Religion, Politics, and Armegeddon

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsschmange... rhymes with strange... so that should give you the idea. :p

I always thought it rhymed with flange? :eek:

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsand we all know that was a true story... that really makes me want to believe him now...

it is not a matter of believing, it is a fact. the scrolls said it. whether jesus even lived is up for debate.

Originally Posted by: magicninjaI always thought it rhymed with flange? :eek:

click me!!!!!!!

the answers are held within!

Aaaahhhh. I want to go to Grenada now. A GT convention would be well everyone knows what it would be. A US one is doable maybe in St. Louis.

Originally Posted by: magicninjaAaaahhhh. I want to go to Grenada now. A GT convention would be well everyone knows what it would be. A US one is doable maybe in St. Louis.

actually... in a cornfield in illinois

click me!!!!!!!!!!!!

the answers are held within... again

Originally Posted by: AkiraI'd say Bush and Blair are the real "terrorists", the middle eastern "terrorists" are nothing more than freedom fighters.

Btw, everytime I say the above I get "oh so you support Saddam then?!", No, I do not and have never supported Saddam's evil regime.

Ahahahahahahaahahahha!

Ahahahaahahahahahahah!

Ok ok, I got ahold of myself. Just returned to town and just started reading this thread.

Hmmmmm, last time I checked Bush or Blair hadnt specifically targeted civilians or waged war on somebody due to religious beliefs. Freedom fighters my ass. These are sick crazy terrorists who have waged war on "the infidels" because we dont share the same religious beliefs. And youd go so far to say that Bush and Blair are worse than them?? Did you lose anyone in 9/11? Didnt think so. *******

What is "evil"?

Al-whatever thinks american beliefs are evil for different reasons...not sure on those details.

Americans(for the most part)think they are evil for killing civilians.

Who is right?I don't like their religion,beliefs and methods of attaining goals so I say make 'em extinct...and they feel the same.

Originally Posted by: z0s0_jpin the rediscovered lost books(dead sea scrolls) of the new testament, there is a passage(removed by the catholic church over a thousand years ago)where the disciples ask jesus "what will heaven be like?"...will we see family and friends from earth?? animals?? trees?? rocks?? sun?? stars?? jesus replies "men are blind for they do not see the kingdom of heaven is here on earth." the church removed this passage because you don't need a church to get to heaven when you are already there.

That cannot be true, because the Dead Sea Scrolls were kept by a Jewish sect. No way that they would have New Testament writings in there. A more likely explanation is that this is an "apocryphal" passage; something that was added later on after the original writings were completed.

Originally Posted by: stacknyHmmmmm, last time I checked Bush or Blair hadnt specifically targeted civilians or waged war on somebody due to religious beliefs. Freedom fighters my ass. These are sick crazy terrorists who have waged war on "the infidels" because we dont share the same religious beliefs. And youd go so far to say that Bush and Blair are worse than them?? Did you lose anyone in 9/11? Didnt think so. *******

What Akira meant to say was:

Considering Bush did officially wage war on Iraq which was completely unrelated to 9/11 in a quest to find weapons of destruction that we still have yet to find while troops go out there and do a whole lot of nothing like they have been for quite a few years now while supporters of the war gradually decrease. Terrorists aren't always what stereotypes present. You don't have to plant a bomb and blow up a bunch of people to be a terrorist. Hell, Charles Manson just sent other people to do his bidding. Oddly enough, Bush is sending people all over the place to do his bidding. And to think that all of this is stemming only from different religious beliefs is just too much of a jump. Of course religion has its name in there, but what's to gain by annhillating the other religions? Is there enough to gain from that alone to spend all this money on destroying them? There would have to be something in return to make up for the difference. And calling them sick is just assuming that they're all irrational war mongers that have no feelings or beliefs. I'm sure they believe in what they're doing just as much as you believe in what you said above so they're hardly sick and crazed. Hell, they'd actually have to be intelligent to some degree to be able to hijack planes and fly them over various states. A job like that isn't something you hand over to crazed war mongers.

Now, here's my disclaimer. I'm not supporting the people over seas for what they did here. In my book that's a cardinal sin. But I'm not supporting Bush's actions any more or less. I think it's a disgusting power struggle and nothing more.

Funny how they use the word "infidel" since it was first used by christian chrusaders as an excuse to kill muslims.
Bush helped the terrorists gain support by invading iraq. Both sides are idiots, one helping the other without realising it
Try not to resort to personal insults in this thread btw or the mods (according to board rules) will have your ballz cut off ;)

I have homework to do now, gtg. :(

Originally Posted by: AkiraI refuse to argue with you. I've seen from previous debates that arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. So, i'd rather not get involved.

Ill take that as a compliment....though Im sure its not meant that way.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic ExcretionsWhat Akira meant to say was:

Considering Bush did officially wage war on Iraq which was completely unrelated to 9/11 in a quest to find weapons of destruction that we still have yet to find while troops go out there and do a whole lot of nothing like they have been for quite a few years now while supporters of the war gradually decrease. Terrorists aren't always what stereotypes present. You don't have to plant a bomb and blow up a bunch of people to be a terrorist. Hell, Charles Manson just sent other people to do his bidding. Oddly enough, Bush is sending people all over the place to do his bidding. And to think that all of this is stemming only from different religious beliefs is just too much of a jump. Of course religion has its name in there, but what's to gain by annhillating the other religions? Is there enough to gain from that alone to spend all this money on destroying them? There would have to be something in return to make up for the difference. And calling them sick is just assuming that they're all irrational war mongers that have no feelings or beliefs. I'm sure they believe in what they're doing just as much as you believe in what you said above so they're hardly sick and crazed. Hell, they'd actually have to be intelligent to some degree to be able to hijack planes and fly them over various states. A job like that isn't something you hand over to crazed war mongers.

Now, here's my disclaimer. I'm not supporting the people over seas for what they did here. In my book that's a cardinal sin. But I'm not supporting Bush's actions any more or less. I think it's a disgusting power struggle and nothing more.

WMD's not there ya say? Talked to the 182,000 Kurds Hussein gassed and dropped in a mass grave in 1988? Ever wondered why hes so insistent on the UN weapons inspectors leaving? Talked to the 50,000 civilians executed in Basra in 1991 after a Shiite uprise?

Naaaaaaah, wmds aint there.....And even if they were Hussein wouldnt use em....right?

First of all, do you know where he got the WMD technology from? it starts with a "U" and ends with An "A", c'mon guess. He used it not only against iraqis, but against iranians too, with the help of the U.S.

Secondly, if he had them all this time, why suddenly rush into war now?
And why haven't the WMD's been found?

Originally Posted by: scarface84First of all, do you know where he got the WMD technology from? it starts with a "U" and ends with An "A", c'mon guess. He used it not only against iraqis, but against iranians too, with the help of the U.S.

Secondly, if he had them all this time, why suddenly rush into war now?
And why haven't the WMD's been found?

Hold on there. We we'rent arguing when Iran and Iraq went to war because Iran was and is an enemy of ours, but we never justified the killing of thousands of innocent civilians.

Why rush into war? 4 planes. 3 buildings. 3,000 dead Americans. Terrorist harboring nation. Evil dictator. Countless ultimatums to disarm. You do the math.

And most likely the WMDs are either under ground or were sent over the border to Syria. Its a nieeve statement to say they dont exist.

Originally Posted by: stacknyHold on there. We we'rent arguing when Iran and Iraq went to war because Iran was and is an enemy of ours, but we never justified the killing of thousands of innocent civilians.[/QUOTE]
Hold on yourself. Read what you said and think about that. We were teaming up with Iraq when we had a common goal... destroy Iran. Not much of a goal, but still. Now we suddenly want to destroy Iraq without a shred of proof they're doing anything? That sounds like a big back stab. And teaming up with Iraq in order to destroy some other country knowing who we're working with, while also giving them WMDs isn't exactly disagreeing with the said killing.

Example (actual conversation):
USA: Goddamn I wanna destroy some country
Iraq: How about Iran?
Iran: Ummm... how about France?
USA: Ok, let's trounce Iran, now, before we do this we need to be clear on something. We don't like killing thousands of innocent people. Can we trust you?
Iraq: Of course.
USA: Ok, here's a bunch of weapons built to crush anything and everything.
Iraq: Killer
Iran: Booo.
(Iran gets trounced)
USA: Man, I'm already getting ants in my pants. I need to destroy something else.
Iraq: How about France?
USA: Hmmm... do you still have those WMDs I gave you a while back?
Iraq: Umm... maybe, I dunno, I'll have to look.
USA: YOU'VE GOT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!! SAVE AMERICA WE'RE GONNA KICK YOUR ASS EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO OBVIOUS SIGN OF DANGER COMING FROM IRAQ IN ANY FORM ANYWHERE!!!
Saudi Arabia: Wait a minute, I was expecting you to think France was behind this.

Originally Posted by: stackny
Why rush into war? 4 planes. 3 buildings. 3,000 dead Americans. Terrorist harboring nation. Evil dictator. Countless ultimatums to disarm. You do the math.

Perhaps the original statement could be rephrased? Why rush into the wrong war? Hussein wasn't involved in 9/11 so why are we in Iraq?

[QUOTE=stackny]
And most likely the WMDs are either under ground or were sent over the border to Syria. Its a nieeve statement to say they dont exist.

It's also naive to just assume everything the president says is truthful and just. Personally, I don't trust Hussein's word for ****. But I don't think Bush is the grandest person. Now, I'm not knocking on Bush because I'm some anti-republican. Truth is I just think he's not cut for being a president. I think he was a bad choice. I'm not defending democrats or anything, just saying that presidents can be corrupt. That's a lot of power at your finger tips. Can any normal, human being be expected to handle all that power responsibly all the time?

Originally Posted by: stacknyWMD's not there ya say? Talked to the 182,000 Kurds Hussein gassed and dropped in a mass grave in 1988? Ever wondered why hes so insistent on the UN weapons inspectors leaving? Talked to the 50,000 civilians executed in Basra in 1991 after a Shiite uprise?

Naaaaaaah, wmds aint there.....And even if they were Hussein wouldnt use em....right?

Ok, they were there in 1988. Where are they now? That was almost 20 years ago.

:rolleyes: Please. Hussein not involved with 9/11? Thats just plain silly.

Lemme ask you something. What was the proper response to the 9/11 attacks? Sitting around and waiting for a permission slip from the UN? Sitting around and letting the terrorists organize another set of attacks?

Youre saying that a guy who has BS'd the UN's weapons inspectors for the past 20 years is not a threat. A guy who has no problem with gassin HIS OWN people. The world is a much safer place without Hussein still in power.

I like Bush. Theres a couple things he could improve on, but I think hes done a great job with doing whats best for our nation.

Whoah... Deja Vu.

Originally Posted by: stackny:rolleyes: Please. Hussein not involved with 9/11? Thats just plain silly.[/QUOTE]
Almost as silly as a president who's full of ****. Almost as silly as a massive population that just assumes their president is telling the truth.

Originally Posted by: stackny
Lemme ask you something. What was the proper response to the 9/11 attacks? Sitting around and waiting for a permission slip from the UN? Sitting around and letting the terrorists organize another set of attacks? [/QUOTE]
Considering Bin Laden's name was the most commonly heard name post 9/11, my first reaction would be "Ok, let's go get Bin Laden" not "Ok, let's go to Iraq everyone." I never said we should just sit around, just go for the one we're supposed to be after.

[QUOTE=stackny]
Youre saying that a guy who has BS'd the UN's weapons inspectors for the past 20 years is not a threat. A guy who has no problem with gassin HIS OWN people. The world is a much safer place without Hussein still in power.

I didn't say he wasn't a threat. Just that we're in total hypocrisy. We gave him the weapons that he gassed his own people with when he was on our side and now we want to slap him on the hand for it?

[QUOTE=stackny]
I like Bush. Theres a couple things he could improve on, but I think hes done a great job with doing whats best for our nation.

And what exactly is what's best for "our" nation? Since you seem to be exalted enough to know how an opinion that should be discussed like what's "best" for something is, then perhaps you can inform me on what I've been missing all this time.

How is the president full of ****? The most you could possibly claim is him receiving faulty info from the CIA, being that congress happened to vote overwhelmingly in the approval of the war in Iraq. Were all of congress, even the liberals, all full of **** too?

We went after Bin Laden. The guy is a billionare and has friends everywhere in the middle east. Its like searching for a needle in a hay stack. Aint exactly an easy thing to do.

Its not like we handed Hussein a vat full of wmds and said do as you please. We may have indirectly gave them money, but that was by no means a permission slip to gas innocent people.

I think the nation is a much more secure place with Bush here. Hes kept our moral values in check. He takes no BS from anyone. He does what he thinks is best for us and only us, and thats what I like. We dont need a permission slip from the fairy nations in the UN saying that we can or cant go to war.

Bin laden is Saudi arabian, and trained al-qaeda in afghanistan, what does that have to do with iraq? Saddam hussein hated every other political group but his own, including al-qaeda. .I know this region, i visit iran atleast once a year for a few months each time, so when someone says there's al-qaeda in iraq (before the war) i can't help but laugh. Try saudi arabia, pakistan or afghanistan, you bombed the wrong country, y'know. After the war in 2003, al-qaeda may have slipped in to iraq to fight the US, but that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't attacked iraq. Btw, by giving saddam sattellite images, chemical weapons technology and god knows what more to fight iran, i think the US IS responsible for civilian deaths, like it or not, we still have every hospital in iran full of people who were exposed to the chemical weapons used by saddam. You said Iran was your enemy, well that would make saddam your friend. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was a strategy that backfired