DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on May 05, 2007, 10:22:06 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070506/ts_nm/qaeda_zawahri_dc_2;_ylt=AoPQ3lMxUs6kbCssF_YwYbYUewgF
"We ask Allah that they only get out after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, so that we give the blood spillers in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson to motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system," Zawahri added on the video, posted on Web sites used by Islamists.
"The ones who have stirred up strife in Iraq are those who today are begging the Americans not to leave," said the white-turbaned Zawahri, sitting next to bookshelves and an assault rifle.
Is he inviting us to stay?
At present rates killing 300,000 Americans would requir the expenditure of 3,000,000 Al Quieda members and 30,00,000 bystanders.
Are these his best ideas?
-
<<Is he inviting us to stay?
Sure sounds like it to me.
<<At present rates killing 300,000 Americans would requir the expenditure of 3,000,000 Al Quieda members and 30,00,000 bystanders.
<<Are these his best ideas?>>
If you noticed, he invoked the assistance of Allah to get up to those numbers. I find it surprising that you would doubt the power of the Almighty to affect the outcome as requested.
-
If you noticed, he invoked the assistance of Allah to get up to those numbers. I find it surprising that you would doubt the power of the Almighty to affect the outcome as requested.
I don't doubt the power of the Almighty , his providence can keep the ratio ten to one or better .
Are we obedient so well that we deserve it ?
-
BY JAMES TARANTO
Monday, May 7, 2007
World's Only Supercower
"In a new Internet video, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command jeers at the Iraq war funding bill vetoed by President George W. Bush that called for a U.S. troop pullout in Iraq," Reuters reports:
"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," al Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri is quoted as saying on ABC's Web site. . . ."We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson," Zawahri says.
Of course this is bluster. According to this chart (http://icasualties.org/oif/hnh.aspx), the total number of coalition combat deaths in the Iraq war stands at 2,968, or 718 a year on average. At that rate, the count would reach 200,000 in the year 2282 and 300,000 in 2421.
Obviously Zawahiri's taunt is a sarcastic one. He means to call America cowardly, as Osama bin Laden did in a February 2002 interview with Al-Jazeera:
We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America--the United States--that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.
America left faster than anyone expected. It forgot all that tremendous media fanfare about the new world order, that it is the master of that order, and that it does whatever it wants. It forgot all of these propositions, gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God.
He has a point; America does have a yellow streak. Think of all the politicians and commentators who supported the Iraq war with their votes and words, then switched sides once the going got tough. If opinion polls are to be believed, somewhere between 25% and 40% of the public did the same.
Whatever his faults, President Bush has been steadfast; and our guess is that the next president, even if a Democrat, will realize that cutting and running would be disastrous, and thus will either defy public opinion or help to change it. But if America conducted foreign policy by plebiscite, it seems likely we would already have fled Iraq.
If America is irresolute, al Qaeda is cowardly in its own way--which is to say, dastardly. While Zawahiri boasts about his ambition to attack U.S. soldiers, his followers appear to be targeting little girls, as CNN reports:
American soldiers discovered a girls school being built north of Baghdad had become an explosives-rigged "death trap," the U.S. military said Thursday.
The plot at the Huda Girls' school in Tarmiya was a "sophisticated and premeditated attempt to inflict massive casualties on our most innocent victims," military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said.
The military suspects the plot was the work of al Qaeda, because of its nature and sophistication, Caldwell said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
America's cowardice and al Qaeda's are as different in their origins as in their forms. Ours grows out of strength and comfort; theirs, out of weakness and depravity. Both, however, are dangerous to civilization.
Article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010039)
-
And yet something tells me that if you piled up all the little girls killed by al Qaeda and all the little girls killed by American troops, this is a contest that the locals could never hope to win. In addition, I think you'd find some of the Americans' victims had been raped as well.
-
We all look forward to you demonstrating how little girls are targeted by U.S. forces, and how those who've been caught having raped said little girls are given pats on the back, and an "atta boy", vs prosectued. I mean, our military being the bunch of murderous raping thugs they are, there must be copious examples you can choose from. Ball in your court
-
<<We all look forward to you demonstrating how little girls are targeted by U.S. forces . . . >>
Well, I gotta presume all that firepower was targeted on something. They weren't unloading on an empty desert. That explosive power was meant to kill a whole bunch of human beings, not palm trees.
<< . . . and how those who've been caught having raped said little girls are given pats on the back, and an "atta boy", vs prosectued. >>
Whoa, THAT'S a huge consolation to the victims and their families. Get back to me when one of these thugs is actually executed. Ball in YOUR court.
-
<<We all look forward to you demonstrating how little girls are targeted by U.S. forces . . . >>
Well, I gotta presume all that firepower was targeted on something.
So, that's a negative on them specifically targeting children, like AlQeada does. Ok, that's good to know you have none, let's move on, shall we
<< . . . and how those who've been caught having raped said little girls are given pats on the back, and an "atta boy", vs prosectued. >>
Whoa, THAT'S a huge consolation to the victims and their families. Get back to me when one of these thugs is actually executed.
Ahhh, so those who have been caught are prosecuted. Gotcha. Cool, glad we got that cleared up. You'll me know when we start executing civilian rapists in this country, so we can then re-examine your issue with sentencing
-
MT turns out to be the most pro-death penalty Canadian I have heard of.
-
<<So, that's a negative on them specifically targeting children, like AlQeada does. >>
[Scratching head in wonderment at the bizarre scale of moral values on display] It's better to target entire families and neighbourhoods with all ages and sexes than to specifically target little girls? Wow, you guys must be the moral aristocrats of the planet.
<<hh, so those who have been caught are prosecuted. Gotcha. Cool, glad we got that cleared up. You'll me know when we start executing civilian rapists in this country, so we can then re-examine your issue with sentencing>>
WHOA, this is gonna hurt. I really hate to break news like this to your sensitive bleeding heart, sirs, but your country HAS been known to execute people for the rape and murder of little girls. It's already happened. Honest. I kid you not. Civilians. Yes. And I'm not the only one who knows about this.
-
<<MT turns out to be the most pro-death penalty Canadian I have heard of.>>
Is that so bad?
-
<<So, that's a negative on them specifically targeting children, like AlQeada does. >>
[Scratching head in wonderment at the bizarre scale of moral values on display] It's better to target entire families and neighbourhoods with all ages and sexes than to specifically target little girls? Wow, you guys must be the moral aristocrats of the planet.
<<hh, so those who have been caught are prosecuted. Gotcha. Cool, glad we got that cleared up. You'll me know when we start executing civilian rapists in this country, so we can then re-examine your issue with sentencing>>
WHOA, this is gonna hurt. I really hate to break news like this to your sensitive bleeding heart, sirs, but your country HAS been known to execute people for the rape and murder of little girls. It's already happened. Honest. I kid you not. Civilians. Yes. And I'm not the only one who knows about this.
The death penalty is so contentious that it is difficult to keep up a rate of fifteen or sixteen a year nationwide in spite of haveing plenty of good canadates .
The number of lotto winners dwarfs the number of people killed for the sake of deterance.
Is this an area in which we should emulate Canada less?
<<MT turns out to be the most pro-death penalty Canadian I have heard of.>>
Is that so bad?
No , it is unexpected but not bad.
-
<<So, that's a negative on them specifically targeting children, like AlQeada does. >>
It's better to target entire families and neighbourhoods with all ages and sexes than to specifically target little girls?
No, it's actually better to target Terrorist strongholds, and kill terrorists. This isn't carpet bombing Tee, and the fact you have yet to demonstrate how we specifically target civilians, like AlQeada does speaks volumes for the lack of perspective you demonstrate on a daily basis
<<hh, so those who have been caught are prosecuted. Gotcha. Cool, glad we got that cleared up. You'll me know when we start executing civilian rapists in this country, so we can then re-examine your issue with sentencing>>
I really hate to break news like this to your sensitive bleeding heart, sirs, but your country HAS been known to execute people for the rape and murder of little girls.
Ahhh, now you're adding a quailifier that previosuly wasn't in your equation. Perhaps I should wait until you've exhausted all your qualifiers everytime a position of yours has been knocked down
-
<<Ahhh, now you're adding a quailifier that previosuly wasn't in your equation. Perhaps I should wait until you've exhausted all your qualifiers everytime a position of yours has been knocked down>>
Maybe I gave you too much credit for knowing what goes on in the world. The biggest rape case that hit the news so far was the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl and the killing of the rest of her family (except a brother who wasn't home at the time) by U.S. troops. I would expect that most of the rapes are accompanied by murder in order to silence potential witnesses. This one came to light because the local Resistance forces exacted a kind of grisly revenge on two members of the squad who hadn't been present when this particular atrocity had taken place, and one of the surviving war criminals inadvertently ratted out his buddies by blurting out to an investigator (investigating the torture and murder of the Marines, not of the girl and her family) that the Resistance's mutilation-killings could have been revenge.
I thought you were smart enough to figure out that most of the rapes wouldn't exactly end with "Here, go home kid and tell your folks you fucked a Marine or two or three or six or seven, and here's some candy for you too." The typical rape would likely end with the destruction of all witnesses, blamed on "terrorists" (exactly as this one did) only without the screw-ups that followed. I'll know better next time.
-
<<No, it's actually better to target Terrorist strongholds, and kill terrorists. This isn't carpet bombing Tee, and the fact you have yet to demonstrate how we specifically target civilians, like AlQeada does speaks volumes for the lack of perspective you demonstrate on a daily basis>>
I think it's YOUR perspective that's way out of whack, sirs, and I'll tell you why. All that emphasis on "targeting" and none on the results. If I start a war and 600,000 civilians wind up dead as a result, it is very small comfort to know that those 600,000 were mostly "collateral damage." The one who starts the war is responsible for ALL the damages, collateral damage included.
To the victims and their families, it makes no difference at all whether they were targeted or collateral - - they're just as dead either way.
The war doesn't HAVE to be fought in a way that maximizes "collateral" civilian losses and minimizes American military losses. If the U.S. military weren't such cowardly little shits, they'd go mano-a-mano with the Resistance and take their losses like men. They fight in a different way and the civilian body count rises to astronomical proportions, to protect their own sorry asses. And meantime you wrap yourself in that "They weren't targeted" mantra as if it absolves you and your country of any responsibility. Bottom line is, the numbers don't lie - - Americans have killed thousands of innocent civilians for every one killed by "terrorists." And hiding behind the absurd distinction that nobody was "targeted" doesn't mean shit - - in a war that YOU started, every victim was targeted because every one was avoidable. You don't fool anyone but yourselves with that "not targeted" bullshit.
-
" If the U.S. military weren't such cowardly little shits, they'd go mano-a-mano with the Resistance and take their losses like men. "
That might be nice , do you suppose we could get the Al Quieda to participate in something like that?
-
<<No, it's actually better to target Terrorist strongholds, and kill terrorists. This isn't carpet bombing Tee, and the fact you have yet to demonstrate how we specifically target civilians, like AlQeada does speaks volumes for the lack of perspective you demonstrate on a daily basis>>
I think it's YOUR perspective that's way out of whack, sirs, and I'll tell you why. All that emphasis on "targeting" and none on the results. If I start a war and 600,000 civilians wind up dead as a result, it is very small comfort to know that those 600,000 were mostly "collateral damage."
You planning on differentiating those accidentally killed by coalition forces and those murdered by your prescious freedom fighters, any time soon? Because it does actually make a difference, as it relates the specific outcomes being seeked. The mindset used in trying to avoid civilian casualties, when the enemy is literally hiding behind said civilians, is a testament to the dedication our soldiers have towards the sanctity at life. Granted you'll laugh at such a concept, since in your mind, our soldiers are just as bad, if not worse than terrorists, so such a concept is obviously beyond your comprehension. Point being we do NOT target civilians, as Al Qeada does, as Islamic militants do, as Iraqi insurgents do
The war doesn't HAVE to be fought in a way that maximizes "collateral" civilian losses and minimizes American military losses.
Now, you're just blowing smoke, since we are exhausting every avenue in trying to minimize civilian casualties. We're NOT carpet bombing, we're NOT doing mass shelling, we're NOT launching multiple MLRS rounds into blocks of neighborhoods. THAT's what would be equivalent to your asanine "maximizing collateral civilian losses" ::)
If the U.S. military weren't such cowardly little shits, they'd go mano-a-mano with the Resistance and take their losses like men. Bottom line is, the numbers don't lie - - Americans have killed thousands of innocent civilians for every one killed by "terrorists." And hiding behind the absurd distinction that nobody was "targeted" doesn't mean shit
Feel better? Get it all out yet?
To the victims and their families, it makes no difference at all whether they were targeted or collateral - - they're just as dead either way
The closest thing you've come to rational thought, thru-out this entire diatribe, since absolute a family member who lost a loved one in war isn't going to care if they were targeted or not, with every one of them absolutely tragic. What they will care about is who's trying to help them after the fact, and HOW that death occured. And the garbage being applied by the likes of you and similar minds. in how we're supposedly no different than terrorists who purposely cut off civilians heads, burn them alive, and give high fives to each other when they've killed scores of civilians, simply helps facilitate their anger, leading to a perpetuation of the status quo, of more civilian lives lost. Thanks loads >:(
-
In answer to sirs' last post and without any cutting and pasting - - I think most of his argument depends on the concept of "targeting." The Americans can kill a hundred thousand Iraqis, but if those 100,000 were "collateral damage" rather than deliberately targeted, this kinda lets them off the hook. If the Iraqi Resistance kills 40,000 targeted Iraqis, this makes them [the Resistance fighters] a lot worse than the killers of the 100,000 not-targeted people.
That argument, IMHO, might have some application if the Iraqis had launched a war of aggression against America. I know, regarding the Germans and Japs, I don't give a shit how many millions of them were killed. Considering the atrocities their armies committed, considering that they started the war in the first place, not only were their casualties well-deserved and fully justified, I actually feel it's a crying shame that there weren't a whole lot more. However, those considerations do not apply when the victims of the bombing did not start the war in the first place. They are doubly victimized, first as being warred on without provocation and secondly by the actual killing and maiming that they must suffer. For the U.S. to START a war on Iraq, and then say, of the mountains of Iraqi dead, Oh, it's a shame, but nobody targeted them, it was all an accident - - that is just BS.
The decision to start the war and the decision to conduct it as it was conducted, those were decisions that carried with them on Day One the certainty that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would die. Somebody had to know how many million tons of explosives needed to be shipped out, how many aircraft, how many bombs. One way or another that translated into mega-deaths and everyone who had a hand in planning the attack knew that. That none of the deaths was an individually targeted death is a transparent cop-out.
-
In answer to sirs' last post and without any cutting and pasting - - I think most of his argument depends on the concept of "targeting."
As it is defined with pretty much the rest of humanity, vs my "concept", it's where one kills/murders what one intends to kill/murder. Not sure where else one could go with the concept of "targeting". Then again, in Tee's version of reality, the sky's the limit on such a term
-
"If the Iraqi Resistance kills 40,000 targeted Iraqis, this makes them [the Resistance fighters] a lot worse than the killers of the 100,000 not-targeted people."
What if these figures are reversed?
If there were 40,000 innocent Iriquis caught in American crossfire but 100,000 targeted people fallen to the Al Queda and the factions of Irquis struggleing to replace Saddam with a new Saddam. Would your opinion be reversed?
How do we know that this is not the case in reality? For the last two years there has been little areal bombing bt a lot of suicide bombing since the Insurgents are intent on unning up the numbers and this is the most key tactic of their strategy it is really inevitable that they will kill a greater number of non-combatants .
Very likely they already have.
-
<<Is he inviting us to stay?
Sure sounds like it to me.
<<At present rates killing 300,000 Americans would requir the expenditure of 3,000,000 Al Quieda members and 30,00,000 bystanders.
<<Are these his best ideas?>>
If you noticed, he invoked the assistance of Allah to get up to those numbers. I find it surprising that you would doubt the power of the Almighty to affect the outcome as requested.
No, I doubt the veracity of a demon to accomplish this. Of course, working through people, however, it could get done. And might. It is almost impossible to fight an enemy who is willing to give their ALL for a CAUSE, unless you kill all of them, which in this case is impractical.
-
And yet something tells me that if you piled up all the little girls killed by al Qaeda and all the little girls killed by American troops, this is a contest that the locals could never hope to win. In addition, I think you'd find some of the Americans' victims had been raped as well.
MT, if you hate America so greatly, why then live in a nation that is our closest friend? Doesn't this make you guilty by association?
-
And yet something tells me that if you piled up all the little girls killed by al Qaeda and all the little girls killed by American troops, this is a contest that the locals could never hope to win. In addition, I think you'd find some of the Americans' victims had been raped as well.
MT, if you hate America so greatly, why then live in a nation that is our closest friend? Doesn't this make you guilty by association?
Canada has oil.
MT knows that we have an urgent need to controll oil , so he is prepareing his resistance propaganda.
-
<<MT, if you hate America so greatly, why then live in a nation that is our closest friend? Doesn't this make you guilty by association?>>
I don't hate America, Professor, I'm just totally disgusted with them right now and I let it show. What is America anyway but the sum of its parts? Some of the parts I hate, some I love. The bad parts are in control right now - - you could say that I hate Bush, but it's more the guys around him, he's basically an empty suit - - but the war in Iraq wasn't an accident - - it was engineered, and I hate the people who engineered it. I hate the people who carry it on. I hate the torturers and the murderers.
Thre used to be a good side to America, but I see that the good is more and more submerged every year by the bad. It isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Interests have taken over the political process and they've infiltrated both sides of the political spectrum. That's why it didn't really matter whether Kerry or Bush won the last election. That's why it doesn't matter that the Democrats won control over the Senate and the House - - they grandstand and play to the anti-war votes but they won't defund (as BT delights in pointing out) and they won't change a God-damn thing.
I feel bad that I came across as hating America -- you know I have more aunts, uncles and first cousins in the U.S.A. than I do in Canada. One of my daughters lives and works in Manhattan and my two grandchildren are U.S. citizens. Both of my daughters went to grad school in the U.S. with my blessing, one at Columbia, one at NYU. (I insisted that all three of my kids get their undergrad degrees here in Toronto.) America was a great country with the brightest future of any country on earth. More than that, it really was, for a time, the "hope and beacon" of the human race. But it's going down. A military-industrial complex has figured out how to get things done their way under the facade of a "democracy" and they aren't letting go of the levers.
Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, America has had a free hand in the world. It was able to act without restraint and it gave in to its worst impulses. There's only one thing that can stop America in its evil tracks, and that's the rise of a new world super-power, China maybe, or if we're lucky, India. But it won't be in my lifetime. All I can look forward to is more Abu Ghraibs, more Panama Cities.
-
<<MT, if you hate America so greatly, why then live in a nation that is our closest friend? Doesn't this make you guilty by association?>>
I don't hate America, Professor, I'm just totally disgusted with them right now and I let it show. What is America anyway but the sum of its parts? Some of the parts I hate, some I love. The bad parts are in control right now....Thre used to be a good side to America
*snicker*......when Democrats ran everything of course
-
<<If there were 40,000 innocent Iriquis caught in American crossfire but 100,000 targeted people fallen to the Al Queda and the factions of Irquis struggleing to replace Saddam with a new Saddam. Would your opinion be reversed?
<<How do we know that this is not the case in reality? For the last two years there has been little areal bombing bt a lot of suicide bombing since the Insurgents are intent on unning up the numbers and this is the most key tactic of their strategy it is really inevitable that they will kill a greater number of non-combatants .>>
Starting a war is a very grave and serious step. Nobody can ever predict the consequences of war. Neither Hitler nor Chamberlain could have predicted the consequences of the war that began Sept. 1, 1939. LBJ was not able to predict the consequences of the Viet Nam War.
But one thing everybody who starts a war knows: a lot of people can get killed. Who they are, where they are, how they will die, might not be predictable. But that an unbearable load of human suffering will be let loose upon the earth, that much (or that little) the originators of a war have to know.
Bush started the war on Iraq. Bush is responsible for every single death that occurred in that war. Every one. Because it was his choice to start the war or to abide by the principles of international law, by Article Four of the Charter of the United Nations. He chose to flout that law, he chose to start a war, he chose to start off down a path which led to each and every death that has occurred to date in Iraq and all the deaths that will follow.
-
<<*snicker*......when Democrats ran everything of course>>
Not always. It was Eisenhower who first warned the nation of the "military-industrial complex." It was Eisenhower who sent the troops to Little Rock Central High.
-
<<*snicker*......when Democrats ran everything of course>>
Not always. It was Eisenhower who first warned the nation of the "military-industrial complex." It was Eisenhower who sent the troops to Little Rock Central High.
ok, 1 time. Yea, that refutes all else ;)
-
<<ok, 1 time. Yea, that refutes all else >>
Sorry, sirs, there was only one Republican President between FDR and Nixon. They didn't manufacture any more for that period.
-
<<ok, 1 time. Yea, that refutes all else >>
Sorry, sirs, there was only one Republican President between FDR and Nixon. They didn't manufacture any more for that period.
Must have missed the part where I specifically referenced "when democrats ran everything". You'll note I didn't qualify it as when only Democrat Presidents were running things. That's ok though, you're forgiven
-
<<MT, if you hate America so greatly, why then live in a nation that is our closest friend? Doesn't this make you guilty by association?>>
I don't hate America, Professor, I'm just totally disgusted with them right now and I let it show. What is America anyway but the sum of its parts? Some of the parts I hate, some I love. The bad parts are in control right now - - you could say that I hate Bush, but it's more the guys around him, he's basically an empty suit - - but the war in Iraq wasn't an accident - - it was engineered, and I hate the people who engineered it. I hate the people who carry it on. I hate the torturers and the murderers.
Thre used to be a good side to America, but I see that the good is more and more submerged every year by the bad. It isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Interests have taken over the political process and they've infiltrated both sides of the political spectrum. That's why it didn't really matter whether Kerry or Bush won the last election. That's why it doesn't matter that the Democrats won control over the Senate and the House - - they grandstand and play to the anti-war votes but they won't defund (as BT delights in pointing out) and they won't change a God-damn thing.
I feel bad that I came across as hating America -- you know I have more aunts, uncles and first cousins in the U.S.A. than I do in Canada. One of my daughters lives and works in Manhattan and my two grandchildren are U.S. citizens. Both of my daughters went to grad school in the U.S. with my blessing, one at Columbia, one at NYU. (I insisted that all three of my kids get their undergrad degrees here in Toronto.) America was a great country with the brightest future of any country on earth. More than that, it really was, for a time, the "hope and beacon" of the human race. But it's going down. A military-industrial complex has figured out how to get things done their way under the facade of a "democracy" and they aren't letting go of the levers.
Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, America has had a free hand in the world. It was able to act without restraint and it gave in to its worst impulses. There's only one thing that can stop America in its evil tracks, and that's the rise of a new world super-power, China maybe, or if we're lucky, India. But it won't be in my lifetime. All I can look forward to is more Abu Ghraibs, more Panama Cities.
Thank you for the clarification, MT.
It might surprise you, but, to a large degree, I agree with you. I see America in a decline since probably the mid sixties. I see much of it due to a moral decline that then permeates throughout the culture.
As I have stated before, I also deplore some of the actions of this Administration. I also agree with some as well. But then again, I said this during the Clinton Administration. Then I disagreed with many of their positions on social issues; this is the one "bright star" in THIS Adminsitration. This "foray" into Iraq is deplorable, simply senseless (Sorry, Sirs). Afghanistan was a different matter. As UP would agree, I believe we need to back off and mind our business a little more. And by "our business", I mean a more narrow interpretation than the neocons.
I also admire much about Canada. They do well on the international scene with the resources they have. I tend to think they are much too liberal on some issues, but, nevertheless, they are a fine nation. Sometimes I wish we were less interventionist as Canada is...sigh.
-
Then I disagree with many of thier positions on social issues; this is the one "bright star" in THIS Adminsitration. This "foray" into Iraq is deplorable, simply senseless (Sorry, Sirs). Afghanistan was a different matter. As UP would agree, I beleive we need to back off and mind our business al ittle more. .
No need to apologize Professor. It's ok to be wrong from time to time. ;)
-
<<Must have missed the part where I specifically referenced "when democrats ran everything". You'll note I didn't qualify it as when only Democrat Presidents were running things. That's ok though, you're forgiven>>
Seems like what I really missed was how the Democrats "ran everything" during the eight years of the Eisenhower administration. Maybe you could explain that to me sometime.
-
<<It might surprise you, but, to a large degeree, I agree with you. I see America in a decline since probably the mid sixties. I see much of it due to a moral decline that then permeates throughout the culture. >>
I'm not really surprised, Professor, I know you've expressed those thoughts on Iraq before. But it's hard to agree on the moral decline because our standards of morality are very different. When you speak of moral decline, I'm sure you're thinking Roe v. Wade, gay liberation, gay marriage, pulling the plug on Terry Schiavo, stem cell research - - all stuff that I approve of and support, to varying degrees.
I'm not happy about abortions, I don't think it's a golden, shining moment for Western Civilization when a mother has to still the life within her for any reason. It's almost unbearably sad that something that began in an act of love is choked off and killed by the mother that nurtured it. I might not personally do it if I were a woman - - but I have to say that nobody can tell that woman what purpose her body is to be put to or what God expects of her - - that is her decision and hers alone. Similarly with gay liberation and gay marriage - - I would be devastated to learn that my son or my grandson were gay; there's no way I could turn that into something postitive. But would I support them or any other gay person in an effort to live their lives as they see fit, to marry or not without the State intervening to tell them what they can or cannot do? Absolutely.
"Moral decline" obviously is a very subjective assessment. I would say that in the right-wing areas of concern that they consider "moral values" (from which, curiously, most of them have excluded Thou-shallt-not-kill" violations from their area of concern, at least with regard to non-Christian victims) all seem to involve areas of Constitutional concern as well, and what they consider to be a moral decline, others might see as more of an expansion of Constitutional rights over how they were previously interpreted by the Courts.
-
<<Must have missed the part where I specifically referenced "when democrats ran everything". You'll note I didn't qualify it as when only Democrat Presidents were running things. That's ok though, you're forgiven>>
Seems like what I really missed was how the Democrats "ran everything" during the eight years of the Eisenhower administration. Maybe you could explain that to me sometime.
Must have missed that part where I responded "ok, 1 time. Yea, that refutes all else" It's ok, given the source, I'll forgive that one as well ;)
-
Back when we had prayer in every classroom we were nicer .
coincidentally
-
But to be honest Plane, I've simply been joking around with these lastest responses, (*snicker*, smiley faces, etc. were kinda a quailfier to those posts). So if you or Tee are taking them too seriously, I'm not sure what else I can say
-
But to be honest Plane, I've simply been joking around with these lastest responses, (*snicker*, smiley faces, etc. were kinda a quailfier to those posts). So if you or Tee are taking them too seriously, I'm not sure what else I can say
I am not hurt .
-
Cool 8)
-
<<Must have missed that part where I responded "ok, 1 time. Yea, that refutes all else" It's ok, given the source, I'll forgive that one as well >>
Actually, I thought I responded to that with a snide little post that pointed out my regrets that there had only BEEN one time between FDR and Nixon when the Republicans were in control of the Executive Branch. But I looked back up the thread and didn't find it. However, that was my response. I gave due credit to the Republicans for a better U.S.A. back in the day. To the extent that I was able, given the fact that they weren't in office all that much. Sure a lot of the good things in America came from Democrats, but I didn't claim they only came from Democrats.
-
I gave due credit to the Republicans for a better U.S.A. back in the day. To the extent that I was able, given the fact that they weren't in office all that much. Sure a lot of the good things in America came from Democrats, but I didn't claim they only came from Democrats.
LOL....yea, 1 Republican president, out of all the other Presidents & congress critters over the years. Yep, that really refutes my little snicker of a comment ::)
-
Back when we had prayer in every classroom we were nicer .
coincidentally
Except to the blacks...
-
Back when we had prayer in every classroom we were nicer .
coincidentally
Except to the blacks...
That is back when Blacks were nicer to each other than they are now.
The government has gotten better twards racial minoritys , what have the people done?
-
That is back when Blacks were nicer to each other than they are now.
Source?
The government has gotten better twards racial minoritys , what have the people done?
Just the government? Or has society and the attitudes of whites gotten better as well?
Is prayer in school mandated by Christianity?
-
We had the Lord's Prayer at the start of each school day. It seemed OK to me because it never mentioned Jesus. It didn't do any harm and it didn't do any good. I don't know anybody who took it seriously. It was just something you had to do. Some just mumbled along, some didn't. A complete and total waste of everyone's time.
-
I can trump that Tee.
We had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nothing like giving your allegiance to cloth every morning and listening to a room full of kids say "invisible, with liberty and justice for all." :)
-
<<Nothing like giving your allegiance to cloth every morning >>
LOL.
To be fair, it was to cloth AND to the Republic for which the cloth stood. Believe it or not, JS, I used to be able to recite the whole thing myself. I loved it. Back in the day. When it was unsullied by the gratuitous insertion of God's name. I especially loved the ending, "with liberty and justice for all." Really used to bring tears to my eyes.
-
That is back when Blacks were nicer to each other than they are now.
Source?
The government has gotten better twards racial minoritys , what have the people done?
Just the government? Or has society and the attitudes of whites gotten better as well?
I will try to point to sorces , will you then try to answer the question?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/11/cosby/index.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200407/SPE20040702a.html
http://www.peace.ca/truthaboutblackcrime.htm
http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_2_my_black.html
"Even if, therefore, the justice system punished only those blacks who commit violent crimes—indeed, even if it punished only black violent criminals whose victims were themselves black—blacks would still be “overrepresented†in prison, in jail, on probation, and on parole. Thus, instead of all the ideological nonsense about “1 in 3†and the like, we should begin to focus in common on how revolving-door justice harms all Americans, most especially blacks. As the bipartisan Council on Crime in America has reported: “America’s violent crime problem, especially the rage of homicidal and near-homicidal violence, is extremely concentrated among young urban minority males. . . ."
Is prayer in school mandated by Christianity?
Yes
-
I will try to point to sorces , will you then try to answer the question?
I don't see a question (not being an ass, I really don't see a question being asked).
Yes
Where?
-
I will try to point to sorces , will you then try to answer the question?
I don't see a question (not being an ass, I really don't see a question being asked).
The government has gotten better twards racial minoritys , what have the people done?
Yes
Where?
In the New Testament , "suffer the little Children to come unto me"
"Pray without ceaseing"
In the old Testiment "Train up a child in the way he should go "
Several other passages , encourage introduction of Biblical wisdom to children , at the time it was written scripture was most of school.
-
The government has gotten better twards racial minoritys , what have the people done?
I hope that some have gotten better attitudes towards minorities, I think that they have. Of course there are still racists and bigots. I dare say there always will be. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we live in some golden society today. I simply don't believe that the 1950's or prior were really any better. People tend to reflect upon the past with rose-coloured glasses.
In the New Testament , "suffer the little Children to come unto me"
"Pray without ceaseing"
In the old Testiment "Train up a child in the way he should go "
Several other passages , encourage introduction of Biblical wisdom to children , at the time it was written scripture was most of school.
That indicates nothing of formally led prayer in schools. There is no reason a child cannot say the Lord's Prayer unto himself at any time in a public school.
-
Plane is correct in that an attitude of prayer, or should I say an environment of prayer, can produce positive results in moral behaviour. aS you know, our laws are primarily based upon a Judeo-Christian foundation. This foundation, including the Ten Commandments, have fomed much of what America is today. When you take morals out of society, what do you have? Anarchy.
-
aS you know, our laws are primarily based upon a Judeo-Christian foundation. This foundation including the Ten Commandments, have fomed much of what America is today. When you take moals out of society, what do you have? Anarchy.
Our laws are primarily formed from English common law dependent upon stare decisis et non quieta movere, the other primary sources of American law are administrative law, statutes, and constitutional law.
There might be a Calvinist influence as well as the Church of England (Anglican) influence with some of the Statutes of Elizabeth I adopted, but I'd hardly pretend that it is fully Judeo/Christian.
-
In the New Testament , "suffer the little Children to come unto me"
"Pray without ceasing"
In the old Testament "Train up a child in the way he should go "
Several other passages , encourage introduction of Biblical wisdom to children , at the time it was written scripture was most of school.
That indicates nothing of formally led prayer in schools. There is no reason a child cannot say the Lord's Prayer unto himself at any time in a public school.
What are you asking ?
If you had asked if the government should have a role in introduceing Christianity to Children I would have said no.
You asked ,"Is prayer in school mandated by Christianity?"
-
What are you asking ?
If you had asked if the government should have a role in introduceing Christianity to Children I would have said no.
You asked ,"Is prayer in school mandated by Christianity?"
Fair enough, but how exactly would you place prayer back in school?
-
<<aS you know, our laws are primarily based upon a Judeo-Christian foundation. >>
Judaism and Christianity were important influences on our laws but Judaic law itself was founded in significant part on the Code of Hammurabi; Roman law and pre-Christian custom also contributed to our laws and of course an entire secular gloss has been applied to our fundamental laws in the last century.
<<This foundation, including the Ten Commandments, have fomed much of what America is today. When you take morals out of society, what do you have? Anarchy.>>
Where was the anarchy in Soviet Russia, in Communist China or even in Nazi Germany? Lack of morality does not necessarily result in anarchy and "Judaeo-Christian" (if there even is such a thing) religion is not the only source of morality.
-
What are you asking ?
If you had asked if the government should have a role in introduceing Christianity to Children I would have said no.
You asked ,"Is prayer in school mandated by Christianity?"
Fair enough, but how exactly would you place prayer back in school?
My favorite idea is to end the government monopoly on teaching , all they want is another brick in the wall.
If the Government run schools provided a standard , competeing privately run schools would try to surpass it .