not spread Islam to the whole known world. That was there goal then and their present goal to spread Islam as the only religion and law.

Additionally, they lost their initial conquests in Spain and Hungary, as well as Jerusalem.

The crusades were not about the spread of Islam, nor were they about Moslem incursions in Spain and Hungary.

THe battle that is most often cited for stopping Islam in western Europe is Tours, fought somewhere near Poitiers France, in 732 A.D. One could also cite the Reconquista of Spain, at the time of Columbus. Neither of these had anything to do with the crusades.

If you still think that the Crusades stopped the spread of Islam, then why is the battle of Lepanto 1572 cited as one of history's decisive battles?

[JPinMaryland]

I've always had problems with people claiming they know Gods mind. It is an irrefutable argument, but one in which anything and everything could be justified as Gods Will, and therefore righteous.



It is interesting...One can often pigeon hole peoples beliefs by asking them a couple of questions about their beliefs:

a) Do you believe that there is some repository of all knowledge somewhere? Be it in a being or just in one place.

b) If yes, do you believe that some people on earth are privy to this information?

Then you can go on further and elaborate on like whether only select people are privy to this or all people, how they became select etc.

Maybe make for an interesting poll question.

[highnote]

It maybe a Holy War (jihad) for some muslims. For me I call it self preservation from lunatics intent on killing westerners.


You mean the purpose of the war in Iraq is "self preservation from lunatics intent on killing westerners"?

[hcap]

I agree that the Falwells, Pat roberts, and other fundamentalists of Christian persuasion are not the moral equivalent of the Saudis that perpertrated 911. I wil even agree that more mainstream Muslems are anti-Christian than mainstream Christians are anti-Muslem, at least for the time being.

Problem at the root of conflict is the knee-jerk reaction of LITERAL interpretation of each respective scripture. This shapes the debate on both sides. Religion falls to it's lowest level when counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, or promises x number of virgins awaiting in paradise.

The literal rapture folks, using the Bible or the Islamic fundies the Koran, to either justify or not justify the existence of Israel, is a major problem.

Before rationality can be employed to settle political and economic problems both sides must drop the literal and move back from watching the false drama -each think is reality. The "drama" is an ilusion that is fed by the misinterpretation of and by literal knee-jerk understandings of what God wants.

Both sides are guilty of sitting in the first row of a theatre watching a scripted movie and being easily impressed by classic comic simplifications. The Islamic greater Jihad is being tarnished by the lesser jihad. And here the incessant ranting by many about the evils of Islam hooks up with the concept of the rapture. A self-fullfilling prophecy on both sides. Maybe they will both succeed. At least both will know God is on their side.

[highnote]

IBefore rationality can be employed to settle political and economic problems both sides must drop the literal and move back from watching the false drama -each think is reality. The "drama" is an ilusion that is fed by the misinterpretation of and by literal knee-jerk understandings of what God wants.

George Harrison wrote a song whose lyrics I am reminded of whenever someone mentions "illusion". He uses the phrase "Beware of maya". I believe maya is Indian for "illusion". I think it's a Buddist or Hari Krishna saying.

"Beware of illusion".

It's good advice.

[hcap]

There is a Hindu story about mistaking a rope for a snake.
As Frank Herbert? of "Dune" wrote fear is the mind killer

Assuming one can know the mind of God is the height of ego.
True humility is praying in secret, not for impressing your neighbor-
OR yourself.

When Falwell or Dobson or Roberts or the Islamic fundies claim they have a hotline to heaven, run away as fast as possible. Safer for your heart and pocketbook

[Ponyplayr]

There is a Hindu story about mistaking a rope for a snake.
As Frank Herbert? of "Dune" wrote fear is the mind killer

Assuming one can know the mind of God is the height of ego.
True humility is praying in secret, not for impressing your neighbor-
OR yourself.

When Falwell or Dobson or Roberts or the Islamic fundies claim they have a hotline to heaven, run away as fast as possible. Safer for your heart and pocketbook
Amen to that!

[Show Me the Wire]

I agree that the Falwells, Pat roberts, and other fundamentalists of Christian persuasion are not the moral equivalent of the Saudis that perpertrated 911. I wil even agree that more mainstream Muslems are anti-Christian than mainstream Christians are anti-Muslem, at least for the time being.

Problem at the root of conflict is the knee-jerk reaction of LITERAL interpretation of each respective scripture. This shapes the debate on both sides. Religion falls to it's lowest level when counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, or promises x number of virgins awaiting in paradise.

The literal rapture folks, using the Bible or the Islamic fundies the Koran, to either justify or not justify the existence of Israel, is a major problem.

Before rationality can be employed to settle political and economic problems both sides must drop the literal and move back from watching the false drama -each think is reality. The "drama" is an ilusion that is fed by the misinterpretation of and by literal knee-jerk understandings of what God wants.

Both sides are guilty of sitting in the first row of a theatre watching a scripted movie and being easily impressed by classic comic simplifications. The Islamic greater Jihad is being tarnished by the lesser jihad. And here the incessant ranting by many about the evils of Islam hooks up with the concept of the rapture. A self-fullfilling prophecy on both sides. Maybe they will both succeed. At least both will know God is on their side.

The bolded part of your qoute is the crux of the issue. Be carefull about laying the blame on the Christian segment of the U.S. population about protecting Israel. A few months ago during the Hezholah crisis those purported anti-Iraq war dems were frothing at the mouth about the U.S. national security was comprimised by the attack on Israeli soldiers on Israeli ground. Those dem leaders were for war then to protect Israel.

I guess you can blame it on a religion too. The religion of funding their campaigns. Israel is a highly sensative issue because it involves lots of money to political campaigns and money is the root of all evil. As it motivates people to do incorrect acts so they can acquire it.

If Israel is attacked again the problem will be the knee-jerk action of all the politicians scrambling for Israeli and Israeli supported campaign contributions will set the scenario for a brosder armed conflict.

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
The bolded part of your qoute is the crux of the issue. Be carefull about laying the blame on the Christian segment of the U.S. population about protecting Israel. A few months ago during the Hezholah crisis those purported anti-Iraq war dems were frothing at the mouth about the U.S. national security was comprimised by the attack on Israeli soldiers on Israeli ground. Those dem leaders were for war then to protect Israel.

I guess you can blame it on a religion too. The religion of funding their campaigns. Israel is a highly sensative issue because it involves lots of money to political campaigns and money is the root of all evil. As it motivates people to do incorrect acts so they can acquire it.

If Israel is attacked again the problem will be the knee-jerk action of all the politicians scrambling for Israeli and Israeli supported campaign contributions will set the scenario for a brosder armed conflict.There you go again, casting aspersions on Dem support for Israel because it isn't based on fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Did it ever occur to to you that many people support Israel who aren't Jewish, but because Israel is a true functioning democracy of people whose values are as close to our own as those of the U.K., Canada, and Australia?

[Show Me the Wire]

There you go again, casting aspersions on Dem support for Israel because it isn't based on fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Did it ever occur to to you that many people support Israel who aren't Jewish, but because Israel is a true functioning democracy of people whose values are as close to our own as those of the U.K., Canada, and Australia?

Your response, as usual, to my post to hcap is not relevant to nor representative of what I posted.

Hcap's post stated the premise it is a Holy war on all sides and you better watch out. My response, let me clarify it for you again, was to point out the fact there is someting more dangerous in play than religion, meaning the desire for money. And further stating the dem's will support an escalation of an armed conflict to gain access to campaign funds to support Israel.

Once again in my opinion and belief, the only Holy war being waged is in the minds of the jihadist muslems intent on destroying western civilazations. There is no crusade on the part of the Western World or any western religious group.

Also in my opinion the dems will support a war based on gaining financial contributions from Israel and Israeli support groups. I believe you made that connection yourself with your opinion about the two Honorable Senators from New York regarding their misguided support for the war. ;)

I also wish that Iraq will be a functioning democracy, like Israel.

[Indulto]

Your response, as usual, to my post to hcap is not relevant to nor representative of what I posted.

Hcap's post stated the premise it is a Holy war on all sides and you better watch out. My response, let me clarify it for you again, was to point out the fact there is someting more dangerous in play than religion, meaning the desire for money. And further stating the dem's will support an escalation of an armed conflict to gain access to campaign funds to support Israel.

Once again in my opinion and belief, the only Holy war being waged is in the minds of the jihadist muslems intent on destroying western civilazations. There is no crusade on the part of the Western World or any western religious group.

Also in my opinion the dems will support a war based on gaining financial contributions from Israel and Israeli support groups. I believe you made that connection yourself with your opinion about the two Honorable Senators from New York regarding their misguided support for the war. ;)

I also wish that Iraq will be a functioning democracy, like Israel.Nice alliteration.

As usual, you miss the point. All politicians seek campaign money. The two NY Senators IMO were more concerned with votes than contributions, but again, so are most politicians, Rep or Dem. Since you regard money more dangerous than religion, does that mean you support the idea of limiting campaign spending?

[Show Me the Wire]

Nice alliteration.

As usual, you miss the point. All politicians seek campaign money. The two NY Senators IMO were more concerned with votes than contributions, but again, so are most politicians, Rep or Dem. Since you regard money more dangerous than religion, does that mean you support the idea of limiting campaign spending?


No it is your spin I deflect. As my point has been since the beginning the dem leadership does not support the war in Iraq, since there is nothing in it for them, and the dems have been saying Iraq is not a national security issue. But the dems tune change when they can collect campaign funds and drag out the national security banter being endangered because of violence directed toward Israel on Israeli ground.

The above is the point you try not to acknowledge and keep trying to deflect about dems are willingness to go to war for the advantages of money and really for national security.

[Tom]

George Harrison wrote a song whose lyrics I am reminded of whenever someone mentions "illusion". He uses the phrase "Beware of maya". I believe maya is Indian for "illusion". I think it's a Buddist or Hari Krishna saying.

"Beware of illusion".

It's good advice.

He also smoked half the dope in the known universe. :rolleyes:

[Indulto]

No it is your spin I deflect. As my point has been since the beginning the dem leadership does not support the war in Iraq, since there is nothing in it for them, and the dems have been saying Iraq is not a national security issue. But the dems tune change when they can collect campaign funds and drag out the national security banter being endangered because of violence directed toward Israel on Israeli ground.

The above is the point you try not to acknowledge and keep trying to deflect about dems are willingness to go to war for the advantages of money and really for national security.Didn't you really mean "not really?"

You get the last word, SMTW, but before you reply, watch the PBS video "Capitol Crimes" and then tell me all about your beloved Republicans who you think don't do anything "for the advantages of money." Be sure to listen carefully to the Christians who were bilked by Jack...off et al.

Your old object of scorn, ex-president Carter, was on Leno's show last night plugging his new book calling for fairer treatment of Palestinians. Now there's a true Christian in name and deed whose efforts since leaving office I admire. Predictably, you favor the crock Falwell feeds his flock.

[Show Me the Wire]

Didn't you really mean "not really?"

You get the last word, SMTW, but before you reply, watch the PBS video "Capitol Crimes" and then tell me all about your beloved Republicans who you think don't do anything "for the advantages of money." Be sure to listen carefully to the Christians who were bilked by Jack...off et al.

Your old object of scorn, ex-president Carter, was on Leno's show last night plugging his new book calling for fairer treatment of Palestinians. Now there's a true Christian in name and deed whose efforts since leaving office I admire. Predictably, you favor the crock Falwell feeds his flock.

Yes, thank you for editing my error. Should not type when I am in a hurry as my typing skills are poor.

Not my old object of scorn as a person, but as a President. Isn't there a scandal about his new book not being factual?

When you will stop trying to bait me with the "wife beating" type questions? You know by my posts I do not support Falwell's theories. Since I do not follow Falwell as closely as you I can't favor what I do not know.

What I like to know why you are so against protecting your fellow citizens lifes from foreign lunitics?

[Show Me the Wire]

Indulto:

I am for fair treatment of Palestinians. Indulto, I do not know if you really understand the magnitude of suffering, of these people, brought on through despair, poverty and oppression. It is an indictment of the inhabitants of that region. All of this suffering is made possible through the efforts of the own Palestinian leaders, power hungry syrian and Arab regimes that keep the stranglehold on the Palestinians necks, so they can use them as political ans physical weapon against Israel and last but not least Israel.

[Indulto]

Yes, thank you for editing my error. Should not type when I am in a hurry as my typing skills are poor.

Not my old object of scorn as a person, but as a President. Isn't there a scandal about his new book not being factual?

When you will stop trying to bait me with the "wife beating" type questions? You know by my posts I do not support Falwell's theories. Since I do not follow Falwell as closely as you I can't favor what I do not know.

What I like to know why you are so against protecting your fellow citizens lifes from foreign lunitics?.I promised you the last word between us on Dem/Rep, Christian/Muslim fundamentalism in this thread and I meant it. ;)

I just want you to know that after our numerous exchanges, I would never ask a "wife-beating" question of you. If your "domestic disputes" mirror your on-board debates, the question has to be "When is your wife going to stop beating you?" :D Indulto:

I am for fair treatment of Palestinians. Indulto, I do not know if you really understand the magnitude of suffering, of these people, brought on through despair, poverty and oppression. It is an indictment of the inhabitants of that region. All of this suffering is made possible through the efforts of the own Palestinian leaders, power hungry syrian and Arab regimes that keep the stranglehold on the Palestinians necks, so they can use them as political ans physical weapon against Israel and last but not least Israel.I don't understand the bolded portion.

I haven't read the book, but on the show Carter put Israel's portion of the blame on Jewish settlers in occupied areas who are only a minority of Israelis, but an activist component of the religious right there. As I understand it, one of those fanatics assassinated Prime Minister Rabin. I don't know if there were any factual errors, but a Jewish Defense League demonstration was held at Carter's book signing in Los Angeles.

The Palestinians are indeed oppressed which is the reason for the suicide bombings, and why there is no peace now even with Arafat gone. Neither side holds the moral high-ground, but the Israelis IMO need to be held to a higher standard in this case.

On the Lebanese incursion, I believe Isreal was provoked, and then faced an even greater imminent threat after it mobilized. Israel had few friends in Lebanon beforehand and now has more wolves on its doorstep. Like the U.S., it needs to learn that offensive military actions have their consequences. Perhaps it was Isreal's successful pre-emptive war in 1967 that screwed up our own thinking 35 years later.

[Show Me the Wire]

Indulto:

I don't understand the bolded reference to Israel either. Did not bold on purpose. Chalk it up to sub-standard typing skills.

Turning to the subject of Carter, one of the historians associated with his center for over a decade resigned citing inaccuracies in Carter's book.

[highnote]

He also smoked half the dope in the known universe. :rolleyes:

not to mention dropping half the acid

[Indulto]

Carter Prays With Rabbis Angered by Book By CHRIS KAHN
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/13/D8M02QIO3.html

… Former President Jimmy Carter (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=carter&sid=breitbart.com) prayed with rabbis who are angered by his new book's reference to apartheid in describing the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, but he didn't change their minds.

The Board of Rabbis of Greater Phoenix said they wouldn't call for a boycott of Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," but they also won't suggest that anyone read it.

… "I wanted to provoke debate," Carter said. "I wanted to provoke discussion."

Carter's book follows the peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians during his presidency in 1977-1980. He's critical of all players in not reaching a better accord, but he's especially critical of the Israelis. He previously told The Associated Press that Americans are rarely exposed to anything other than pro-Israeli views in the news media.

[hcap]

Any body know how many buy into the Rapture?'
30 million? 60 million?
This guy helps shape the debate between good Christians and evil doer others.

Don't miss the intro.

http://www.timlahaye.com/index.php?a=ok

"Dr. Tim LaHaye conceived the idea of fictionalizing an account of the Rapture and the Tribulation while sitting on airplanes and watching the pilots. He would think to himself, “What if the Rapture occurred while flying on an airplane?”

articles:

September 2001 The Prophetic Significance of Sept. 11, 2001 LaHaye
September 2001 Terrorism in America: Foreshadow of End-Time Events Ice
January 2001 The Literal Interpretation of prophecy

Hey what if the Rapture occured while waiting on line to get in a bet at Aqueduct? Maybe if I'm to be left behind and the dozen or so righteous in front of me get beamed up, I'll get my wager in wit no hassle? Do gamblers get to be sucked up with the rest? What about the horse?

Or what da story ridin da subwaz in da city? Ceitantly I'll get a seat. Yuk yuk