John McCain's Pastor: "Thank God For Hitler" (SoT Christian Morality)
Yang, AthD (h.c)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/16/82049/5729/849/516798
"Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone who comes with a gun and
he forces you. Hitler was a hunter.
And the Bible says - Jeremiah righty? - "they shall hunt them from
every mountain and from every hill and out of the holes of the
rocks", meaning: there's no place to hide.
And that will be offensive to some people. Well, dear heart, be
offended: I didn't write it. Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and
it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen.
Why did it happen? Because God said, "my top priority for the Jewish
people is to get them to come BACK to the land of Israel".
-John Hagee, John McCain Pastor
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
"FRED STONE YOU GOT PWNED. "
-laleeloolelo <at> yahoo, 12/28/2007
"Face it, Fred, you've been pwn3d."
-Bill Baker, 12/21/2007
towelie
endorsed the maverick senator. (I've always wanted to use that phrase in a
post.)
Mark K. Bilbo
Yes. Endorsed him after McCain sought out his endorsement.
Mister "Maverick" is cynically pandering to the religious right. The
same bunch he didn't care for only a few years ago.
I wonder how much paperwork is involved in jettisoning your principles...
Greywolf
"towelie" <bugoN...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ve-dnVb_v_vrO7PV...@centurytel.net...
> While Hagee is a batshit insane nutcase, he isn't McCain's pastor, he
> simply endorsed the maverick senator. (I've always wanted to use that
> phrase in a post.)
>
flogged for being tied to the nut. 'Oh, but he isn't
McCain's personal pastor or married the Arizona
Senator and his wife', is the defense. Well
Minister Louis Farrakhan publically endorsed Barack
and look how short a time it took Obama to
denounce him.
Or is it that it's 'okay' for over-the-top evangelicals
who spew rubbish to be viewed as 'mainstream'
and therefore credible spokespersons to have on
one's side these days?
It is? And we wonder why this country is in such
bad shape . . . ?
Greywolf
---------------
Who or what could possibly be more evil than the Creator of 'evil'?
I ask you. -- Greywolf : And guess who can turn that 'evil' into 'Good'? Why
we human beings -- *if* we put our hearts and minds to it!
Quadibloc
> I wonder how much paperwork is involved in jettisoning your principles...
His first principle is winning, so that the terrorists will be stopped
from killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe, Israel, and the
United States, for that matter, because the President of the United
States will be someone who intends to stop them rather than appease
them. (Or someone who intends to stop them now, rather than avenge
herself after the fact.)
I don't see much to disagree with in his priorities.
John Savard
Free Lunch
wrote:
>On May 17, 6:07 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>
>> I wonder how much paperwork is involved in jettisoning your principles...
>
>His first principle is winning, so that the terrorists will be stopped
>from killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe, Israel, and the
>United States, for that matter, because the President of the United
>States will be someone who intends to stop them rather than appease
>them. (Or someone who intends to stop them now, rather than avenge
>herself after the fact.)
Bush hasn't stopped them. Why do you think that someone who promises to
follow Bush's failed policies will do any better?
Topaz
The Old Testament does say that God likes one race of people more than
others. It calls this race the Israelites. Nature wants the most
advanced and evolved race to take over. This is obviously the White
race. Compare Europe to Africa.
This is the definition of the word "adam" in Strong's Concordance:
"to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:- be
(dyed, made) red (ruddy)."
This can only be describing a White man. Look at people today
and see which ones have rosy red cheeks. They are light skinned White
people.
The Bible says David was ruddy. This is the definition of the
Hebrew word "ruddy":
"reddish (of the hair or of the complexion):-red, ruddy."
David had rosy cheeks (or red hair) and did not look like a
typical Jew.
The original Israelites were White people.
Jews are people who came along later and adopted the religion of
the Israelites and claimed to be the Israelites. There were the
Khazars for example:
The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D, copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y., Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 266:
"Bulan, the pagan ruler of the Khazars, in his desire to embrace the
'true religion' had summoned representatives of Christian, Moslem, and
Jewish faiths to expound their views on the superiority of their
respective religions. Bulan thus became convinced of the truth of the
Jewish faith, and he, as well as many of his noblemen, embraced
Judaism, which later spread widely among the common people of the
Khazar kingdom."
Jews are like the American Indians of today. These people say they
are Indians but the original Indians were clearly described as having
red skin. Today Indians may look brown or white, but not red. Neither
are Jews like the original Israelites.
Jesus said in Matthew 15:24 "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of
the house of Israel." The Whites became Christians but the Jews did
not. If the Jews liked Jesus they and their descendants would be
called Christians today but they are not. This is what Jesus said to
the Jews:
John 10:26+27 "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as
I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me"
Revelation 2:9 "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews,
and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."
John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would
not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him."
The religious leaders of the Jews were the Pharisees. Jesus
condemned them in the harshest words.
Matthew 23:33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye
escape the damnation of hell?"
The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D, copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y., Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 376:
"The Pharisees are therefore regarded as those authorities who helped
develop and preserve traditional Judaism as it is known today."
The old drawing of Jesus were probably correct. He probably had blond
hair and blue eyes.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
Yang, AthD (h.c)
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On May 17, 6:07 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>
>> I wonder how much paperwork is involved in jettisoning your principles...
>
>His first principle is winning, so that the terrorists will be stopped
>from killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe, Israel, and the
>United States, for that matter, because the President of the United
>States will be someone who intends to stop them rather than appease
>them. (Or someone who intends to stop them now, rather than avenge
>herself after the fact.)
That must be why Al Qaeda is nos stronger than ever, Bin Laden is
still around, and Americans are dying at a higher rate, thanks to the
treasonous crimes of the GOP.
GOP, the party of treaosn.
>I don't see much to disagree with in his priorities.
>
>John Savard
--
beelzebub
> While Hagee is a batshit insane nutcase, he isn't McCain's pastor, he simply
> endorsed the maverick senator.
Actually, McCain sought out the support of Hagee to win the vote of
the evangelical right. McCain's involvement isn't as naive as you
make it seem. He approached Hagee, not the other way around. Talk
about your "great whores."
saint...@hotmail.com
We'll have to wait and see whether his kisses are more passionate with
Hagee or Ohlmert. I'm betting on Ohlmert.
Dan Clore
You are correct, and it is totally vacuous to propose "winning" as a
first principle. You have to state *how* you plan to win.
Now, here's my own thoughts on the matter:
The fact is, ending the threat of jihadist terrorist attacks
against the US and its allies would be easy enough. You
just need to do what Ron Paul has done, and pay attention
to the actual motivations of the jihadist terrorists. Every
serious analysis has concluded that their hatred of the US
is motivated by actions that the US government has
undertaken in their part of the world -- harmful interventions
against Muslim populations. These include backing Israeli
attacks on Palestinians, the destruction of the civilian
infrastructure of Iraq and sanctions that killed hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians, support for various dictators
in countries like Saudi Arabia, etc.
In order to eventually halt the jihadist terrorists from
making these attacks, the US should stop committing these
harmful interventions and thus remove the motivation for
the jihadist terrorists (whose attacks on civilians they by
no means justify) in the first place. Ending these harmful
interventions would in any case be the right thing to do
from a moral standpoint.
This should of course be combined with a strong law-
enforcement effort to go after the jihadist terrorists who
undertake such attacks.
Instead, though, the Bush administration has chosen to
deny reality, misrepresent the terrorists' motivations, and
to engage in even more of these harmful interventions
(the invasion/occupation of Iraq, Ethiopia's proxy
invasion/occupation of Somalia, etc.). This simply
exacerbates the problem, driving more and more
Muslims to join the jihadists, and landing the US in the
Iraqi quagmire -- much to the delight of al-Qaida, as
they state in their internal documents.
A caveat is in order, though. This strategy would take
some time to eliminate the motivations of the jihadists --
that kind of hatred and fanaticism does not end in a day.
Another helpful thing to do would be to aid the good
groups in the region, such as:
http://www.rawa.org/
http://www.ifcongress.com/english/index.htm
http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm
http://www.awalls.org/
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Rick
"beelzebub" <yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5b854eae-3bd1-4979...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
And I suppose Obama hasn't compromised his principles at all in the
campaign...
Brian E. Clark
dnVb_v_vrO7PVn...@centurytel.net>, towelie
said...
Not even close.
* McCain and his staff overtly sought Hagee's
endorsement.
* On the campaign trail, McCain has stood side-by-side
with Hagee, as the latter praised the former.
* McCain, though forced to dissemble a bit when
Catholics criticized him for his association with
someone so virulently anti-Catholic, has not distanced
himself from many other of Hagee's notorious claims.
So no, it's not the case the Hagee "simply endorsed
the maverick senator." By contrast, and in perfect
rebuttal to the right-wing nutball claim that the
media are leftist, it *was* the case that Barak Obama
never sought nor endorsed the support of Louis
Farrakhan, yet the media crucified him for it anyway.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
cactus
Quadibloc
but they have problems.
On May 17, 10:03 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Every
> serious analysis has concluded that their hatred of the US
> is motivated by actions that the US government has
> undertaken in their part of the world -- harmful interventions
> against Muslim populations. These include backing Israeli
> attacks on Palestinians, the destruction of the civilian
> infrastructure of Iraq and sanctions that killed hundreds of
> thousands of Iraqi civilians, support for various dictators
> in countries like Saudi Arabia, etc.
This sounds like a no-brainer. If you don't want to get the people of
the Muslim world mad at you, don't do things to hurt them.
But if we don't support the existing government of Sa'udi Arabia, its
likely successor is one run by the fanatical Islamic extremists. How
is giving the terrorists a better base of operations going to help us
win?
> This should of course be combined with a strong law-
> enforcement effort to go after the jihadist terrorists who
> undertake such attacks.
Doesn't that conflict with the first? Oh, wait: is that George Soros I
hear? I'm afraid that the Pakistani government is not in a position to
hand Osama bin Laden over, no matter how nicely Interpol asks them.
> A caveat is in order, though. This strategy would take
> some time to eliminate the motivations of the jihadists --
> that kind of hatred and fanaticism does not end in a day.
Yes. But our tolerance for any further shenanigans from that part of
the world did end in one day. September 11, 2001.
> Another helpful thing to do would be to aid the good
> groups in the region, such as:
There are indeed people in the Islamic world who want to spread
tolerance, or promote equality for women. However, were they to be
receiving *aid* from the United States - or Israel - they would become
_targets_ for the terrorists.
There would have been no Sabra and Chatilla massacres IF the United
States had refrained from pressuring Israel into not taking the
rational option of sending disciplined troops of the Israeli Defence
Forces into those camps, instead of forcing them to rely on proxies.
Giving Israel more options, not less - for example, renegotiating the
Camp David peace accords, so that Israel could send in *ground troops*
to Gaza so as to eliminate the threat of Qassam rockets from Hamas,
rather than being limited to shooting back in ways that endanger
civilians - is what would end loss of life among the Arabs in Gaza.
If you want to improve the quality of life in Iraq and Afghanistan -
then, send in enough troops so that the terrorists have *no chance* to
wage their war of terror and intimidation. If they go into hiding,
they will just have to *stay* there.
If we could evacuate the Israelis, we could indeed end all "harmful
interventions" in the Arab world.
If, however, our determination is absolute that Israel has a right to
exist - and exist with the same level of peace and security from its
neighbors as, say, is enjoyed by Texas and California against the
threat of a Mexican attack - then the decision about "harmful
interventions" is up to the Arab world.
And *they* made their choice in 1948. If they wanted peace, they could
have had it. They chose otherwise. And so, now, before any more
violence is done against Americans, Europeans, and Israelis, we have
to make it very clear to them tht the Middle East conflict is their
fault only, they must resettle the Palestinians, they must fully
cooperate in annihilating the terrorists, they must fully cooperate in
building a pluralistic civil society which shares the values of the
English-speaking world.
The United States had been very patient with the Islamic world from
1948 to 1973. But it squandered its chance to become a pluralistic
modern society with values shared with the English-speaking world.
Now, thanks to Osama bin Laden, their time has run out; now, it is
time to put that part of the world under the firm control of the
United States, so that no further terrorist activity is *physically
possible*.
Including against the people who live in that part of the world, so
that those there who wish to give up hatred and move towards tolerance
will be free to do so without making themselves or their families
targets for murder.
We will control their news media. We will control their entertainment
media. We will control their schools. We will control their mosques.
For decades, until the generation that is present, having grown up
within this, can safely have freedom restored to it, lacking the basis
for the motivation to misuse freedom for harmful purposes.
The problem with _that_, of course, is that it is inherent in humans
to resist external dominion.
Despite that, the Buddhists of Afghanistan failed to resist the
dominion of the invading Muslims.
Also, it is not as if our goals are to despoil and enslave the Islamic
world. Curtailing the activity of the few who are violent is our only
goal. Thus, it ought to be possible to achieve _that_ in a way that
will not make us resented... _too_ much.
The terrorists are resented in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we are too,
because we lifted the lid on the mess - and have failed to *stop* the
terrorism. Bring sufficient forces into Iraq and Afghanistan so that
the people there are safe and secure, and can get on with their lives,
and the problem is solved.
John Savard
Quadibloc
wrote:
> it *was* the case that Barak Obama
> never sought nor endorsed the support of Louis
> Farrakhan, yet the media crucified him for it anyway.
Not like Jesse Jackson.
But then, Jesse Jackson, *unlike* Barack Obama, made a terrible
mistake.
The only reason that being cheerfully racist without a doubt in the
world about it isn't the mind-set of the overwhelming majority of
white Americans is... the Holocaust.
That is what changed the world - from the 1920s and 1930s, where just
about everyone tacitly assumed that people of color could *never* gain
real equality to the 1960s where that was seen as what *must* happen,
the sooner the better.
Thus, there is virtually no one among white Americans who is even
brought to consider the possibility of thinking of black people as
equal human beings - who hasn't, *first*, been brought to view anti-
Semitism as the most loathsome and despicable perversion imaginable.
Jesse Jackson allowed himself to be percieved as "soft" on anti-
Semitism, which meant that all possibility of support from whatever
fraction of white Americans might have been able to consider him for
President immediately evaporated.
Barack Obama has not repeated Jesse Jackson's mistake. If anyone wants
to stop him from becoming President, those who do will have to take
the high road, and defend George W. Bush's policy on the Iraq war.
John Savard
towelie
> towelie wrote:
>> While Hagee is a batshit insane nutcase, he isn't McCain's pastor,
>> he simply endorsed the maverick senator. (I've always wanted to use
>> that phrase in a post.)
>
> Yes. Endorsed him after McCain sought out his endorsement.
>
> Mister "Maverick" is cynically pandering to the religious right. The
> same bunch he didn't care for only a few years ago.
Yes he is. But I simply wanted to set the record straight on the topic of
the thread. While the maverick senator (there's that phrase again!) is
aligned with the kooks, Hagee is not McCain's pastor. The maverick
senator's (there it goes again!) pastor's name is Dan Yeary.
(http://www.npbc.org/index.php?_nav=3&_inc=whoisonstaff&view=1&staff=1)
If "our" side uses half-truths and even outright lies to further its
position, we're no better than the other side. It is important when
presenting an argument to have all your facts straight when making the
argument. Half-truths like the title of this topic are something that I
would expect from Karl Rove, not somebody supporting the Democratic Party.
We're smarter than them, we're morally superior than they are. So we must
make sure to have all our facts straight.
towelie
> On May 17, 6:07 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>
>> I wonder how much paperwork is involved in jettisoning your
>> principles...
>
> His first principle is winning, so that the terrorists will be stopped
> from killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe, Israel, and the
> United States, for that matter, because the President of the United
> States will be someone who intends to stop them rather than appease
> them. (Or someone who intends to stop them now, rather than avenge
> herself after the fact.)
So you're saying Bush appeased them? Well I agree. The 9/11 terrorists
were Saudi, and Bush is the biggest appeaser to the criminal Saudi regime in
history.
> I don't see much to disagree with in his priorities.
Yeah, let's bomb every other country in the world until there's only us
left! Real sound foreign policy there. At least you kooks nominated the
best of a sorry lot. Huckabee or Romney are terrifying, moreso than McCain.
Dan Clore
> Your suggestions do sound like they make sense... but they have
> problems.
> On May 17, 10:03 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> And *they* made their choice in 1948. If they wanted peace, they
> could have had it. They chose otherwise.
Another absolutely essential element is to stop treating *them* as a
collective, and instead recognize them as individual human beings. No
treating them as guilty of crimes committed before they were even born,
and that sort of thing.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
towelie
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On May 17, 6:07 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder how much paperwork is involved in jettisoning your
>>> principles...
>>
>> His first principle is winning, so that the terrorists will be
>> stopped from killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe,
>> Israel, and the United States, for that matter, because the
>> President of the United States will be someone who intends to stop
>> them rather than appease them. (Or someone who intends to stop them
>> now, rather than avenge herself after the fact.)
>
> That must be why Al Qaeda is nos stronger than ever, Bin Laden is
> still around, and Americans are dying at a higher rate, thanks to the
> treasonous crimes of the GOP.
bin Laden has been dead for several years. Kidney patients don't survive
very long in caves. He's just a Muslim Emmanuel Goldstein.
towelie
> Your suggestions do sound like they make sense...
> but they have problems.
>
> On May 17, 10:03 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Every
>> serious analysis has concluded that their hatred of the US
>> is motivated by actions that the US government has
>> undertaken in their part of the world -- harmful interventions
>> against Muslim populations. These include backing Israeli
>> attacks on Palestinians, the destruction of the civilian
>> infrastructure of Iraq and sanctions that killed hundreds of
>> thousands of Iraqi civilians, support for various dictators
>> in countries like Saudi Arabia, etc.
>
> This sounds like a no-brainer. If you don't want to get the people of
> the Muslim world mad at you, don't do things to hurt them.
>
> But if we don't support the existing government of Sa'udi Arabia, its
> likely successor is one run by the fanatical Islamic extremists. How
> is giving the terrorists a better base of operations going to help us
> win?
The CURRENT government of Saudi Arabia is run by FANATICAL ISLAMIC
EXTREMISTS. Your argument is as leaky as a sieve.
>> This should of course be combined with a strong law-
>> enforcement effort to go after the jihadist terrorists who
>> undertake such attacks.
>
> Doesn't that conflict with the first? Oh, wait: is that George Soros I
> hear? I'm afraid that the Pakistani government is not in a position to
> hand Osama bin Laden over, no matter how nicely Interpol asks them.
I'm starting to think the US should have invaded Pakistan at the same time
they invaded Afghanistan. I would have supported a Pakistan invasion, while
I opposed the Iraqi invastion.
>> A caveat is in order, though. This strategy would take
>> some time to eliminate the motivations of the jihadists --
>> that kind of hatred and fanaticism does not end in a day.
>
> Yes. But our tolerance for any further shenanigans from that part of
> the world did end in one day. September 11, 2001.
Then why is Premier Bush so cozy with the criminal Saudi regime? The
country that the 9/11 hijackers came from?
towelie
I'm certainly not trying to make McCain seem "naive" (he does a rather good
job of doing that himself) as I am certainly no fan of the maverick senator.
I'm just correcting some facts. Dan Yeary is McCain's pastor. If we
present falsehoods as fact and use falsehoods to further arguments, we're no
better than the Repubs. If we're gonna beat these bastards, our arguments
must be based on solid facts, not outright falsehoods.
Nobody in particular
> Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
>> That must be why Al Qaeda is nos stronger than ever, Bin Laden is
>> still around, and Americans are dying at a higher rate, thanks to the
>> treasonous crimes of the GOP.
>
> bin Laden has been dead for several years. Kidney patients don't survive very long in caves. He's just a Muslim Emmanuel
> Goldstein.
Nah, the Vorlons have him. He's now best buds with Jack the Ripper and
(Godwin Alert!) Hitler.
Richard D. Latham
<snip>
> We're smarter than them, we're morally superior than they are.
I know it is just a typo, but ...
The juxtaposition of those phrases is amusing to those of us who are
dumber and morally inferior.
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com
Geoff
Come on...Obama is under a microscope. McCain gets a pass on everything. Get
real.
William December Starr
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> said:
> [McCain's] first principle is winning, so that the terrorists will
> be stopped from killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe,
> Israel, and the United States, for that matter, because the
> President of the United States will be someone who intends to stop
> them rather than appease them. (Or someone who intends to stop
> them now, rather than avenge herself after the fact.)
>
> I don't see much to disagree with in his priorities.
Man, you don't just drink the kool-aid, you positively *bathe* in it.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
"towelie" <bugoN...@hotmail.com> said:
Hey, if this isn't maverick behavior I don't know what is:
"But Mr. McCain's advisers said the Mississippi race
underlined his intention to distance himself as much as
possible from Congressional Republicans."
-- New York Times, 15 May 2008[*1].
Think about that. Go ahead, just *think* about it.
towelie
Instead of blood, his veins flow with kool-aid.
il...@rcn.com
> still around, and Americans are dying at a higher rate, thanks to the
> treasonous crimes of the GOP.
Really? Have you noticed that whatever Al Qaeda in Iraq managed to do
over the years -- and they are on the run because most Iraquis got
sick of them, -- Al Qaeda Central has not carried out a SINGLE
successful terrorist attack since 9/11/2001? You must have a strange
definition of "stronger than ever".
Mark K. Bilbo
Yeah, never mind all those intelligence reports that the actual, real Al
Qaeda which is in Pakistan has rebuilt to almost pre-9/11 strength. We
don't need no stinking intelligence eh?
Oh and it was eight years between their attacks here. By the "there's
been no attack" logic, 9/11 didn't happen...
William December Starr
il...@rcn.com said:
> Have you noticed that whatever Al Qaeda in Iraq managed to do over
> the years -- and they are on the run because most Iraquis got sick
> of them, -- Al Qaeda Central has not carried out a SINGLE
> successful terrorist attack since 9/11/2001? You must have a
> strange definition of "stronger than ever".
I think that bin Laden painted himself into a bit of a corner with
9/11, to wit: once you've done something that spectacular, how do
you avoid having everything you do afterwards seem dull and
anticlimactic in comparison? Maybe he's decided that his best move
is to go out on top and take on Emeritus status and serve as an
inspiration to others, rather than sully his masterpiece with lesser
works.
Christopher Adams
> il...@rcn.com said:
>
>> Have you noticed that whatever Al Qaeda in Iraq managed to do over
>> the years -- and they are on the run because most Iraquis got sick
>> of them, -- Al Qaeda Central has not carried out a SINGLE
>> successful terrorist attack since 9/11/2001? You must have a
>> strange definition of "stronger than ever".
>
> I think that bin Laden painted himself into a bit of a corner with
> 9/11, to wit: once you've done something that spectacular, how do
> you avoid having everything you do afterwards seem dull and
> anticlimactic in comparison? Maybe he's decided that his best move
> is to go out on top and take on Emeritus status and serve as an
> inspiration to others, rather than sully his masterpiece with lesser
> works.
ABC Radio here in Sydney had some commentary to this effect yesterday
afternoon. Al Qaeda is now, at least in the opinion of the expert to whom
they spoke, more of an inspirational and propaganda-producing outfit than
actively involved in the planning of operations, which has devolved to
locally-organised groups.
--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia
For theirs is the power and this is their kingdom
As sure as the sun does burn
So enter this path, but heed these four words:
You shall never return
JohnN
John McCain has a "spiritual guide". His name is Ron Pasley of Ohio.
Read more at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3548250.ece.
From the article:
"On February 26, a week before the Ohio vote, Mr McCain appeared at a
campaign rally in Cincinnati with the evangelical pastor, who praised
the candidate as a “strong, true, consistent conservative”. With Mike
Huckabee, a Baptist preacher, then continuing to snap at his heels, Mr
Parsley’s endorsement was a boon to Mr McCain’s efforts to knock out
his last remaining challenger and win over social conservatives.
Standing side-by-side with the minister, Mr McCain hailed him as a
“spiritual guide”."
Parsley calls for a Holy Crusade against Islam. I wonder if he's in
the Army Reserves so he can have the honor of fighting for god, eh,
country.
JohnN
Michael Price
> On May 17, 6:07 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>
> > I wonder how much paperwork is involved in jettisoning your principles...
>
> from killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe, Israel, and the
> United States,
No his first principle is winning regardless of how many moral
degenerates he has to support to do so. There is zero evidence that
he wants to win to stop the terrorists, if he wanted to stop the
terrorists
why seek the endorsement of someone who claims America was
founded in part to defeat Islam Rod Parsley.
> for that matter, because the President of the United
> States will be someone who intends to stop them rather than appease
> them.
There is zero evidence that McCain intends to stop the terrorists.
If
he did he would not have suggested escalating Iraq, policy that
encouraged
them.
> (Or someone who intends to stop them now, rather than avenge
> herself after the fact.)
>
> I don't see much to disagree with in his priorities.
>
> John Savard
You mean you're OK with launching countless wars in a futile and
counterproductive attempt to stop terrorism while encouraging
potential
terrorists to view America as the enemy?
saint...@hotmail.com
> On May 17, 4:29 pm, "towelie" <bugoNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> > > towelie wrote:
> > >> While Hagee is a batshit insane nutcase, he isn't McCain's pastor,
> > >> he simply endorsed the maverick senator. (I've always wanted to use
> > >> that phrase in a post.)
>
> > > Yes. Endorsed him after McCain sought out his endorsement.
>
> > > Mister "Maverick" is cynically pandering to the religious right. The
> > > same bunch he didn't care for only a few years ago.
>
> > Yes he is. But I simply wanted to set the record straight on the topic of
> > the thread. While the maverick senator (there's that phrase again!) is
> > aligned with the kooks, Hagee is not McCain's pastor. The maverick
> > senator's (there it goes again!) pastor's name is Dan Yeary.
> > (http://www.npbc.org/index.php?_nav=3&_inc=whoisonstaff&view=1&staff=1)
>
> > If "our" side uses half-truths and even outright lies to further its
> > position, we're no better than the other side. It is important when
> > presenting an argument to have all your facts straight when making the
> > argument. Half-truths like the title of this topic are something that I
> > would expect from Karl Rove, not somebody supporting the Democratic Party.
> > We're smarter than them, we're morally superior than they are. So we must
> > make sure to have all our facts straight.
>
> John McCain has a "spiritual guide". His name is Ron Pasley of Ohio.
>
> From the article:
> "On February 26, a week before the Ohio vote, Mr McCain appeared at a
> campaign rally in Cincinnati with the evangelical pastor, who praised
> the candidate as a “strong, true, consistent conservative”. With Mike
> Huckabee, a Baptist preacher, then continuing to snap at his heels, Mr
> Parsley’s endorsement was a boon to Mr McCain’s efforts to knock out
> his last remaining challenger and win over social conservatives.
> Standing side-by-side with the minister, Mr McCain hailed him as a
> “spiritual guide”."
>
> Parsley calls for a Holy Crusade against Islam. I wonder if he's in
> the Army Reserves so he can have the honor of fighting for god, eh,
> country.
>
> JohnN
A Holy Crusade against Islam would be the Will of God IF AND ONLY IF
it were combined with a like Holy Crusade against Israel and all
antichrist Jews.
Dan Clore
> On May 17, 11:52 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On May 17, 6:07 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder how much paperwork is involved in jettisoning your
>>> principles...
>> His first principle is winning, so that the terrorists will be
>> stopped from killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe,
>> Israel, and the United States,
>
> No his first principle is winning regardless of how many moral
> degenerates he has to support to do so. There is zero evidence that
> he wants to win to stop the terrorists, if he wanted to stop the
> terrorists why seek the endorsement of someone who claims America was
> founded in part to defeat Islam Rod Parsley.
Reminder:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in
itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States
never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce
an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries."
-- "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States
and the Bey and the Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" (commonly
called the "Treaty of Tripoli"), negotiated under George
Washington, signed by President John Adams after the Senate
voted unanimously for ratification.