Whomever they can pick on that they can verify can't fight back.
Hussein was on that list...he had no WMD, no nothing. Didn't even fight back.
Ahmadinejad was once on the list.
He's out now. Might swing back.
Jong Il was once on the list.
He's out now. Might swing back.
Sadr looks like a good opponent.
So who were the Christian conservatives that you were bashing? You didn't answer my question. Was it just an arbitrary jab at a group of people you don't like? Seems to me that would make you a bigot if that's the case.
McGentrix wrote:So who were the Christian conservatives that you were bashing? You didn't answer my question. Was it just an arbitrary jab at a group of people you don't like? Seems to me that would make you a bigot if that's the case.
I was drawing my references from those members in the
Christmas thread who gripe about losing the public recognition of Christmas as a Christian holiday yet in other threads advocate murder and war.
Now, if you thought I was targeting you McG, rest assured, I could have substituted "Christianity" or "Christian" with Buddhist.
I find glaring contradictions in your political beliefs and the concept of ahimsā...if you are in fact a practicing Buddhist as you say.
candidone1 wrote:Now, if you thought I was targeting you McG, rest assured, I could have substituted "Christianity" or "Christian" with Buddhist.
I find glaring contradictions in your political beliefs and the concept of ahimsā...if you are in fact a practicing Buddhist as you say.
Why should someones religious beliefs have anything to do with their political beliefs? Do you allow your religious beliefs to influence your polictical beliefs?
candidone1 wrote:Now, if you thought I was targeting you McG, rest assured, I could have substituted "Christianity" or "Christian" with Buddhist.
I find glaring contradictions in your political beliefs and the concept of ahimsa;...if you are in fact a practicing Buddhist as you say.
That was supposed to say ahimsa.
McGentrix wrote:candidone1 wrote:Now, if you thought I was targeting you McG, rest assured, I could have substituted "Christianity" or "Christian" with Buddhist.
I find glaring contradictions in your political beliefs and the concept of ahimsā...if you are in fact a practicing Buddhist as you say.
Why should someones religious beliefs have anything to do with their political beliefs? Do you allow your religious beliefs to influence your polictical beliefs?
First, I have no religious beliefs.
I am not a religious person.
But a religious person's beliefs shape them and will in turn influence their political beliefs. You seem to be suggesting otherwise.
Stem cell research, aborton and gay marriage have all become political wedge issues. All or most of the discussion about these issues stem from religious beliefs, or absences thereof.
If your religious belief is that respect should be given to all forms of life, I think that advocating, as a first line of defense, a bullet in an adversary's head, then you are doing a disservice to your religious belief.
If you are willing to compromise your religious beliefs in favor of your political beliefs that you are a walking contradiction and have little right speaking out on either.
Bush's religious beliefs have shaped his presidency--and his evangelical base is evidence of his affiliation with and dependency upon religion as his guide--and his eagerness to depose of Hussein at any and all costs, facts be damned, illustrates my point quite adequately.
You have also validated my point by advocating a bullet in the head of a political opponent--which completely contradicts the notion of ahimsa and is no where suggested as a means to any nirvanic end.
candidone1 wrote:McGentrix wrote:candidone1 wrote:Now, if you thought I was targeting you McG, rest assured, I could have substituted "Christianity" or "Christian" with Buddhist.
I find glaring contradictions in your political beliefs and the concept of ahimsā...if you are in fact a practicing Buddhist as you say.
Why should someones religious beliefs have anything to do with their political beliefs? Do you allow your religious beliefs to influence your polictical beliefs?
First, I have no religious beliefs.
I am not a religious person.
But a religious person's beliefs shape them and will in turn influence their political beliefs. You seem to be suggesting otherwise.
Stem cell research, aborton and gay marriage have all become political wedge issues. All or most of the discussion about these issues stem from religious beliefs, or absences thereof.
If your religious belief is that respect should be given to all forms of life, I think that advocating, as a first line of defense, a bullet in an adversary's head, then you are doing a disservice to your religious belief.
If you are willing to compromise your religious beliefs in favor of your political beliefs that you are a walking contradiction and have little right speaking out on either.
Bush's religious beliefs have shaped his presidency--and his evangelical base is evidence of his affiliation with and dependency upon religion as his guide--and his eagerness to depose of Hussein at any and all costs, facts be damned, illustrates my point quite adequately.
You have also validated my point by advocating a bullet in the head of a political opponent--which completely contradicts the notion of ahimsa and is no where suggested as a means to any nirvanic end.
Obviously you must be wrong because many people are able to seperate their religious beliefs from their politicals beliefs. Perhaps you are thinking of the Islamic terrorist who can not distinguish his political and religious beliefs apart?
Religion is merely a part of a person existence. It plays a larger role in some peoples lives then in others, but anyone that allows their religious beliefs to be their over-riding rules for existance have no place in any position in government or politics.
If you have no religious beliefs, you are hardly capable of judging those that do or understanding the role religion may play in a person's life. that you can not understand that one may have the ability to seperate a religious belief from a political one only speaks to your own misunderstanding and misconceptions.
Back to the topic of this thread. Colin Powell seems to think that there's a civil war in Iraq...
Quote:Colin Powell says Iraq in a 'civil war'
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CNN) --
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday that Iraq's violence meets the standard of civil war and that if he were heading the State Department now, he might recommend that the administration use that term.
Many news organizations and analysts are calling the Sunni-Shiite sectarian warfare that exploded this year, killing thousands and causing widespread displacement, a civil war.
Powell's comments -- made in the United Arab Emirates at the Leaders in Dubai Business Forum -- are significant because he backed the war and was the top U.S. diplomat when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.
Bush has avoided using the term "civil war" to describe the situation in Iraq.
Tuesday, he called the latest violence in Iraq "part of a pattern" of attacks by al Qaeda in Iraq to divide Shiites and Sunnis and vowed, again, he won't support the removal of U.S. troops "before the mission is complete."
"There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal," he said.
McGentrix wrote:
Obviously you must be wrong because many people are able to seperate their religious beliefs from their politicals beliefs. Perhaps you are thinking of the Islamic terrorist who can not distinguish his political and religious beliefs apart?
Religion is merely a part of a person existence. It plays a larger role in some peoples lives then in others, but anyone that allows their religious beliefs to be their over-riding rules for existance have no place in any position in government or politics.
If you have no religious beliefs, you are hardly capable of judging those that do or understanding the role religion may play in a person's life. that you can not understand that one may have the ability to seperate a religious belief from a political one only speaks to your own misunderstanding and misconceptions.
In an attempt to act as though you know something about me, you have passed judgements on to me that are simply false.
Not being religious does not mean that I have always been. I am certainly qualified to speak to the role religion may or may not have in my life, or the role religion has in the lives of others, and the connections they publicly make between their religious beliefs and their political ones.
It would suffice to say McG, since we are both way off topic, that if you wish to discuss this further, send me a PM.
Otherwise, I will try to follow the example OE has so graciously set above.
candidone1 wrote:McGentrix wrote:
Obviously you must be wrong because many people are able to seperate their religious beliefs from their politicals beliefs. Perhaps you are thinking of the Islamic terrorist who can not distinguish his political and religious beliefs apart?
Religion is merely a part of a person existence. It plays a larger role in some peoples lives then in others, but anyone that allows their religious beliefs to be their over-riding rules for existance have no place in any position in government or politics.
If you have no religious beliefs, you are hardly capable of judging those that do or understanding the role religion may play in a person's life. that you can not understand that one may have the ability to seperate a religious belief from a political one only speaks to your own misunderstanding and misconceptions.
In an attempt to act as though you know something about me, you have passed judgements on to me that are simply false.
Not being religious does not mean that I have always been. I am certainly qualified to speak to the role religion may or may not have in my life, or the role religion has in the lives of others, and the connections they publicly make between their religious beliefs and their political ones.
It would suffice to say McG, since we are both way off topic, that if you wish to discuss this further, send me a PM.
Otherwise, I will try to follow the example OE has so graciously set above.
Haven't you done the same with me in regards of passing judgement?
McG
Are you saying that your religious values and moralty has no place or influence in your political thinking. Thou shall not kill is not applicable if the killing is done for political reasons.
au1929 wrote:McG
Are you saying that your religious values and moralty has no place or influence in your political thinking. Thou shall not kill is not applicable if the killing is done for political reasons.
No, I am saying that it is possible to have religious convictions that may differ from ones political convictions. Not every Christian is anti-abortion. Not every Buddhist opposes war. Not every Jew is Kosher. Not every Muslim follows Sharia.
You are taking an example to it's most extreme to try to make a failed point.
OE
I just came across that Powell reference and was going to toss it in here.
"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." -- Douglas Adams
JUST AN OBSERVATION
Bush, my way or the highway, is scurrying around looking for help. He reminds me of a beaten dog looking for someone to pet him. It won't happen because he is probably the most hated head of state in the universe. Pet him hell most would get joy out of kicking him. Unfortunately all of the animus he has created is now aimed at the US.
Shi'ites vs. Sunnis
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Allan Topol
December 1, 2006
Failure to understand and to take into account the conflict between Shi'ites and Sunnis has been devastating to American Middle Eastern policy. We had better focus on the issue now before it's too late. The stakes are large, including control of the oil that is the lifeblood of United States and European democracies.
The basic problem in Iraq is not a dispute between the United States, as occupier, and the Iraqi people, as an occupied nation. It is not between secularists and fundamentalists. It is not between the Iraqi government and insurgents. To be sure, all of these play some role in the current violence. However, the single most important conflict is the one that pits Shi'ites against Sunnis.
Likewise, in Lebanon this intra-Islam conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites is at the heart of the current problem and threatens an outbreak of civil war. The Shi'ites, led by Hezbollah, have made war on the Lebanese nation and its democratically elected government. With its brazen attack on Israel this summer, Hezbollah, which had for years been the government within the government in the south, decided unilaterally to become the government for all of Lebanon.
The Lebanese civil war that erupted in the late 1970s pitted Muslims against Christians with the Druze joining one side or the other at various times. The current lineup is different. Now the Christians and Druze are joined by the Sunnis. For the combination of these three groups, the Shi'ites and Hezbollah are the enemy.
In oil-rich Bahrain, Shi'ites, who comprise a majority of the population, are rearing their heads politically and attempting to gain control from the Sunnis who have governed the country for decades. Among the ruling monarchy in Saudi Arabia, ruled by a conservative Sunni regime, there is fear and dread about what the minority, but sizeable, Shi'ite population will do about asserting its political rights. The issue here is even more complex because the Shi'ites inhabit the oil-rich eastern part of the kingdom.
In the United States, senior policy-makers and commentators have been slow to recognize both the extent of animosity between Shi'ites and Sunnis and its significance for events in the Middle East. The hatred between Sunnis and Muslims goes back to 632 CE and the death of prophet Muhammad. The most critical issue following Muhammad's death was his succession. The forbearers of the Sunnis followed the tribal tradition of having a council of elders select as the head of the Islamic community the individual most qualified to lead. The forbearers of the Shi'ites on the other hand believed that Muhammad heirs should rule the Islamic community.
The conflict came to a head in the battle of Karbala in 680 CE when the Sunnis forbearers massacred the prophet's grandson Husayn and his followers. Gleefully, the victors carried Husayn's head to Damascus and paraded it there. Is it any wonder that for the next 1,300 years, there has been hatred and recurring warfare between these two sects within Islam who differ radically in their religious practices.
Iran is a Persian, not Arab country. Its people are almost entirely Shi'ite. With the fall of the shah and the Islamic revolution, a Shi'ite government was installed in Tehran. This was a marked contrast to the ruling powers in the Arab Islamic nations where the Sunnis exert tight control, even though there are large, and often impoverished, Shi'ite populations. What the mullahs have done from their base in Iran is to stir up Shi'ite communities throughout the Middle East and encourage them to take control of their governments. This is what is happening in Lebanon and in Bahrain and will happen at some time in the near future in Saudi Arabia and other countries.
The United States did not create this conflict, which has spanned 13 centuries, with our invasion in Iraq. Unwittingly, however, with our emphasis on democracy in the Middle East we have provided the means for Shi'ites to seize control in their countries. At the ballot box. In elections.
For more than 50 years, the primary conflict in the Middle East has been the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. That is now changing. Coming to the forefront is the enmity between Sunnis and Shi'ites, which is likely to influence events in the Middle East at least for the rest of this decade, and perhaps much longer.
Allan Topol is an international lawyer and the author of several novels.
A rose by any other name..
Rice Falsely Claims That Iraqis Don't Believe They Are In A Civil War
Quote:Last night on CBS, Katie Couric asked Condoleezza Rice if she believes "the civil war in Iraq is likely to deteriorate significantly over the next few months." Rice responded that Iraq is not a civil war because "the Iraqis don't see it that way." Rice added, "it really doesn't help to speak about their circumstance as a civil war, in terms that they don't speak about their circumstances."
Actually, top Iraqi military officials believe Iraq is in a civil war. From McClatchy, 8/04/06:
"This is a civil war," said a senior adviser to the commander of the Iraqi Army's 6th Division, which oversees much of Baghdad.
"The problem between Sunnis and Shiites is a religious one, and it gets worse every time they attack each other's mosques," said the adviser, who gave only his rank and first name, Col. Ahmed, because of security concerns. "Iraq is now caught in hell."
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi says Iraq is in a civil war. From the BBC, 3/19/06:
It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more.
If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.
Average Iraqis appear to share this view:
The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, told Congress on Thursday that the violence in Baghdad "is probably as bad as I have ever seen it," and went on to say that the country could be headed toward civil war.
Nearly all of the dozen Iraqis who work for McClatchy Newspapers' Baghdad bureau ?- evenly split between Shiite and Sunni Muslims ?- reached that conclusion long ago.
Their observations have trickled out day by day in the scores of conversations colleagues have with one another about their lives and difficulties. Their experiences of the last month reveal a capital city that's disintegrating into chaos.
Prime Minister Maliki, of course, agrees with the administration that Iraq is not in a civil war. But his beliefs should not be conflated with the entire Iraqi people.
Transcript:
COURIC: According to a study released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the civil war in Iraq is likely to deteriorate significantly over the next few months regardless of the actions the Bush Administration may pursue.
RICE: Well, with all due respect to the CSIS, which is a great institution, the Iraqis don't see it that way and we don't see it that way. This ?- the Iraqis see that they have extraordinarily difficult problems. They see that they have sectarian violence. They see that they have to deal with those who are operating outside the law and killing innocent people. But it really doesn't help to speak about their circumstance as a civil war, in terms that they don't speak about their circumstances.
Fox News ?'Unwilling To Fall IntoÂ…Tender Trap' Of Calling Iraq A Civil War
Quote:Fox News has declared that it will not use the phrase "civil war" to describe the current violence in Iraq.
Fox's Senior Vice President John Moody ?- whose infamous politically-slanted internal memos have gained notoriety ?- said in a statement that "some are using the term civil war to indicate failure, not inside Iraq, but on U.S. policy in Iraq. We're unwilling to fall into that tender trap. We're not using the term because there are non-Iraqis in the fray and that makes it something different."
Fox News is right, Iraq is not simply a civil war. ThinkProgress noted in October that Iraq has devolved into at least four distinct violent conflicts. But that does not mean that one of those conflicts is not a civil war. Indeed, according to scholars surveyed by the New York Times, not only is Iraq in the midst of a civil war, the current level of bloodshed "already puts Iraq in the top ranks of the civil wars of the last half-century."
Full transcript:
WILSON: The debate over terminology has become a media issue following NBC's formal decision to use the term civil war, a decision first announced on Monday's Today Show.
MATT LAUER, THE TODAY SHOW: NBC News has decided a change in terminology is warranted, that the situation in Iraq, with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas, can now be characterized as civil war.
WILSON: And NBC correspondents have used the term several times since.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Iraq's worsening civil war will dominate -
WILSON: Other news organizations have not followed NBC's lead. For example, the executive producer of the CBS Evening News said, "to be honest with you, I think it's a political statement, not a news judgment." At CNN, an official statement, "CNN will continue to report on what is happening in Iraq on a day to day basis and we will also report on the on- going debate in academic and political circles about what constitutes a civil war."
The senior V.P. for editorial here at Fox said today, "some are using the term civil war to indicate failure, not inside Iraq, but on U.S. policy in Iraq. We're unwilling to fall into that tender trap. We're not using the term because there are non-Iraqis in the fray and that makes it something different."
(links to back up statements found at the source)
