Sojc

Hey I never said islam was a religion of peace. I just said that like many religions, many self-described muslims are not devout.

Oh come on, how many muslims do you actually know? If you travel around enough you will see that religious apathy is universal to all religions.

Really? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Many religions have ideological differences with the west. Why don't we see lots of Hindi, Sikh, or Pegan terrorists. It's a combination of ideological differences and what is percieved as a meddling withing Muslim world affairs that ignites muslims. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are many terrorists that aren't ''Muslims''. Look at the man that killed Gandhi he was a fellow Hindu to Gandhi, while he was preaching peace between the Muslims and Hindus. That man wasn't Muslim... but he was a terrorist. Hindus also practices abuse of women. Have you ever heard of ''The Kitchen Fires'' were many women died at the hands of their husband. About the Pagans...does a largely monotheistic society let Pagans get away with even existing? But lets look at the Nazis, they practiced either Lutheranism or even in the case of the SS, Nordic Paganism. But think about all of those religious cults here in America that plot against the Government among others? Does Charles Manson ring a bell? Are they not terrorists, Religious or otherwise. Most Sikhs are peacefull and have many things in common with Buddhists so they don't have a need for terrorism in this country anyway. But there are many terrorists in countries other than the USA. And those ''Muslims'' that are terrorists are not Muslims but members of religious cults that practice manipulation based on warped interpretations of the al-Qur'an. Think about it, you all here dislike the Muslims right? Well how many of you have actually bought a copy of the Qur'an and read it? So how much do you know about it anyway. Islam means peace, and isn't that what Christ taught as well? So why is there so much hate and fear here? Do you fear others than God? God is the only one you should fear, for if you do good in this life there is no reason to resist what God wills upon you! All will get their rewards at the hand of God in the end, just worry about yours!!!! Ylaismauste! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lol I should have been more specific. When I said terrorists I was refering to the ones that want to destroy america.

Really? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Many religions have ideological differences with the west. Why don't we see lots of Hindi, Sikh, or Pegan terrorists. It's a combination of ideological differences and what is percieved as a meddling withing Muslim world affairs that ignites muslims.

Why shouldn't we support Israel? You say Muslims hate our problems but not our freedom. I think they(the ones who say they hate us) hate our freedom as well. Especially women's freedom. Since when have they ever themselves built a free nation ? To my knowledge, never. We cant help it if Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan don't want to have freedom. We just buy their oil(Saudis). Don't even fool yourself into thinking that if the Muslims who hate our policy were to overthrow the countries you mentioned and take control, there would be freedom. Muslims, especially the Islamonazi's that hate us will never opt for a free and open country. They cannot operate their wife beating, honor killing, head and hand chopping, Christian and Jew hating, terrorist and jihadist style false religion under conditions that were free.Islam is not about freedom. Infact they don't view God as a Father. They see him as a slave master. The best chance for freedom to take root there is what we are doing in Iraq. Bush never said it would be a cake walk to accomplish this. Perhaps impossible. But left to Muslims on their own? No way. Perhaps some of the non-radical Iraqis will get a taste of freedom and human nature will kick in and open the pandoras box. Maybe? Worth a try? I think so because allowing certain styles of goverment such as Saddam's or that of the clerics to grow and eventually have advanced missle technology combined with nukes or even nukes combined with Isalmonazi martyrs and American open borders, is not a good idea. We may even be to late. This is something we should have probably done when " Loverboy" was in office. The warning signs were there but ''Bubba" was kinda busy in the oval office with other activities. You know. Anyways, Hussain did have wmd and plenty of time to hide it during the months leading up to the nessesary invasion. He would not come clean and Bush was forced to take him at his word. Not a good idea. Though Hussain wasn't a radical in the Islamic false religion. He was a product of centuries of that type of mind set. The world it much to dangerous to allow that to fester. In Iraq or Iran. Im glad Pakistan's leader seems to be with us. Pray hard that he dosent get overthrown by the "peace loving" Islamists. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have no problems with supporting Israel, I'm just looking at things from a muslim perspective. I personally believe that those who still believe Iraq had full working stockpiles of WMDs are deceiving themselves because they don't want to admit or believe that they and who they trusted was wrong. However, we could debate the WMD issue and go nowhere. The issue is US hypocrisy. There are many more roque nations much more dangerous than Iraq even if they had WMDs. Just look and North Korea and Iran. And there many dictators in the world like Saddam. That makes America's starting of the Iraq war seem stupid in the eyes of much of the world. The arab world is a mess and is already full of enough inner conflict. Muslims are not nosy and won't want to destroy america for a purely ideological reason. They see America's actions and meddling in the middle east as a threat to their sovreignty. The original reason Osama Bin Laden started a movement against the US was because of American military bases in Saudi Arabia (Osama does not like the Saudi royal family too).

Which policy and why? Dan <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The main new policy would be the brash new form of pre-emptive war. Although Muslims dispise America's support for Israel, that has been the status quo for a long time. Does it not seem immensely hypocritical that the US went into Iraq and is now in Iraq bragging about how it is spreading democracy when the US supports and is allied to authoritarian dictatorships such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html 'They hate our policies, not our freedom' Quietly released Pentagon report contains major criticisms of administration. by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com Late on the Wednesday afternoon before the Thanksgiving holiday, the US Defense Department released a report by the Defense Science Board that is highly critical of the administration's efforts in the war on terror and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.' The Pentagon released the study after The New York Times ran a story about the report in its Wednesday editions. The Defense Science Board, reports Disinfopedia, is "a Federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense." 'The current Board is authorized to consist of thirty-two members plus seven ex officio members': the chairmen of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Policy, Ballistic Missile Defense Advisory Committee, and Defense Intelligence Agency Science and Technology Advisory Committee. 'Members, whose appointed terms range from one to four years, are selected on the basis of their preeminence in the fields of science, technology and its application to military operations, research, engineering, manufacturing and acquisition process.' China's Xinhuanet reported that the board's report criticized the US for failing in its efforts to communicate its military and diplomatic actions to the world, and the Muslim world in particular, "but no public relations campaign can save America from flawed policies." The report also takes the administration to task for talking about Islamic extremism in a way that offends many Muslims. In stark contrast to the cold war, the United States today is not seeking to contain a threatening state empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western Modernity – an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a 'War on Terrorism,' [the report states]. MSNBC notes that the report, in a comment that directly goes against statements made by President Bush and senior cabinet members, says the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have united otherwise-divided Muslim extremists and given terrorists organizations like Al Qaeda a boost by "raising their stature." In fact, Wired News reported the board as saying, the US has not only failed to separate "the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists," but American efforts may have "achieved the opposite of what they intended." Al Jazeera reported Thursday that the board called for the creation of a strategic communication's "apparatus" within the executive branch and "an overhaul of public diplomacy, public affairs and information dissemination efforts by the Pentagon and State Department." If we really want to see the Muslim world as a whole [the report states], and the Arabic-speaking world in particular, move more toward our understanding of moderation and tolerance, we must reassure Muslims that this does not mean that they must submit to the American way. As columnist Thomas Freidman of The New York Times wrote Monday in an opinion piece, the lack of planning and a 'clear channel of communication to the Muslim world' means that the US is losing the PR war to people that "saw off the heads of other Muslims." Wars are fought for political ends. Soldiers can only do so much. And the last mile in every war is about claiming the political fruits. The bad guys in Iraq can lose every mile on every road, but if they beat America on the last mile – because they are able to intimidate better than America is able to coordinate, protect, inform, invest and motivate – they will win and America will lose. The New York Times reported last Wednesday that although the board's report does not constitute official government policy, it captures "the essential themes of a debate that is now roiling not just the Defense Department but the entire United States government."

That is the exact problem, although Americans may think it only fights defensive wars, the world-image of defensive americans has been greatly destroyed by unnecessary wars/international meddling (ie. Vietnam, US involment in Guatemala, etc.). Also the fact that the US is also the only nation to ever use the A-bomb in a war hurts their image somewhat. Because of this the question I posed earlier about imagining if the US did not have nukes and Iran did have nukes was valid. The world-opinion of America's "defensiveness" is not that great.

The development of the A-bomb after ww2 was sent to astronomical proportions because of a need to guarantee mutually assured distruction during the cold war. Nations who do not have nukes, yet who have rivials who do have nukes, seek to develop them to level the playing field and bring a happy medium of mutually assured distruction. Israel has nuke's (although officially undeclared) so the rest of the middle east seeks the nuke to balance things and return things to the status quo. Why do you think India and Pakistan developed nukes so fervently, was their main purpose to use them to destroy the entire Indian continent? North Korea's Nuke's are to intimidate the US who is still technically at war with them.

As a non-american christian, that is one of the most hypocritical things I have ever heard. WHy would they build them if they don't want to use em. Let me ask. WHy would the US, England, and France build them if they don;t want to use them. Imagine if the US did not have nukes and Iran did have nukes, would not the US do everything it can to develop nukes so they would level the playing field?

I watched an interview with Bush and he said that he approves of civil unions and said that the republican party stance on it is wrong. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/ http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...21303-1337r.htm

Praise the lord. May you grow strong with Christ. lol 1 down, a few more billion to go...

In my opinion I'd say yes and no. I do believe that god created all creatures that there are today as they are today. I also am inclined to say the earth is not as old as it is believed by most. However my knowledge of geology and the way the earth weathers makes it hard for me to believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I do however also know that animals can change with DNA information in the species. Just look at how many variations and breeds there are of dogs. They vary from a great dane to a chihuahua. We know that most of these dogs did breeds did not exist even when christ was on earth. I do not however believe that something can go from having no DNA to having some DNA or go from having no cellular strutures to having cellular structures.

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. Ted Kennedy, the archetypal liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, is often called names by Republicans. But until this year he had never been viewed as a threat to U.S. air travel Kennedy -- one of the most recognizable figures in American politics -- told a Senate committee hearing on Thursday he had been blocked several times from boarding commercial airline flights because his name was on a "no-fly" list intended to exclude potential terrorists. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard Kennedy was eventually allowed on the flights, but it took numerous calls to the Department of Homeland Security to clear up the mistake and get his name off the list. Noting it had taken him weeks to resolve the matter, Kennedy wondered aloud how difficult it might be for ordinary Americans to have their names removed if they were also mistakenly placed on the watch list..." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...rity_senator_dc The progression to a world ripe for the antichrist continues...

well of course if everybody had 2 votes they should not be able to vote twice for the same person. If a person does not want to support anybody but one person they would simply forfeit their 2nd vote.

It's a joke that in the world's most powerful nation and most prideful democracy that only 2 political parties for the past few centuries have had a realistic chance of winning an election. The question I ask is why not every American have 2 votes? If every American voted for 2 parties of their choice, smaller parties would stand much more of a chance to gain support and growth. For example someone right leaning could vote Republican and Libertarian while someone left leaning could vote Democratic and Green.

It's amazing that some people here can still believe theories such as the sun revolves around the earth (whose scientific basis is credited from Greek philosophers centuries before Jesus), yet some people cannot believe that the current US government is not what it portrays itself as.

Yay Charlie and Steff, my new idealogical friends here. It has to be known that you can be conservative and christian and not like Bush. Just because you do not like Bush, does not mean you support gay marraige and abortion. THE WORLD IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

on the other end of the arguement I see too many people nearly diefying Bush. No man can be a perfect president and when they make mistakes it is the duty of the people to object. Democracy does not work without accountability from leadership. A huge mistake was made with WMDs and how Iraq was handled after the "mission accomplished" announcment. And even people close to Bush says he relies on his aids very much and acts more to unify the aims of his cabinet. I myself really do not like Cheney and I would be surprised if you could honestly say you would. He swore in senate and is always spewing hatred. I do like powell but he is muted in the cabinet and basically used as a salesman for the administration.

Yeah and if Bill Clinton had done his job George Bush wouldn't have inherited his failures. Did you know that over the course of Clinton's presidency, there were 6 attacks linked to Bin Laden such as: 93 WTC bombing, 93 attack on U.S. Ranger in Somalia, 95 bombing in Saudi Arabia, 96 Khobar Towers attack, 98 attack on U.S. embassies in Africa, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole? I believe that Iraq was a threat and that due to the incompetence of the inspectors syria now has more weapons to add to her arsenal. I believe Bush acted upon the intellegence that he had. I can find you a lot of quotes from the democrats stating that Iraq had WMD's before this war began. It isn't good for their political platform to unify with this president at this time. Why bring Clinton up with me? I'm not a Democrat.

But you aren't satisfied with the action he has taken since 9/11 either are you? He has handled everything offensively and with strength yet theres problems with that also, right? The thing is, for some out there this president can do nothing right and you will never be satisfied with a single decision he makes. My problem is not with strength, it is with the direction of strength. Smart strength is better than brute strength. If as much money and power was spent on Iraq as on Osama he would be dead or in jail right now. Iran and Saudi Arabia and MUCH more heavily involved in global terrorism. North Korea is much more of a WMD threat. The only arguement left is to free Iraq from a brutal dictator but there are dozens of brutal dictators in the world. If America tried to end all brutal dictators with an actual full fledged war there would not be enough Americans.

exactly He could have left the room and had his advisors tell him everything they knew. How much could have his aid have told him when he whispered in Bush's ear to inform him of the attack. And who cares if him leaving the room would scare a bunch of 7 year old. 3000 people died on 9/11! I'm not criticizing you personally, but I think that it's really petty to make a point about this 7 minutes. Yeah, "Woulda', coulda' shoulda'." It's pretty easy to say now, "Well, I would have done this..." or, "I probably would have done that..." But the fact is that none of us have been the leader of the free world and had this kind of news whispered in his ear while they're sitting in from of a bunch of 5 year olds: "Mr. President, there's been an attack on our country. We need to get you out of here and to safety right now." So what right do we have to criticize at all? None whatsoever. I think that the President did exactly what was right. He showed composure, patience and dignity in the face of disaster. These are qualities indicative of a person who knows how to lead people. President Bush should be commended for this, not criticized. We have a difference of opinion. In my opinion it shows weakness to the world and to terrorists that the leader of the US takes 7 minutes to spring into any kind action when his nation is under attack. 7 minutes is alot, do you know far a passenger jet can travel in 7 minutes. A 767 at cruising speed can travel 65 miles in 7 minutes. Thats 32% of the distance between Boston(where some hijacked planes took off) and New York.

exactly He could have left the room and had his advisors tell him everything they knew. How much could have his aid have told him when he whispered in Bush's ear to inform him of the attack. And who cares if him leaving the room would scare a bunch of 7 year old. 3000 people died on 9/11! So you're the president and know exactly what you would have done? Bush said in his interview that he was collecting his thoughts. After all, he just discovered we were under attack. It took him a few minutes to get everything into action. It took Roosevelt more than 24 hours to get everything into action after discovering about the attack on Pearl Harbor. No I am not the president but it's the Presidient's job to do best he can for his country. Being president is not like working at Mcdonalds, I find it hard to believe that Bush is the best 300 million people. Americans should be able to trust that their president can handle the worst and guide the country. When a terrible thing happens its not the presidents job to be astonished, its the presidents job to spring to action. The least Bush could've was go to his aids and be briefed on the situation faster than 7 minutes. Roosevelt governed 60 years ago when communication and information did not travel nearly as fast as it is today. the further back you go the more time informations takes to travel (the bible predicted that in the end times information will travels faster than ever before). In the american revolution battles were still fought after peace was declared because the news did not reach them for months.

exactly He could have left the room and had his advisors tell him everything they knew. How much could have his aid have told him when he whispered in Bush's ear to inform him of the attack. And who cares if him leaving the room would scare a bunch of 7 year old. 3000 people died on 9/11!