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
(links to back up statements found at the source)
