« Another reason why I don't trust 'born again' Christians | Main | Mark Foley »

September 26, 2006

Comments

Mike

Obviously the Pope's statement was intentional. Confrontation with the Muslim's is not unheard of by a Pope...over the past 2000 years? It has been an on-going back and forth "thing" between the head of "the church" and Islam... thanks again to the reigning Emperor who adopted Christianity to unify the Empire religiouly... it only gave the other monotheists the impetus to go to war.

To let the Pope's statement to stand would be the "easy button" to get the old war really jacked up into hight gear and this would be bad for the Muslims world wide...at least at this point in time.... sooooo...Oh, well he was just an old fuddy duddy with a mind fart....

Easy way out for Islam. Damn truth does hurt!

Oliver B

No difference between Born Again Christians and Muslims or any other religion. There may be a spiritual side to all of us, but that doesn't justify the creation of fairy tales to explain all for the simple minded.
Best I can do is embrace Pantheism, but that isn't a religion. But whether I like it or not, I am still a Christian since the social order in which I, and my ancestors evolved was Christianity.
Frankly, I don't care a fig about the Pope, Islam or any of the rest of it,and think that draconian measures are necessary to mount a decent defense against cultural failures and mental aberrations of the species.

BAWDYSCOT

Oliver,

And who or what body will carry out those draconian measures? Just curious.

Oliver B

I'm no longer curious, but I've given up on our elected representatives. Not to knock Bush in any way, but I recall his dad being accused of being a "wimp" on live TV with Dan Rather. I didn't believe it then for his dad, nor do I believe it now of the son, but we certainly do have many actual wimps in government. Now that radical insurgents have scored big (WTC) you would think the tone of government would have shifted at least to stern if not draconian measures. Not from my view of current events... (Of course the media does take delight in reporting the bumbling mis-steps of our finest(?) pols and agencies.)
It certainly doesn't do any good to think up new ways to describe inept governing bodies, but this senior, senior citizen is disgusted anew, each and every day. Oh well, it's too late for me to emigrate (I'm too old) and besides, there's no new frontier to go to; Colonization of other planets is not yet an option.

BAWDYSCOT

Please, knock Bush, he deserves it.

Mike

Oliver...there are reruns of Startrek... also, GWKB has a library to reference if you get the urge... Sorry about the limitations of this world but it is all we have. No one seems to realize that or care about that. As a Pantheist you probibly love the this beautiful world, and should. I do. When we have leaders that threaten other nations with atomic weapons I don't think Mother Nature would do well with a dozen 100 mega ton devices delivered through the atmosphere to Pakistan, Iran and North Korea... It could be the straw that breaks the camels back so to speak. The man seriously needs a brain transplant.

fcc

Guliani is the first politician who has gotten it right. He actually stated on national television that 911 was not Bush's or Clinton's fault but rather the fault of terrorist. Imagine, puting the blame on the perpetrators rather than our leaders. He is a man who will get serious consideration from me when 08 rolls around. Hey you got take the common sense approach when it makes itself available which is not often. Americans must blame their own, especially when they represent the wrong color.

BAWDYSCOT

This coming from someone on this site who has done nothing but blame Clinton for 9/11. fcc, your are amazing. I have been posting for awhile that it doesn't matter a stitch whose to blame and that we as a country must look forward not backward. Maybe I should put my hat in the ring with my "common sense approach".

Masood

"He actually stated on national television that 911 was not Bush's or Clinton's fault but rather the fault of terrorist."

This then is the real reason for the "hit-job" on Clinton.

The MO appears to be "accuse another person for a fault and create a diversion. Then someone with "common sense" comes along and accuses a "third" party and acquits both the real culprit and the wrongfully accused and the entire argument is shifted away from the real problem".

Brilliant!, but devious.

-Masood

BAWDYSCOT

Masood,

There certainly is nothing about this situation(Iraq) which makes me proud. I love this country with all my heart(I am not divided by any divinity), but to say I am a very frustrated American would be a truthful statement.

Gene

Masood & Bawdy,

Its really simple. If you blame Bush, you must blame Clinton. They are eternally tied to 9/11. Thats fact and no amount of political spin can change the facts. Clinton essentially aditted as much. If you excuse one, you must excuse both. I like what Guliani seems to be saying. He essentially equates this blaming of the presdidents to blaming the Chief of Police for the robbery at the local convience store. Its time to blam the Fundamental Muslim Terrorist for their actions and hold them accountable and come together as Americans to defeat their jihad. Sorry Masood, but I'm just quoting what the terrorist propaganda machine spouts.

id

Masood said; Then someone with "common sense" comes along and accuses a "third" party and acquits both the real culprit and the wrongfully accused and the entire argument is shifted away from the real problem".

Masood, can you, with common sence and free will, tell me who you believe the "real culprit" of 9/11 is without quoteing verse, biblical or Quranic, (I've had it up to my ass with the Bible and the Quran). I would like to end this blame game if you can identify the "real culprit." Once that is out of the way will you be able to tell me what the "real problem" was prior to 9/11 (or 1976 if you would like to expound on everything leading up to 9/11/01). I would appreciate your perspective.

BAWDYSCOT

The problem with your estimation Gene, is you mix Al Qaeda with native Iraqis who have a problem with an occupying force of different thinking peoples and they won't leave. I will give you Al Qaeda is NOW in Iraq, but the majority of the violence now occuring in this unfortunate country is sectarian as the different sides are making power plays which we instigated by invading. To make this out as if we are some benevolent people with unselfish aims is just plain ludicrous. Al Qaeda is now a de-centralized local phenomenom for the most part(the central leadership can take credit for operations, but they have very little to do with these operations, mainly because of our covert efforts(which was my suggestion all along))and the spread of militant Islamic groups are directly attributable to our actions in the Middle East from the 1990's on. To be proud of this legacy, the legacy of Bush and Clinton, in my estimation, is wrong. This is why I believe our focus should be on the future(get our asses out of Iraq and let the Iranian chips fall where they may) and try our best to mend the fences we destroyed with our own hands. There is no chance the moderate Islamists can gain control as long as we are based in the Middle East. It just won't happen.

BTW, the Iranians would never allow a Sunni organization, Al Qaeda, to control Iraq.

Bev

gene: "If you blame Bush, you must blame Clinton. They are eternally tied to 9/11. Thats fact."

That's NOT fact.
See, this is why you guys don't respect scientists and therefore we don't respect you.
You call your own opinions "fact" with a straight face.
"Facts" are provable.
"Opinion" is what you think but can't prove.

Clinton was on watch for the WTC one month into his presidency that killed 6 people.
He gets the blame.
Clinton was on watch for the embassies (about 300 deaths).
He gets the blame.
Clinton was on watch a month before the 2000 elections when the USS Cole was hit (17 troops killed).
He gets the blame.

But what has Bush done about the USS Cole since that one month, and, and btw, the last month of Clinton's presidency?
Bush gets the blame.

Clinton's watch was over when Bush won the election.
Then the watch is turned over.
Clinton was no longer on watch, after eight years of being on watch. I listed what we blamed him for... everything that happened on his watch.

Then Bush was on watch, for eight months.
I blame Bush for everything that has happened on his watch.

No more.
No less.
Let's do the same for Clinton.
Just like Clinton did the same for George HW Bush.

Bush was on watch on 9/11. Clinton was no longer in any position of leadership whatsoever. He was not making any decisions for our nation whatsoever.
Therefore, the FACT is, he is NOT to blame.

Do you believe Clinton could have stopped 9/11? Because if clinton could have stopped 9/11, and Bush is more competent than Clinton, then Bush could have stopped 9/11 too.

If Bush didn't stop it when Clinton could have, Bush is LESS competent than Clinton.

And, finally, if you DON'T think Clinton could have stopped it, then logically, the FACTS are, Clinton's not to blame.

The facts are, Bush has not brought to justice the person who has claimed responsibility for 9/11.
Since January 2001, eight months before 9/11, Clinton did not have the power to bring him to justice.
Why is it a "FACT" that Clinton was on watch standing right next to Bush on Septmeber 11, 2001?

In the military, the person on watch gets the blame for all that happens under that person's watch.

And, since when does gene not advocate for bearing both personal and professional responsibility on one's watch?

Masood

Bawdyscot,

"I love this country with all my heart"

The same can be said about people from other countries. They too love their respective countries and will defend them when invaded by foreign powers that are interested in exploiting their resources and imposing their ideas on them.

-Masood

Gene

Bev,

I guess we will agree to disagree won't we. I'll go with Guliani and blame the Muslim fanatics. They planned and orchestrated all the events.

Bawdy,

Al Qaeda is in Iraq because they want Iraq to remain a terrorist state. As does Iran. Can you blame them? Their killing ideaology is at stake in the middle east. Allowing Iran and Al Qaeda to take Iraq is a huge mistake. Most all of Congress, our military leaders and Americans agree with that truth. I do as well. Fact is, the majority of Iraqis love their new freedom and want us to help them rebuild their country. Admittedly, I'm quoting my buddy who spent two tours there. The terrorist should be allowed dictate what happens to Iraq.

Masood

"Fact is, the majority of Iraqis love their new freedom and want us to help them rebuild their country."

Poll: Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer 1 hour, 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, a poll finds.

The Iraqis also have negative views of
Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.

The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:

_Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in
Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

_About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.

_An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

_Three-fourths say they think the U.S. plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.

BAWDYSCOT

Gene,

You just don't get it. Are you advocating the invasion of Iran? Sure sounds like it. Lets just compound the mistakes we have already made.

Masood,

I don't see where I disagreed with you. But maybe I am just misreading you.

Masood

Bawdyscot,

"..I don't see where I disagreed with you.."

I am not disagreeing with you either. I am just using your sincere comment to point out that maybe some people don't see the Iraq war in the way it should be. It's usually "us the good vs they the bad".

-Masood

Gene

Bawdy

I read my statement again. I can't see how in the world you got the idea I think we should invade Iraq.

Masood,

Think the reporter was interviewing the terrorist or the government leaders? Only 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Yikes! Must be the terrorist.

Last week, Iraqi President Jalal Talibani told the United Nations that "coalition forces should remain in Iraq until Iraqi security forces are"capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."


Mike

Withdrawing troops is not in our interests at this time. Withdrawing them to Kuati basecamps and Kurd basecamps makes sense in the short run. This would allow the warring parties to sort out their differences...Shea's and Sunni in their own way...and the National government could play refree. Our troops would only get involved if it was in the interests of our own security.

Muslim sects that cannot agree on chest thumping and praying sure are not going to be rational enough to sort out policy fine points... we need to use a Darwinian approach to this and backoff... we are not the Iraqi's policemen...

BAWDYSCOT

Gene,

I made that assumption because you have grouped Iran with Al Qaeda and terrorists in general. The logical next step for anyone who thinks along these lines would be to take Iran out(I believe you meant to say Iran in your post). Do you see MY logic now? Where does it all end in your view?

I also have to take you to task for something you and fcc do all the time. You two look upon Iraq as one group of people. You cite Jalal Talibani, a Kurd, as speaking for all Iraqis. The Kurds have been our allies for a long, long time, even before Iraq I. Of course they would say they want us to stay in their country. They would like us to put pressure on Turkey to allow them to form their own country. They have an agenda too. Try asking a Shiite what they want; I think you might get a different answer. You look upon this as a simple situation and it isn't when you take all the factions inside and outside this country. It is a chess match to the nth degree and we have found out our President can barely play checkers.

BAWDYSCOT

Masood,

I now "see" we are in agreement. Thanks.

fcc

Jalal Talibani is the president. Since he is a Kurd, should we just ignore his authority? They did have an election. In the interest of leaving ASAP, we had better respect the government leaders and let them make determination for the direction of their country.

Groupng Iran, Al Qaeda and terrorist is a logic assumption is it not? They have the same desires and they use the same measures.

BAWDYSCOT

fcc,

You are silly. Jalal Talibani wasn't elected by the people he was installed by the Parliment which was elected by the people. He was installed because the political jobs were divvied up the respective factions and the Kurds had to recieve some of the dog biscuits.

As far as grouping Iran with Al Qaeda, this was Gene's doing and I was using it to argue against his position. They do not have the same desires as they are not the same kinds on Muslims. The Shia and the Sunnis are suspicious of each other(trust is not a commodity in large supply in the area). Iran, a Shiite dominated society, is already a country. Al Qaeda, a Sunni organization, wants to run a country(or countries) by strict Wahhabi doctrine, for which they have failed miserably. Iran wants to become the regional hegemon(they have almost completed this wish)and become the touchstone for Muslim thinking. This scares the mostly Arab countries(the Saudis and their ilk) because they have large Shiite populations mainly among their poor. They fear a Shiite uprising and with Iran at their back door, which would be the reality if Iraq becomes a satellite of Iran(almost a done deal)and that fear is reasonable. If Iraq separates into the three territories, the Kurdish, the Sunni and the Shiite, this will be the reality for these Arab countries. Iran would be at the border with Saudia Arabia and this scares the Saudis. Do you now see the tremendous mistake our dipshit of a President has foisted upon the world? Sadaam was the only block against the Iranians and there is tons of evidence the Iranians shoveled erroneous intelligence to our gullible leaders to get all this to happen(WMDs and Chalabi, ring a bell?). As it stands the Iranians have played their hand brilliantly and we are left with a pile of shit and a cemetery full of young Americans who died in vain. If we had gone into Afghanistan with a focused mission, killed and disrupted Al Qaeda as much as we could, and left right away and finished off Al Qaeda covertly, we would now be in a better situation to handle all of our other problems(South America, free trade etc). The rest of the world would more likely be on our side. Besides this mess we have awakened the Russian bear, we have China thinking twice about our motivations and we have let South America go to socialistic seed. Need I say more.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Syndicate This Site


  • Add to My Yahoo!