Russian bombers intercepted off Alaska

[John317]

I don't say that there are no homosexuals. I'm saying that it's not an openly approved behavior, and I think that's what he meant by it...

He said, "There are no homosexuals in my country." He did not say they don't approve of them. He denied their existence.

What makes you think that is what he meant to say? All he had to say is that he doesn't like them and doesn't permit them to live or do those things. But to say they don't exist? Those are two different things, clearly.

[John317]

Do you agree with what he says in that interview? Do you believe that you are hearing reasonable responses to the reporters questions?

[fccool]

The first thing that I have to say is that understanding and understanding only is way to resolve conflicts. This was not the case with middle East as the conflicts were resolved with haste and by way of a club. There were hardly any reasonable discussion going on outside of we are right and you are wrong. Do I believe that the responses are reasonable? He responds with series of questions, which I believe are reasonable questions. If memory serves me right these are.

1) Why is not a taboo to question any historical event but this one to the point that questioning it will get you some jail time?

2) There are 60 million people died, and over 50 of those were civilians. Why is it a selected group of people that is chosen to be remembered?

3) What do Palestinians have to do with anything?

Are those valid questions? So why not try to discuss and answer these in rational manner to clear any misunderstanding? Why speak in he said/she said soundbites? What do you think?

[fccool]

I'm not him, so I don't know what was in his mind when he said that. He is an educated man, and I highly doubt that he really believed that there were no homosexuals in the country... especially that he himself was aware of the death penalty imposed on such cases which he presided over. He most likely meant that there were no openly practicing homosexuals. But I could be wrong.

[John317]

.. He is an educated man, ....

Makes it all the more inexcusable then doesn't it?

[John317]

I'm not him, so I don't know what was in his mind when he said that. He is an educated man, and I highly doubt that he really believed that there were no homosexuals in the country... especially that he himself was aware of the death penalty imposed on such cases which he presided over. He most likely meant that there were no openly practicing homosexuals. But I could be wrong.

He calls the holocaust a myth and then says that there are no homosexuals in his country when what he means is that they murder them and that they are afraid to openly practice their lifestyle.

There is no excuse for that any more than there would be an excuse for me to say we have no criminals in this country and the blacks were never enslaved.

I could say, "Oh I meant to say that we have no one openly practicing criminal behavior, and why pay attention to a few million slaves when many other millions were also enslaved elsewhere in the world?"

[John317]

What have you heard McCain say that makes you think that he is less rational that the Iranian leader who denies the holocaust, denies the existence of homosexuals in his country, and implies that the US government was behind 9/11?

And who do you believe is the group in control of the American president? What evidence is there of this?

[John317]

Is that what you meant when you said McCain is less rational than Ahmadinejad, the man referred to in the following article?

FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN

Iran leader's messianic end-times mission

Ahmadinejad raises concerns with mystical visions

Posted: January 06, 2006

1:00 am Eastern

Iranian President Mahmoud's Ahmadinejad's mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah figure – the Mahdi – is raising concerns that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic could trigger the kind of global conflagration he envisions will set the stage for the end of the world.

While Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been making headlines lately by questioning whether the Holocaust actually happened, by suggesting Israel should be moved to Europe and by demanding the Jewish state be wiped off the face of the earth, his apocalyptic religious zealotry has received less attention.

In a videotaped meeting with Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli in Tehran, Ahmadinejad discussed candidly a strange, paranormal experience he had while addressing the United Nations in New York last September.

He recounts how he found himself bathed in light throughout the speech. But this wasn't the light directed at the podium by the U.N. and television cameras. It was, he said, a light from heaven.

Ahmadinejad at the U.N.

According to a transcript of his comments, obtained and translated by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, Ahmadinejad wasn't the only one who noticed the unearthly light. One of his aides brought it to his attention.

The Iranian president recalled being told about it by one of his delegation: "When you began with the words ‘in the name of Allah,' I saw a light coming, surrounding you and protecting you to the end."

Ahmadinejad agreed that he sensed the same thing.

"On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura," he says. "I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!"

Ahmadinejad's "vision" at the U.N. is strangely reminiscent and alarmingly similar to statements he has made about his personal role in ushering in the return of the Shiite Muslim messiah.

He sees his main mission, as he recounted in a Nov. 16 speech in Tehran, as to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance."

According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.

Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West.

All Iran is buzzing about the Mahdi, the 12th imam and the role Iran and Ahmadinejad are playing in his anticipated return. There's a new messiah hotline. There are news agencies especially devoted to the latest developments.

"People are anxious to know when and how will He rise; what they must do to receive this worldwide salvation," says Ali Lari, a cleric at the Bright Future Institute in Iran's religious center of Qom. "The timing is not clear, but the conditions are more specific," he adds. "There is a saying: 'When the students are ready, the teacher will come.'"

For his part, Ahmadinejad is living up to at least part of his call to the faithful. According to reports, he lives so modestly that declared assets include only a 30-year-old car, an even older house and an empty bank account.

Ahmadinejad and others in Iran are deadly serious about the imminent return of the 12th imam, who will prompt a global battle between good and evil (with striking parallels to biblical accounts of "Armageddon").

An institute set up in 2004 for the study and dissemination of information about the Mahdi now has a staff of 160 and influence in the schools and children's magazines.

In Iran, theologians say endtimes beliefs appeal to one-fifth of the population. And the Jamkaran mosque east of Qom, 60 miles south of Tehran, is where the link between devotees and the Mahdi is closest.

Ahmadinejad's cabinet has given $17 million to Jamkaran.

Shiite writings describe events surrounding the return of the Mahdi in apocalyptic terms. In one scenario, the forces of evil would come from Syria and Iraq and clash with forces of good from Iran. The battle would commence at Kufa – the Iraqi town near the holy city of Najaf.

Even more controversial is Ahmadinejad's repeated invocation of Imam Mahdi, known as "the Savior of Times." According to Shiite tradition, Imam Mahdi will appear on Judgment Day to herald a truly just government.

Missed by some observers in Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N. was his call to the "mighty Lord" to hasten the emergence of "the promised one," the one who "will fill this world with justice and peace."

Who stands in the Mahdi's way?

A top priority of Ahmadinejad is "to challenge America, which is trying to impose itself as the final salvation of the human being, and insert its unjust state [in the region]," says Hamidreza Taraghi, head of the conservative Islamic Coalition Society.

Taraghi says the U.S. is "trying to place itself as the new Mahdi." This may mean no peace with Iran, he adds, "unless America changes its hegemonic ... thinking, doesn't use nuclear weapons, [or] impose its will on other nations."

[John317]

If North Korea can have nukes and US is fine with it, then why can't Iran have these? They are not as mad as Israel would like you to believe they are. They are rational and very educated people there who want peace.

Bill Clinton made the mistake of trusting the North Koreans until it was too late. Once a nation has the nukes, it is too late to do much about it. But Iran doesn't have any nukes yet.

It's not the common, ordinary citizen of Iran that anyone is concerned with. We and Israel and the rest of the West are concerned with the government of Iran, specifically with Ahmadinejad. For obvious reasons.

Quote:

PS... if Ahmedinejad would sing "Bomb Bomb US" in an interview, there would be an international uproar followed by declaration of war.

What evidence do you know that shows that we would declare war for his singing something?

Quote:

But I guess in case of McCain it's ok... with people apploading around him not even realizing the consequences of such actions bringing about WWW III.

What actions do you mean would bring about WW III?

[Kountzer]

N Korea can have nuclear bombs because they have about a million troops massed on the border they have with S Korea, and the capitol, and most populated city, Seoul, with about 7 or 8 million people, is only about 30 miles, or 20 minutes from the border. IOWS it's all about expediency.

DB

[John317]

I agree that after they developed the bombs, it makes it very dangerous to our own troops as well as to our allies for us to try to take them out after they already have them. But we could have stopped them before they were developed.

Here is a news summary of how it happened:

Clinton's military chief of staff testified in 1998 that North Korea did not have an active ballistic missile program. One week later the North Koreans launched a missile over Japan that landed off the Alaska coast.

During the early Clinton years, hard-liners and so-called conservative hawks advocated a pre-emptive strike to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development before it could field an atomic bomb. Instead of taking the hard line, President Clinton elected to rely on former President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the Marxist-Stalinist dictatorship.

Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.

The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification.

In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program.

Axis of Evil and Friends

North Korea was not left all alone in its effort to obtain nuclear weapons. North Korea relied heavily on China, its closest ally, to assist in its all-out effort to obtain the atomic bomb.

Beijing elected to covertly aid its North Asian ally by proliferation. China allowed Pakistan to send nuclear technology purchased from Beijing to North Korea in exchange for No Dong missile technology.....

[fccool]

John,

To reply in short for your questions with a question... What evidence do you have that if Iran would acquire Nuclear weapons it would inevitably use it on Israel? Almost every leader in the Middle East is a deeply religious person. Do I think that it can be potentially dangerous? Yes...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html

What do you think about this? Preemptive war with Iran will cause Islam countries to retaliate and not in the best way. It will become a religious war. I will serve as a proof for them that Ahmedinejad is right.

Notice, I don't defend either party. I'm simply am trying to understand, and say that war will not solve anything. It won't... just like it did not solve anything in Viet Nam, and it will not solve anything in Iraq, and it will not solve anything in Iran. Middle East collectively hates/fears US because of that right now. When I see a group of Americans applauding loudly to the prospect of bombing a nuclear reactor in Iran, I can't help but feel repulsed. If you would be a citizen of Iran... what what would you think?

As far as gays are concerned... I by far don't defend Muslim treatment of gays, but this was a non-issue in case of Saudi Arabia. You see, pouring dirt on a country which does show some prospects solving things peacefully... is only an indication of the drums of war. I think you already figured out that I think that preemptive war will not solve anything. Of course I don't have evidence for things to come, but neither do you . Iran is not a threat to US, and I don't think it is of any threat to Israel. Israel is fully capable to take care of this situation if it needs to. Do you agree that helping Israel is more than just a political move on part of the US?

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/?Page=Article&ID=9104

[fccool]

Quote:

I agree that after they developed the bombs, it makes it very dangerous to our own troops as well as to our allies for us to try to take them out after they already have them.

And that's exactly why Iran is trying to acquire nukes . Put yourself in their shoes. Coming back to the topic... that's why Russia is interested in bringing nuclear technology to Iran. It will bring about some balance of power as they see it.

When North Korea acquired the nuclear technology and demonstrated that they could and will use it in case of any threat by US... you agree that US backed off somewhat and has to tiptoe around. When you make a preemptive war a just cause and a solution, other nations have no choice but resorting to radicalism in effort of self-preservation. Let's not pretend about current US religious ambitions in the Middle East too.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/106/story_10687_1.html

[fccool]

Just a little interjection before I stir up some American patriotic sentiments. I am a part of the 80% of the US group that feels like the US is on the wrong track. There are a couple of reasons for me thinking that way.

1) US is set out to be the police of the world, while it can't handle the domestic problems. In its current moral state, I think that US is unfit to be the world's police. That's why such hostility exists on part of Russia and other nations (like French), who feel that US is pretty good at dropping a couple bombs and yelling mission accomplished, and fairly bad at what comes afterwards.

2) Of you really listen and read between the lines of the top military strategists who are campagning for change right now (i.e. Thomas Barnett and likes), what they are essentially saying is : we have a strong post Cold War military force... and we should use it to our advantage and world peace. So essentially, the strategy that these people push forward it... bomb to stone age, and follow up with a massive occupation and rebuild FAST. They completely ignore the fact that what you currently have in Middle East can not be rebuilt in a year or two. It is a mentality, and should be dealt with on the mental level. You can't defeat mentality/ideology (i.e. terrorism) with guns. You'll end up shooting up air and bunch of wrong people, which will be left very angry in the end and will resort to terrorism... as it did happen on 9/11. I believe that the first Gulf War had much to do with 9/11.

3) We need to stop thinking of countries as countries, and start thinking of countries as a collection of people which are following their leaders, many times without a choice presented. This is what I call Kennedy/Reagan mentality. The key is negotiation and education, and not confrontation and escalation. I disagree with Barnett on many things, but I do agree that the current approach will leave US fighting these wars for hundreds of years potentially (according to McCain). What I find many times is US/them mentality that we've had during the Soviet Union times. You know, two people are talking and the conversation goes along the lines of:

- We launched the first men to the space

- But we landed on the Moon first

- We gave you a major scare during missile crisis days

- But we defeated you in almost every sport there is, and we kicked your butt in the cold war.

It's a childish attaching of self to something that these people had nothing to do with. It's a sport's fan mentality, and we all know that it's a highly irrational one... the one that causes riots in Brazil and England (which I equate to warfare).

4) If US is to be the beacon of democracy in the world... then it should lead by example... and not by force. One of the best example of democracy historically is Athens (which US resembled at its birth). USA right now is far from resembling Athens and is beginning to loosely resemble Sparta, which was no democracy at all. Read this, as I think it's a pretty good read.

http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/thepagan.htm

5) We need to stop generalizing and branding. This is a pitfall of the consumer culture that wants a fast pre-packaged and digested information. People and ideologies are not all the same even within the major ideologies. There is a radical movement in Islam, as well as there is a radical movements in Christianity. Both caused a great deal of people killed in past millennium, and these are one of the major reasons why my parents reject God. These kind of people give bad name to religion as a whole... which I think why today any type of organized religion is looked upon with suspicion.

I hope that you can at least partly agree with me on these.

[John317]

John,

To reply in short for your questions with a question... What evidence do you have that if Iran would acquire Nuclear weapons it would inevitably use it on Israel? Almost every leader in the Middle East is a deeply religious person. Do I think that it can be potentially dangerous? Yes...

How many deeply religious people have blown themselves up in the last few years in order to kill innocent people? How many have used babies? How many of the men who flew the planes on 9/11 were deeply religious? The fact is that the leader of Iran has some beliefs that could lead him to attack Israel. He is certainly involved in the fighting going on in Iraq.

Check this out:

FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN

Iran leader's messianic end-times mission

Ahmadinejad raises concerns with mystical visions

Posted: January 06, 2006

1:00 am Eastern

Iranian President Mahmoud's Ahmadinejad's mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah figure – the Mahdi – is raising concerns that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic could trigger the kind of global conflagration he envisions will set the stage for the end of the world.

While Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been making headlines lately by questioning whether the Holocaust actually happened, by suggesting Israel should be moved to Europe and by demanding the Jewish state be wiped off the face of the earth, his apocalyptic religious zealotry has received less attention.

In a videotaped meeting with Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli in Tehran, Ahmadinejad discussed candidly a strange, paranormal experience he had while addressing the United Nations in New York last September.

He recounts how he found himself bathed in light throughout the speech. But this wasn't the light directed at the podium by the U.N. and television cameras. It was, he said, a light from heaven.

Ahmadinejad at the U.N.

According to a transcript of his comments, obtained and translated by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, Ahmadinejad wasn't the only one who noticed the unearthly light. One of his aides brought it to his attention.

The Iranian president recalled being told about it by one of his delegation: "When you began with the words ‘in the name of Allah,' I saw a light coming, surrounding you and protecting you to the end."

Ahmadinejad agreed that he sensed the same thing.

"On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura," he says. "I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!"

Ahmadinejad's "vision" at the U.N. is strangely reminiscent and alarmingly similar to statements he has made about his personal role in ushering in the return of the Shiite Muslim messiah.

He sees his main mission, as he recounted in a Nov. 16 speech in Tehran, as to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance."....

[John317]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html

The following is what your link brought up. It is what someone said they heard Bush said. Is that the best evidence we have that Bush said God told him to invade Iraq? For me to believe this, I would have to believe foreign ministers of the Palestinian organizations more than I believe the president of the United States. Maybe you do but I don't.

---------- In the programmeElusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, which starts on Monday, the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."

Mr Abbas remembers how the US President told him he had a "moral and religious obligation" to act. The White House has refused to comment on what it terms a private conversation. But the BBC account is anything but implausible, given how throughout his presidency Mr Bush, a born-again Christian, has never hidden the importance of his faith.

From the outset he has couched the "global war on terror" in quasi-religious terms, as a struggle between good and evil. Al-Qa'ida terrorists are routinely described as evil-doers. For Mr Bush, the invasion of Iraq has always been part of the struggle against terrorism, and he appears to see himself as the executor of the divine will.

He told Bob Woodward - whose 2004 book, Plan of Attack, is the definitive account of the administration's road to war in Iraq - that after giving the order to invade in March 2003, he walked in the White House garden, praying "that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty". As he went into this critical period, he told Mr Woodward, "I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will.

"I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I will be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then of course, I pray for forgiveness."

Another telling sign of Mr Bush's religion was his answer to Mr Woodward's question on whether he had asked his father - the former president who refused to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq after driving Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 - for advice on what to do.

The current President replied that his earthly father was "the wrong father to appeal to for advice ... there is a higher father that I appeal to"......

[John317]

....What do you think about this? Preemptive war with Iran will cause Islam countries to retaliate and not in the best way. It will become a religious war.

If they are about to produce nuclear weapons, it wouldn't matter if some Islamic countries retaliate. We're involved in a war. This is not playing around. This is already war. We've been at war since 9/11.

I believe that whether we want to accept it or not, we've been involved in a religious war since before 9/11, but just didn't know it until 9/11. If you read the literature and listen to the speeches of the terrorists, you will see that they have already declared religious war on the West and on the US in particular. Bin Laden and his followers say this straightforwardly. They have chosen to make war on us for the same reason that the Japanese decided to make war against us: the United States is the only great power that stands between them and what they want to accomplish: the demise of the State of Israel. (For the Japanese, it was that the US stood between them and their plan to build a Pacific empire.) They hate us because of freedom of religion and because we are Israel's friend and main support. The Muslim fundamentalists-- the Islamists-- do not agree with freedom of choice in religious matters. They both hate and fear it.

Quote:

I will serve as a proof for them that Ahmedinejad is right.

Please explain this. How do you serve as proof that Ahmedinejad is right? Right about what?

[John317]

... As far as gays are concerned... I by far don't defend Muslim treatment of gays, but this was a non-issue in case of Saudi Arabia.

How can we call it a non-issue when that country oppresses gay people, in fact kills them? I believe the sexual acts of homosexuals relating men to men are sinful and wrong but I believe that they should be given their civil rights the same as anyone else and should be treated fairly and respectfully.

Quote:

You see, pouring dirt on a country which does show some prospects solving things peacefully... is only an indication of the drums of war.

How is this so? I'm not sure I'm following you as far as Saudi Arabia is concerned. I don't see us as being on any path to war with Saudi Arabia.

But is even to "pour dirt on a country" by telling the truth about its treatment of people an indication of the drums of war?

I don't believe this. Maybe you can explain how this is the case. I don't see it that way at all, but maybe it's because I don't know what you mean.

Quote:

I think you already figured out that I think that preemptive war will not solve anything.

Well, again, I am not talking about "preemptive war," but a preemptive attack to take out the nuclear reactors and weapons before they can be completed.

The US would even warn the Iranians a little beforehand that we are going to destroy all their nuclear facilities. If they wanted to stick around for the actual bombing, that would be foolish. I believe it is just as foolish for Russian workers to be at those places helping the Iranians. They should realize that the US and Israel will never let them manufacture nuclear weapons.

We could give them 3 hours notice in time to get out of the area before our planes would hit them. In all likelihood the planes won't even be manned or seen by either the Russians or the Iranians. And I believe that the US would tell the Russians a little before we do it. The US isn't interested in anything except taking out the Iranian nuclear reactors if they are producing nuclear weapons.

Quote:

Of course I don't have evidence for things to come, but neither do you . Iran is not a threat to US, and I don't think it is of any threat to Israel.

Then let the Iranians stop sending its people and rockets into Iraq. Let them stop any support of terrorism. And let them recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist.

Quote:

Israel is fully capable to take care of this situation if it needs to.

Do you mean that Israel is capable of taking out Iranian nuclear reactors, etc.? Yes, I agree. But it would be much worse if Israel does the bombing than if the US does it. Don't you agree?

Israel took out the nuclear reactors in Iraq in the early 1980s without the Muslim nations going to war against her, but the bombings of Iran will include many more sites and involve much more.

Quote:

Do you agree that helping Israel is more than just a political move on part of the US?

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/?Page=Article&ID=9104

Of course it is much more than a political move on our part.

[John317]

This from a newspaper column:

Quote:

He told Bob Woodward - whose 2004 book, Plan of Attack, is the definitive account of the administration's road to war in Iraq - that after giving the order to invade in March 2003, he walked in the White House garden, praying "that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty". As he went into this critical period, he told Mr Woodward, "I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will.

The above quote from the column is no evidence at all that Bush believes that God told him either to invade or even that God wanted him to invade Iraq.

Every president who has been a Christian has prayed the same for our soldiers. President Roosevelt prayed for our soldiers, and so did Winston Churchill. So did General Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson. Therefore, I would find it strange if Bush did not pray for the soldiers who are going into harm's way. But should this be construed to mean he believes God gave him an order to invade?

As President Truman said, "The Buck Stops Here," (that is, at the President's desk), and I know that President Bush means for the buck to stop with him and not with God. He takes the responsibility for the decision to go into Iraq. He is perfectly willing to accept the judgment of history. But it takes a while, sometimes a decade or more, for that judgment to occur. In the case of Truman, he was the most unpopular president of all when he left office in 1952. However, today, he is usually rated by historians as being among the top 10 American presidents ever to occupy the office.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

JOHN3:17-- If they are about to produce nuclear weapons, it wouldn't matter if some Islamic countries retaliate. We're involved in a war. This is not playing around. This is already war. We've been at war since 9/11.

I believe that whether we want to accept it or not, we've been involved in a religious war since before 9/11, but just didn't know it until 9/11. If you read the literature and listen to the speeches of the terrorists, you will see that they have already declared religious war on the West and on the US in particular. Bin Laden and his followers say this straightforwardly. They have chosen to make war on us for the same reason that the Japanese decided to make war against us: the United States is the only great power that stands between them and what they want to accomplish: the demise of the State of Israel. Please explain this. How do you serve as proof that Ahmedinejad is right? Right about what?

Quote:

fccool-- John. 9/11 was a direct result for USA external policies carried out during 80s and 90s, both against Iraq and Iran.

Yes, specifically due to Desert Storm which resulted from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. How well I remember. The "mother of all wars," which lasted but a few days. We had hundreds of thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia which Bin Laden didn't like because he felt that having them there was an insult to Islam. So they believed that this somehow justified them in attacking the United States in New York. Or at least that is what they did, after they first attacked the US ship, Cole, and attacked several embassies.

Quote:

fccool--- People do not fly planes into buildings because they hate freedom. I know that the current administration would like you to believe so.

People who hate freedom have often flown planes to destroy people. And Muslims have been committing suicide in this way for a long time, so it is just their way of making war. They believe on the basis of the Koran that those who die in this way go directly to heaven where they enjoy eternal bliss with Allah.

But I'm not going by anything the administration has said. I am going by what the various terrorist organizations have said themselves in their own speeches and literature. The Islamists, the extremists Muslim groups, dislike democracy, because they see it as a threat to Islamic law. I'm sure you realize this.

Are we to believe that the terrorists who flew the planes loved freedom of religion? They were all religious fanatics, who deliberately attacked and killed thousands of innocent civilians not involved in any military effort against their religion or against their countries.

Quote:

fccool-- You can not ever win a religious war of that scale. It sad to see Christian people buying into this propaganda of religious warfare.

Tell me what "propaganda" I have apparently bought into? I am talking about things that can easily be demonstrated and documented.

But I will tell you one thing: I am an American patriot. I am not impartial and I am not trying to persuade anyone that I am impartial. I love this country and the nation, just as you probably love Russia. I can understand that. In my value system, first comes God, then my church, my country, and my family. Even when I knew the country was wrong in Vietnam, I was willing to die if my nation and the president called me to go. There were hundreds of thousands and even millions of Americans who felt the same way. I had a chance to go to Canada, and I even got as far as Oregon, before I decided not to go there. So it was not something I took lightly or that I didn't give a lot of thought. I made the only right choice. Soldier's don't pick and choose what fight they are going to be involved in. It is not up to each individual soldier.

Quote:

fccool-- On both Arab and US sides. Terrorists like Bin Laden do not have home countries. If US atacks Iran, then terrorists like Bin Laden would succeed in their device to instigate and provoke the West. That's is their mission to turn the whole Islamic world against west. And that's what I mean by Ahmedinejad being "right". If US attacks, then they will be viewed as aggressor just like Iranian president currently describes it. I think that would pour even more oil into the fires of radical Islam. It will not solve anything.

[fccool]

John,

I respect your patriotic feelings, but I pledge no allegiance to any country or a flag. I respect people, not states. I happen to think that dying for one's country is not a very smart thing to do. I hope that you don't take offense to that. Coutry/States are just artificial imaginary lines that don't exist but in minds of people. People are of more value to me than a country. Country is NOT people. It's some entity that we attach other people to.

Jesus clearly states that we must love our enemies and turn the other cheek. He also taught that those who live by the sword, will die by the sword and that vengeance is his and not ours. I choose to live by these principles. There other ways of protecting your family than causing death and distress to multitude of people.

Perhaps, you do not see it as I do, and it's ok. I respect that.

[John317]

Quote:

John,

I respect your patriotic feelings, but I pledge no allegiance to any country or a flag.

You have no allegiance to the people of this nation? I certainly do.

Quote:

I respect people, not states.

In the United States, the states are made up of the people. They're all made up of lots of small and big communities, and together they build counties and states and all the states of those peoples make the entire country. You're part of that whether you think so or not, whether you like it nor not.

Quote:

I happen to think that dying for one's country is not a very smart thing to do.

What you're saying is that family and people of your country are not worth dying for, not worth protecting. I'm just glad someone had different feelings and ideas back in 1776, 1812, 1861, 1941, etc. Otherwise we wouldn't have a country where we have the freedom to have this conversation. Glad my uncle was willing to possibly die flying airplane loads of food and clothing to Berlin during the airlift there to keep the city alive.

Quote:

I hope that you don't take offense to that.

No, not at all. I am used to all kinds of ideas and philosophies. And besides I believe in your freedom to think what you want. That is what Americans and a few million others have died for-- to protect your right to speak your mind. But no, I am just glad you are honest about it. I am not surprised because your language tells me that you feel no real love for the United States as nation or country. You like it OK probably but you don't LOVE it.

This does not shock me or surprise me.

Quote:

Coutry/States are just artificial imaginary lines that don't exist but in minds of people. People are of more value to me than a country. Country is NOT people. It's some entity that we attach other people to.

That is like saying families are just an artificial imaginary line that just exist in the minds of people. So are communities. A country certainly are people. You live next door to the people of this country.

What you are saying is that you feel no special bond or obligation or love for Americans. Let me know if I am not right.

So you are willing to take advantage of all the good things that the people of this country have given and made, but you don't think anything beyond that point. Is this true?

I know people like that. I once worked with a man from Mexico. Right after 9/11, we were talking about the tragedy, and he said he didn't care. I asked him if he loved this country, America, and he told me straight out, "No, I don't love this country. In fact I hate it." I said, "Then what are you doing here?" He said, "I''m only here for work."

I am married to a Mexican national and have family in Mexico. Some live here and are good citizens. They love this country. So I'm just glad that most Mexicans don't feel like that man said he felt.

Quote:

Jesus clearly states that we must love our enemies and turn the other cheek. He also taught that those who live by the sword, will die by the sword and that vengeance is his and not ours. I choose to live by these principles. There other ways of protecting your family than causing death and distress to multitude of people.

Perhaps, you do not see it as I do, and it's ok. I respect that.

I believe those teachings also, but they do not contradict the concept of good citizenship and being bonded to the people of your country and loving it. The gospel will also make people into a person their countrymen can depend on when they get into trouble, don't you agree?

There is a difference between the duties and responsibilities of the individual Christian and the duties and role of a nation's government and president, etc. Just as you have a responsibility to protect your family, your wife and children, from harm, so the government and the president have a responsibility to protect you and your family and all the millions of other American families from danger and harm. Do you agree?

[John317]

This is about Senator McCain and his son who was in Iraq as a Marine a few months ago. I think you'll find it interesting and worth reading. It will shed some light on who this man is and on what he represents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/us/politics/06mccain.html?em&ex=1207713600&en=17236223572bf9d3&ei=5087%0A

One evening last July, Senator John McCain of Arizona arrived at the New Hampshire home of Erin Flanagan for sandwiches, chocolate-chip cookies and heartfelt talk about Iraq. They had met at a presidential debate, when she asked the candidates what they would do to bring home American soldiers — soldiers like her brother, who had been killed in action a few months earlier.

Related

Campaign Memo: A McCain Confessional, in Multiple Installments (April 6, 2008)

John McCain, left, with his father, John S. McCain Jr., a Navy admiral.

Mr. McCain did not bring cameras or a retinue. Instead, he brought his youngest son, James McCain, 19, then a private first class in the Marine Corps about to leave for Iraq. Father and son sat down to hear more about Ms. Flanagan’s brother Michael Cleary, a 24-year-old Army first lieutenant killed by an ambush and roadside bomb.

No one mentioned the obvious: in just days, Jimmy McCain could face similar perils. “I can’t imagine what it must have been like for them as they were coming to meet with a family that ...” Ms. Flanagan recalled, choking up. “We lost a dear one,” she finished.

Mr. McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, has staked his candidacy on the promise that American troops can bring stability to Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son, who spent seven months patrolling Anbar Province and learned of his father’s New Hampshire victory in January while he was digging a stuck military vehicle out of the mud.

In his 71 years, Mr. McCain has confronted war as a pilot, a prisoner and a United States senator, but never before as a father. His son’s departure for Iraq brought him the same worry that every military parent feels, friends say, while the young marine’s experiences there have given him a sustained grunt’s-eye view of the action and private confirmation for his argument that United States strategy in Iraq is working.

While Jimmy McCain’s service is a story all his own — he enlisted at age 17 — it illuminates the beliefs about duty, honor and sacrifice with which family friends say he was raised. Military ideals have defined Mr. McCain as a person and a politician, and he is placing them at the core of his presidential candidacy. Last week, he campaigned at his former stations of duty, explaining how the lessons he learned there would guide his decisions as commander in chief.

“If I had ignored some of the less important conventions of the Academy,” as a demerit-prone midshipman, Mr. McCain said Wednesday at the United States Naval Academy, “I was careful not to defame its more compelling traditions: the veneration of courage and resilience; the honor code that simply assumed your fidelity to its principles; the homage paid to Americans who had sacrificed greatly for our country; the expectation that you, too, would prove worthy of your country’s trust.”

With both potential Democratic nominees in favor of withdrawal from Iraq, debate about the war — whether it is winnable, what would happen if the United States withdrew, how much loss the country can endure — is likely to be a dominant issue in the general election. Mr. McCain’s potential opponents are already implying that he is too willing to risk American lives, too committed to stretching an already unpopular war far into the future.

Out of the Public Eye

Mr. McCain has largely maintained a code of silence about his son, now a lance corporal, making only fleeting references to him in public both to protect him from becoming a prize target and avoid exploiting his service for political gain, according to friends. At the few campaign events where Lance Corporal McCain appeared last year, he was not introduced.

The McCains declined to be interviewed for this article, which the campaign requested not be published. “The McCain campaign objects strongly to this intrusion into the privacy of Senator McCain’s son,” Steve Schmidt, a campaign spokesman, said in a statement. “The children of presidential candidates in this election cycle should be afforded the same respect for their privacy that the children of President Bush and President and Senator Clinton have been afforded.” (To protect Lance Corporal McCain in case he is again deployed to a war zone, The New York Times is not publishing recent photographs of him and has withheld some details of his service).

Born in 1988, the third of John and Cindy McCain’s children, Jimmy inherited his father’s features and slight build, outrageous humor and family tradition of military service that stretches back to the Revolutionary War. His grandfather and great-grandfather were the first parent and son to achieve four-star admiral status in Naval history...........

[fccool]

John,

Don't get me wrong. I just don't see things the way you do. Just to show you a small example of what I mean. I've played ball in highschool and college. My senior year in the high school I tore my ACL. I was very attached to my team and still wanted to play in spite of the injury. One game they were loosing, and I could not stand it so I persuaded my coach to sub myself in to play. I played to about 30 seconds and I was on the floor in much worse condition then I've started.

Looking back at it... what was the point of me sacrificing my health for the "team" that I love so much? Nobody remembers that game... it's pointless. Does it mean that I did not share relationship and make great friendships with the guys? Yes I did, but there was a life on and off the court. There were more than one way to make relationships and share love.

You see, countries are built on ideologies. Ideology here is freedom. So you have a saying ... "they died for our freedom" in during the revolution. I certainly respect what they did. But Britain is NOT worth off today without anyone revolting. Amsterdam did not participate hardly in any wars and they are fine today, so you have no idea how the things would have turned out without people dying for ideologies such as freedom. I see myself as a living and breathing human being first, and not as a citizen who is obligated to the state for life. The state did not make me, neither did the community. But the family did, and thus for me it is not an artificial concept. It is very real thing as I can experience family every day. I can not experience state outside of knowing what it is. That's why the state lines are drawn along the rivers...

Please understand that I'm not rebuking for what you believe. I don't believe that this is the way things should be. There will not be any states in the new heaven and the new earth. No forced tributes to the king... no people dying for the king and the country. I can respect the government that was formed in 1776. It was an awesome form of the government, it was no king. Today, government is the king... something that the founding fathers of this country would be shocked to see.

You see, I don't like the way things are structured... in any country, where people for fear and for safety abandon higher principles of individual choice and freedom. It's not just in US, but everywhere. We value people's lives in paper, and we let people with no paper/digits to die and starve and suffer . I don't see it as ideal worth fighting for. Can I still use this system for good of others? Sure I can, and that's what I'm trying to do. But please, don't make it sound that this is a kingdom of God on this earth... because it is FAR from it. I am a Christian, and my citizenship is in heaven. I am repulsed by this world more and more I live in it, and my goal is to show people that things could be much better... and fighting and dying is not the way to make it better... but spreading the truth is. I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

[Neil D]

Quote:

What you are saying is that you feel no special bond or obligation or love for Americans. Let me know if I am not right.

I am letting you know....he didn't say that....

I suggest that you remove your biased filters and take in context what he said.....