Something I have noticed about both sides.

[mva1985]

Mhmmmm. Not surprising considering you think people can't be liberals and Christians. Whatever.

Good points!?!? Whatever!

Show me where I have said that anyone is not a Christian in this forum.

 

[NightEternal]

NE, what species do you believe gave birth to Islamic fundamentalism?

I am not suggesting that these individuals are not part of the same human race or not loved by God. But just because someone is biologically human does not mean they cannot behave in inhuman ways. Like serial killers who need to be stopped for the good and safety of society, they also need to be dealt with in the harshest manner posible.

The same ideology that breeds extremist fundamentalism in Islam is the same one that breeds it in any religion. However, until the Trads from other religions start murdering innocent civilians and recording it for propaganda purposes to terrorize and intimidate the rest of the world, I don't have concerns about them.

 

[mva1985]

The same one that breeds extremist fundamentalism in any religion. However, until the Trads from other religions start murdering innocent civilians and recording it for propaganda purposes to terrorize and intimidate the rest of the world, I don't have concerns about them.

Where did I put my video camera?

 

[NightEternal]

Compasionate? This guy flew over Katrina first and said, "It looks pretty bad." Then he denied all fault for the disaster Katrina was.

I don't justify any of that. Katrina is a separate issue from what we are discussing here. I suppose that's a topic for a different thread. He he dropped the ball big time on that one.

Bush does not get a free pass from me in all areas. But I don't believe the man is the demon some want to portray him as.

We can't be the policemen of the world.

No, but you can sure make the effort as a world superpower!

Sure Saddam was bad, but aren't a lot of dicators in Sudan worse!

Take them out eventually as well.

We have only angered the people of Iraq by staying there. Saddam was cruel enough to keep the factions of the Sunni and [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] from fighting. Now that we got rid of him they can fight all they want and we'll be stuck in the middle.

I still think he had to be taken out. Sorry Mankin.

The war in Iraq was planned out even before 9/11. George Bush was SO flippin stuborn that he refused to listen to the claims about the terroist threat. And he still claims this war to be just even after it WAS PROVEN that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
I don't know that this was proven at all. i believe there was some.

Is it so hard to believe Saddam had nuclear capability and a stockpile of weapons? It's not so far-fetched to me!

Does there really have to be a fully satisfactory reason for invading? Okay, how about the fact that a sadistic psychopath is in power who is torturing and murdering his own people? That should be reason enough, WOMD or no WOMD.

Of course, if Bush had taken no action he would then be criticized for not taking any action!

Just can't win for losing...

 

[NightEternal]

And don't even get me started on the Patriot Act. That thing cuts up our constitution into tiny little bits in the name of national security. I've got research I did to back that up!

Research for negative Patriot Act debate

​

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3171 The Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act was a bill presented in congress to review the Patriot Act. It mentions the problems with the Patriot Act that must be reviewed. The first point quotes Benjamin Franklin. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” The Patriot Act is a threat to the rights expressed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Firstly it can indefinitely keep a non citizen or citizen in prison for little more than a suspicion of terrorism. It limits the authority of Federal Courts to stop law enforcement abuse by electronic surveillance. They can search through a resident’s home without them knowing. They can access every kind of personal information based on little more than suspicion. Impede freedom of speech for the sake of the War against Terrorism.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5440211
On May 30, 2006, Four Connecticut librarians were ordered by the FBI not to discuss the FBI’s seizure of patron’s records. This gag order is known as an NSL or National Security Letter. The FBI can give out such a letter without court approval. With the help of ACLU, these four librarians challenged the order. Their names are George Christian, Peter Chase, Barbara Bailey, and Janet Nocek. Eventually a judge took the gag order away, but this does not mean that the government cannot use this gag order in another case. An NSL allows the FBI to access records of people suspected of being foreign agents. With the Patriot Act, a person does not have to be suspected of anything, in fact, to have the FBI investigate you. All they have to do is call it “relevant” to an national security investigation. When Congress passed the Patriot Act again earlier in 2006 they allowed people to get a lawyer to challenge this gag order. A judge can overturn the gag order if it is considered, “unreasonable” “oppressive” or “otherwise unlawful” Although librarians are no longer in danger of having NSLs used against them, but libraries that act as Internet service providers are still in danger of having NSL’s issued against them. However, if the government says that challenging this NSL could harm national security, the court cannot overturn the NSL. If you violate an NSL you can be put in prison for five years. People who support this say that there is no evidence that the FBI has not abused NSLs. People who do not support this say that while the Justice Department has been ordered to say the amount of NSLs that were issued, most of the records for these things are classified or simply do not exist.

www.gobbloggers.org/mt/archives/005086.php Recently Ann Aiken, a U.S. District Judge appointed by Bill Clinton has ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The Republican who wrote this article claims that she “needs to dust off old law books” All the Courts have ruled that unreasonable searches are unconstitutional.

www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm
This website makes many claims about the myths and reality of the Patriot Act. It states that political organization are not under thread of being investigated as domestic terrorism. It also claims that the government has no interest in searching people’s library records. It states that some terroists use libraries to plan out their attacks as well as businesses. National Security cases are too important he claims to have a grand jury rule for them to search. This site also makes the claim that delayed notification search warrants help courts to fight organized crime, drug cases, and child pornography. This part of the Patriot Act does not tip off the crime instigators to the investigation. This tool can only be used with a court order. It says the Fourth Amendment does not require immediate search warrants.
http://www.aclu-houston.org/rice/patriotAct.html
However FBI can take anything from your records without your knowledge or consent. He only needs to tell a judge that this is a national security manner. The judge has no authority to deny his request. The Patriot Act simply does not show any results. 0 out of 5000 people who have been arrested for terrorism have actually been convicted for it. “It permits secret orders without probable cause to investigate people who are not suspects.” Check and balances are destroyed by the Patriot Act.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/291004toystore.htm
Stephanie Cox was forced to remove Magic Cubes from her toy store by two agents. They said it was an illegal copy of a Rubik’s Cube thus it was a violation of the patent by Rubik’s Cube. However when she herself investigated the manner, she found out that this patent had expired anyway. The Department of Homeland Security had called her before they sent an agent down. She commented “My first thought was the government can shut your business down on a whim, in my opinion. If I'm closed even for a day that would cause undue stress." Virgina Kice a spokeswoman for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement commented, “One of the things that our agency’s responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of our economy and our nation’s financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications.” Stephanie had no idea that she had done anything to deserve being investigated due to the Patriot Act. She said, “Aren’t there any terrorists out there?”




http://writing.colostate.edu/gallery/talkingback/v3.1/downing.htm
The Patriot Act can be compared to unconstitutional acts in America’s history. One such act was the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 passed by John Adams. This act allowed the government to deport any dangerous aliens in the country. Most of these so called aliens were French due to America’s bad relationship with France at that time. John Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke out against this act as unconstitutional and were almost put in jail for speaking against it. Another example would be Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. He had to do this for it is hard to maintain Habeas Corpus when a country is at war with itself. He promised it would be reinstated at the end of the war. The Patriot Act has been done at a time when we are not fighting on our borders and it does not mention a time when it will be suspended. In fact two Palestinian-Americans were deported for giving out pro Palestinian pamphlets and being part of a group for a free Palestine. Thomas and Madison knew that rights should never be taken away during times of war or crisis. In the same way we should not take away the civil rights of aliens for the simple purpose of national security. All of the Japanese Americans were held in internment camps during World War II. The only reason they were held there was to keep the Japanese “spys” from reporting back to Japan. The situations in the internment camps were not as bad as those in Jewish extermination camps in Germany but they were still inhumane. Their basic civil liberties were stripped away from them for the simple purpose of security. In the same way the Patriot Act has stripped away the civil rights of prisoners in Guantanimo Bay. The Patriot also tends to target Arab Americans in the name of security. Pat Hold wrote in the Christian Science Monitor “We must ensure that we do not lose our way of life in the process of defending it.” Note: The author of this paper cited his sources. I’ve copied and pasted them to this paper.
Anonymous. American Civil Liberties Union: USA PATRIOT Act. American Civil Liberties Union. 2003. . <http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207>.
Cole, David. "9/11 and the LA 8." Nation 277.13 10-27-03 October (2003): 5-7. Abstract. Academic Search Premier,
Cole, David. "On The Road With Ashcroft." Nation 9-23-03 September 2003: 22.
Holt, Pat M.. "Driving Dangerously with the Patriot Act." Christian Science Monitor 10-2-03 October 2003: 9.
Kelman, Ari. "Patriot Acts, Then and Now Civil Liberties Vulnerable in Past." Denver Post 7-6-03 July 2003: E-1.
Santayana, George. Microsoft Bookshelf, Quotations: Microsoft Corporation, 1998.
Sarasohn, David. "Patriots vs. the Patriot Act." Nation 9-22-03 September 2003: 23.

Like I said, Bush does not get a free pass from me in all areas. The Patriot Act has some problems, yes.

 

[NightEternal]

Scare tactics. That's all the war mongers got. Here's a history flash for you. Christians have beheaded people too. In fact the first pseudo terroist-assassin organization the Hashsmine was formed during the Crusades to kill leaders on both sides of the conflict both Christian and Muslim. Oh yes, many Christian leaders hired these Hashsmine(not correct spelling).

None of this justifies what happened in the Crusades or the Dark Ages.

In fact, Rome has more blood on thier hands than anyone else in history.

Of course, that poses its own set of problems, doesn't it?

Saddam still needed to be taken out and so does Osama.

 

[mva1985]

Let's remember that we are also in Afghanistan as well, and Clinton was aware of the threat and did nothing.

The World Trade Center was bombed on Clinton's watch.

So we can't all just point the finger at Bush.

 

[NightEternal]

Mhmmmm. Not surprising considering you think people can't be liberals and Christians. Whatever.

Liberals in the church I can abide.

Liberals in government, I cannot.

If I rail against Democrats, don't take it personal Mankin. It's just politics!

 

[NightEternal]

I get the impression that more than a few here would love to see this happen :

Or maybe this:

 

[NightEternal]

 

[NightEternal]

The West made and armed Saddam Hussein were you protesting about that at the time?

Sure they had a hand in making it easier for Saddam to become what he became. I obviously think there are some problems with that, and I would have spoken against it at the time if I knew it had been happening. We now have the hindsight to say; "Yeah, this happened and it was wrong."

But hindsight is always 20/20.

The bottom line is that Saddam made his own choices and took the path of dictator without the aid of the West. He alone must be held responsible for that-and he was.

There are other dictators around the world who do wicked things do you thinks America's job to play policeman for the world?

Yup.

 

[NightEternal]

 

[NightEternal]

nope not even.....

C'mon Stormy-'fess up! You know it's true!

 

[NightEternal]

Let's remember that we are also in Afghanistan as well, and Clinton was aware of the threat and did nothing.

The World Trade Center was bombed on Clinton's watch.

So we can't all just point the finger at Bush.

I guess he was too busy "NOT having sex with that woman!"

We know who wore the pants in THAT family!

 

[Mankin]

Okay, I'm not suggesting that God specifically called Bush to invade Iraq, even though he may think otherwise. What I am suggesting is that God used corrupt and evil kings in the Bible to fulfill His purposes in Scripture. Who's to say that God cannot use a greedy king to bring down an oppressive regime?

God sets up kingdoms and takes them down. Saddam wanted to rebuild Babylon and King Nebuchadnezzar was his hero. I guess it was his time to crumble down.

I don't care what the reasons for this conflict are. I know it's about oil and revenue. But the bottom line is that U.S. interests or agendas aside, Iraq and Saddam were both a source of problems for years and this was a long time coming.

Do I believe Saddam and Osama were connected and that Saddam had any part in 9/11? I cannot say for sure, but I doubt it. In fact, I heard they despised each other and considered each other infidels.

Was it a personal vendetta to avenge daddy Bush? Of course it was! I would do the same for my dad.

In spite of all this, Saddam still needed to be taken down, bottom line.

He wanted to rebuild Baylon? lol yeah right. Did you even listen to the song I posted? It's a war based on pride. To kill other Americans just for someones own retarted vendatta is worse than murder.

 

[Mankin]

None of this justifies what happened in the Crusades or the Dark Ages.

In fact, Rome has more blood on thier hands than anyone else in history.

Of course, that poses its own set of problems, doesn't it?

Saddam still needed to be taken out and so does Osama.

I wasn't trying to justify what happened in the Dark Ages. I'm saying Christians had their share in the blame of the rise of terroism. Aren't you Canadian? If so why do you care about American politics?

 

[Mankin]

Good points!?!? Whatever!

Show me where I have said that anyone is not a Christian in this forum.

Perhaps you should read your blog then where at the end it quotes A person cannot be a Christian and a liberal. True, it was not your words but those of a conservative writer but still.

 

[Mankin]

Compasionate? This guy flew over Katrina first and said, "It looks pretty bad." Then he denied all fault for the disaster Katrina was.

I don't justify any of that. Katrina is a separate issue from what we are discussing here. I suppose that's a topic for a different thread. He he dropped the ball big time on that one.

Bush does not get a free pass from me in all areas. But I don't believe the man is the demon some want to portray him as.

We can't be the policemen of the world.

No, but you can sure make the effort as a world superpower!

Sure Saddam was bad, but aren't a lot of dicators in Sudan worse!

Take them out eventually as well.

We have only angered the people of Iraq by staying there. Saddam was cruel enough to keep the factions of the Sunni and [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] from fighting. Now that we got rid of him they can fight all they want and we'll be stuck in the middle.

I still think he had to be taken out. Sorry Mankin.

The war in Iraq was planned out even before 9/11. George Bush was SO flippin stuborn that he refused to listen to the claims about the terroist threat. And he still claims this war to be just even after it WAS PROVEN that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
I don't know that this was proven at all. i believe there was some.

Is it so hard to believe Saddam had nuclear capability and a stockpile of weapons? It's not so far-fetched to me!

Does there really have to be a fully satisfactory reason for invading? Okay, how about the fact that a sadistic psychopath is in power who is torturing and murdering his own people? That should be reason enough, WOMD or no WOMD.

Of course, if Bush had taken no action he would then be criticized for not taking any action!

Just can't win for losing...

What about Kim Jong il and that nutwagon named Abu or something from Iran? We know they have weapons of mass destruction but we didn't go to war with them. We didn't know if Saddam had weapons but we still went after him. Yeah he was a bad guy, but we're not supposed to be policemen of the world. We should have just focused on Afganistan the country where they actually DID ATTACK us. Plus the neutral countries had terroists involved in that attack, Egypt and Jordon and we did not attack them.
Under your reasoning we should attack every crazy guy out there.

 

[mva1985]

Perhaps you should read your blog then where at the end it quotes A person cannot be a Christian and a liberal. True, it was not your words but those of a conservative writer but still.

Can't I agree with most of what someone says and not all? I posted the whole thing as not to take it out of context.

 

[mva1985]

What about Kim Jong il and that nutwagon named Abu or something from Iran? We know they have weapons of mass destruction but we didn't go to war with them. We didn't know if Saddam had weapons but we still went after him. Yeah he was a bad guy, but we're not supposed to be policemen of the world. We should have just focused on Afganistan the country where they actually DID ATTACK us. Plus the neutral countries had terroists involved in that attack, Egypt and Jordon and we did not attack them.
Under your reasoning we should attack every crazy guy out there.

Unfortunately, we are not privy to all the information that goes into those kinds of decisions. You ought to be glad that you live in the USA were you have the freedom to say the things that you do and do not suffer unnecessary punishment for it.

I am thankful to the God that set this country aside for religious freedom - for everyone not only Christians. And yes I know that one day this country will turn even against us, but we still have it pretty good here. And I am thankful for the men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line for the freedoms that we do enjoy.