What the Mega-Mosque at Ground Zero Means to Worldwide Islam

[jokersarewild]

 

The Crusades happened because the Pope decided to use the powers he had to attempt to bitch-slap some Muslims and get more area for Christians. So yes, it was one guy who happened to be power-hungry that told the Crusaders it was their duty to God to do such things. They were essentially so devout they believed him. And no, I don't blame Christians who weren't Crusaders for the crimes they committed. Because that would be stupid.

 

But it was not the pope all by himself, the rest of the leadership as well as thousands of followers all were involved. They were not stupid and not blind followers, they were individuals who made a choice to do very bad things in the name of their religion.

 

I don't blame all Christians but I certainly do believe bad things happen when good people refuse to stand up for what is right. The majority of good Christians let this happen.

 

Also, the Crusades stopped because they kept losing.

 

They had wins and losses but why did they lose?

 

Because they lacked the support of the majority of Christians to win. It is like trying to win a football game with only 5 guys on your side of the ball, unless everyone is on board you will end up fighting a losing battle.

 

 

These Christians could also had done the "terrorist" thing where fighting them any way you can could go on forever but it was the hearts and minds of the Christians that changed enough to directly stop this mindset of Christians to no longer want to behave that way. This is what needs to happen with the Muslims. They need to offer a unified voice against this terrorist mindset or nothing will ever change. Us "Infidels" can't stop it from the outside, there is no way to appease this monster, only fellow Muslims can slay this monster.

 

 

 

As for the Ghazi Algosaibi, do some research. His poem "The Martyrs" praises Palestinian suicide bombers for killing Israelis, who he believes committed war crimes. Not necessarily the best way to go about it, but he even said that he'd change his view on the whole deal "if the Board of Deputies of British Jews 'has the moral courage to refer former Israeli prime ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir and the present one, Ariel Sharon, as terrorists and the Israeli actions in Jenin as war crimes.'" A link to the crimes he was talking about. So he was actually just taking a side, and not necessarily supporting terrorism, but believed that the acts of the Palestinians were justified.

 

Taking a side to support terrorist activities and even said himself he wished he could be a Martyr.

 

My point is even educated and powerful Muslim figures show support for terrorist acts under their religion, that takes these acts clearly into acceptable behaviors in their society and helps to perpetuate terrorist activities in other ways as well. If you justify one attack of innocents under your religion, then obviously you can make the same allowance for other "similar" events.

 

Ghazi Algosaibi and other leaders like him take these actions out of the realm of fanatics and bring it home to the base of their faith. You can't claim these actions are outside when insiders are supporting them.

 

Also, I find it funny that when they attack us the only way they really could (they don't exactly have an army that could match ours in any way), we call it "terrorism". What the hell are we doing over there? Bringing them flowers and candy? No, we're trying to kill the "terrorists", who are trying to kill us because A) We're invaders, and B) Some of them are actually nutcases bent on our destruction. Either way, if they amassed an army and shot at us, they wouldn't be called "terrorists", they'd be called "an army", no matter how many more/less people they killed.

 

The same people forget it was America who stopped Russia from invading them, it seems they have very selective memories about things like that and yet they ignore the evils fo their own societies where a woman being raped by a man and does not have several male witnesses to prove she is innocent will be stoned to death. Instead of pointing their fingers at America, maybe they could accomplish a lot more in fixing the evils of their own circles first?

 

I wonder if Ghazi Algosaibi has a pretty poem about the greatness of 'honor killing' their daughters?

 

 

And what the hell does "Eminent Domain" have to do with this argument? I find it interesting that you brought it up, but it adds absolutely nothing to your cause besides stating that "Sometimes, people can have their land taken away. Sometimes, people can't build stuff on some property." Yeah, ok. But sometimes they can. Which, you know, is the case here.

 

 

No my friend, the case here is if the "people" (community) or the Government has the right to stop the construction of a building that is not "appropriate" for the area. How is it you cannot understand that point?

 

 

I think your just playing stupid on this point, you have to see how it is relivent to the discussion of how sometimes the Government steps in to take possession of property and in this case should do so for the will of the people, that would certainly be more reasonable than taking possession of property just to give it to Donald Trump so he can make billions off of that property without having to buy it for a reasonable price from the owner.

 

 

One of your points was about them having the "right" to build what they wanted on their land, my point was the right to own and build on property is not absolute, you can't seriously expect me to believe your incapable of understanding that, you just don't want to admit I am right.

 

 

 

 

 

I will say this again, until ALL Muslims take a direct and agressive stand against the radicals in their midst, this problem of Muslim terrorists will never go away. The radical elements among the Christians was cast out, even with the losses of the Crusades, if the general attitues of Christians had not changed against those who conducted themselves in that way had not changed, then they would have simply shown it in other ways. It was the rejection of those actions and mindsets directly that eliminated the radicals from the Christian circles.

 

 

To date, Muslims have not openly rejected the radicals in their religion, sure a few here and there will say they reject them in a television interview, but even their Quran tells them to lie to the Infidel, I don't care what they say as much as what their actions are and we see every day that the radicals are very safe and protected in their communities.

 

Some Muslim leaders like Ghazi Algosaibi even fan the flames of terrorist activities as being the work of "Myrtyrs", not criminals and if a 'good Muslim' like this will do this in the open, how many will do this and more in private?

 

 

Until all of the Muslim community steps up to the table and directly fights the terrorist link to their religion, they must be given part of the blame. Muslims like Ghazi Algosaibi are what keep the terrorist groups going and recruiting, not anything America does.

 

I'll give you the point about the lack of support for the Crusades.

 

The Eminent Domain argument: And why should the government step in for the "will of the people"? The "will of the people" can be easily manipulated. And no, there IS NO RELEVANCE here. You keep trying to say "Well, this could happen, and should happen." So you think it should be completely OK for the government to just mow over the many laws we have and decide "Well, they got permission to build it...not doing anything illegal...ah, screw it, they don't need a building there"? So you're perfectly OK with it?

 

And why is it "inappropriate" for the area? As I previously explained, the Imam had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. He wasn't responsible for this. I don't want to retype the whole thing here. Basically, you're still blaming him for other's actions.

 

Oh, and by the way, "Eminent Domain" says that you don't have a place to live if the government so chooses. Why anybody would ever support such nonsense, I've yet to figure out.

 

(Response to Terrorism coming soon)

[wez]

Personally.. I could care less.. build it.. I'm smart enough to know that "Muslims" didn't attack the trade center.. 19 assholes did.. and they're dead.. Why connect a terrorist act with an entire race and religion? I think it would say a lot about our character as people to not condemn an entire culture for the choices of a few. Totally agree with everything Obama had to say about this.. I'd of been worried if he fed into the small minded, moronic, petty, ridiculous hate mongering. Why don't we just put up a military checkpoint and sign that says no Arabs allowed in Manhattan?

 

That being said, people (many "Americans") are stupid and some will most likely turn to violence and commit terroristic acts upon it if they build it, somehow thinking they are morally justified in their terrorism and have the right to condemn/punish/kill/destroy/people and their property that had absolutely nothing to do with 19 idiots that flew planes into a skyscraper.. kinda like the redneck jackass who shot that guy from India after 9/11 because he thought he was arabic.. what a genius.

 

I also think our country is guilty of a tad bit of terrorism ourselves throughout the world for the last 70 years.. people in glass houses and all that.. Should the world blame it on Christianity because that is the predominant religion around these parts?

 

But I digress.. I guess it's not terrorism if ya put on a green camouflage outfit and have sophisticated weapons you can shoot/launch/drop from a safe distance to terrorize and intimidate people.. nor is it terrorism to covertly subvert legitimate governments in foreign countries to "secure resources", as our friend Fellatio would say.. oh.. wait.. yeah.. it is..

 

Real terrorists don't get their hands dirty.. hopefully someday the "muslims" will rise to our level and learn how to terrorize and control people properly, eh?

 

What happened to the "melting pot", TJ?

[wez]

How many innocent people have been killed by Muslim extremists in the last 20 years?

 

How many innocent people have been killed by Christian extremists in the last 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Do you have to go all the way back to the Crusades to come up with a number even comparable to the deaths by Muslim Extremists in just the last 20 years?

 

 

 

 

Seems one group has progressed since the Dark Ages, and one hasn't...

 

Well eddo.. I'd venture to guess that our country has killed exponentially more innocent people around the world in our military forays over the last 50 years than every "Islamic terroristic act" combined in the history of the world. Hell, make that the last 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq alone.. Did either attack us and declare war on our country? I don't think so.. 16 of the people that flew planes into the trade center, as well as Bin Laden, came from Saudi Arabia.. what the hell are we doing?

 

Should we pin it on Christianity? One's Islamic extremist terrorism and the other is what? Pick a word.. unfortunately, words don't fool me, so don't waste your time trying. Granted, we do it a lot prettier than someone strapping a bomb on their chest and blowing up a bus in Israel, but dead is dead, isn't it? Shock and awe on an entire city is good... flying planes into 3 buildings is bad? .. Is that how that works?

 

Yep.. we've progressed alright.. into the most lethal, advanced killing machine ever known in the history of the world.. we should be proud.. not.

 

Hey TJ.. now come explain how we only attack "military targets" (even though the claim is not the reality and you damn well know it). Be just as easy for them to claim they were also attacking military targets don't ya figure? After all, the plan was to destroy our economy, of which the economy and "money" is the only reason we've been sticking our nose and soldiers into their area of the world killing people and manipulating their politics since WWII, isn't it?

 

Destroy our economy then sit back and watch us destroy ourselves.. seems they were successful so far.. The might = right of our military was no match for 19 morons.. here we are 10 years later still flailing around the middle east murdering people, going miles below broke, and trying to exact our revenge on 19 dead idiots... Brilliant..

 

Hypocrites stink..

[ImWithStupid]

That being said, people (many "Americans") are stupid and some will most likely turn to violence and commit terroristic acts upon it if they build it,

 

BS...

 

.

 

Hate crimes against Muslims has actually decreased.

 

Just like I said. We get lectured by the liberal left every time we get attacked by radical Islam, not to overreact or retaliate. We never have, over 30 years of attacks by radical Islamist, but idiots keep saying the American people will do so.

 

Fukkin' retards.

 

[attach=full]2892[/attach]

 

[attach=full]2893[/attach]

[wez]

BS...

 

Hate crimes against Muslims has actually decreased.

 

Just like I said. We get lectured by the liberal left every time we get attacked by radical Islam, not to overreact or retaliate. We never have, over 30 years of attacks by radical Islamist, but idiots keep saying the American people will do so.

 

Fukkin' retards.

 

hahahahaha.. and just what prompted our last 2 invasions and wars in Muslim countries? Possibly considered "hate crimes"?

 

I still get warm fuzzies recalling Bush at ground zero..

 

I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you and the people!! -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon! ~ Cowboy George

[attach=full]2894[/attach]

 

 

Errrrrrr.. the people who knocked those buildings down are dead George.. aint gonna hear sh t..

 

Who's the fukkin' retard?

[timesjoke]

 

I'll give you the point about the lack of support for the Crusades.

 

thank you.

 

 

 

The Eminent Domain argument: And why should the government step in for the "will of the people"? The "will of the people" can be easily manipulated. And no, there IS NO RELEVANCE here. You keep trying to say "Well, this could happen, and should happen." So you think it should be completely OK for the government to just mow over the many laws we have and decide "Well, they got permission to build it...not doing anything illegal...ah, screw it, they don't need a building there"? So you're perfectly OK with it?

 

I support the right of communities to have the kind of environment they want, this is about the will of the people, not one or two progressives kissing behinds and being politically correct.

 

Murder is only illegal in America because as a society of people we have decided murder is wrong, this was not a idea imposed by one or two politicians but by society as a whole. America is not supposed to be mob rule, I give you that, but it is also not supposed to be a dictatorship where our American values and needs are set asibe just because a couple politicians want to "look" politically correct.

 

 

 

And why is it "inappropriate" for the area? As I previously explained, the Imam had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. He wasn't responsible for this. I don't want to retype the whole thing here. Basically, you're still blaming him for other's actions.

 

This is why I gave you a couple examples of how non-terrorists can show support to terrorist actions but not be a terrorist themselves, your again pretending not to understand just to avoid admitting this is a valid point. Did you see the quote I posted from this idiot? He said terrorists are just trying to get attention in the only way they can, as far as I am concerned he is showing support to them too.

 

 

 

The idea of putting this monument to terrorists on ground zero is simply obscene. They already have another one a couple blocks away and it has low occupancy, there is no need for this thing other than to rum American's faces into their victory.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, "Eminent Domain" says that you don't have a place to live if the government so chooses. Why anybody would ever support such nonsense, I've yet to figure out.

 

(Response to Terrorism coming soon)

 

This is not going to be a residence so I have no idea what your talking about, they don't need this monument to live in.

[wez]

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

 

Gee.. kinda embarrassing that our government fits it's own definition of terrorists.. they've intended to intimidate and coerce many a civilian population, including their own.. they've influenced many a government policy by intimidation and coercion, and have tried to affect the conduct of governments by assassinations and kidnappings..

 

What should we do about it? Blame Islam?

[jokersarewild]

 

I'll give you the point about the lack of support for the Crusades.

 

thank you.

 

 

 

The Eminent Domain argument: And why should the government step in for the "will of the people"? The "will of the people" can be easily manipulated. And no, there IS NO RELEVANCE here. You keep trying to say "Well, this could happen, and should happen." So you think it should be completely OK for the government to just mow over the many laws we have and decide "Well, they got permission to build it...not doing anything illegal...ah, screw it, they don't need a building there"? So you're perfectly OK with it?

 

I support the right of communities to have the kind of environment they want, this is about the will of the people, not one or two progressives kissing behinds and being politically correct.

 

Murder is only illegal in America because as a society of people we have decided murder is wrong, this was not a idea imposed by one or two politicians but by society as a whole. America is not supposed to be mob rule, I give you that, but it is also not supposed to be a dictatorship where our American values and needs are set asibe just because a couple politicians want to "look" politically correct.

 

 

 

And why is it "inappropriate" for the area? As I previously explained, the Imam had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. He wasn't responsible for this. I don't want to retype the whole thing here. Basically, you're still blaming him for other's actions.

 

This is why I gave you a couple examples of how non-terrorists can show support to terrorist actions but not be a terrorist themselves, your again pretending not to understand just to avoid admitting this is a valid point. Did you see the quote I posted from this idiot? He said terrorists are just trying to get attention in the only way they can, as far as I am concerned he is showing support to them too.

 

 

 

The idea of putting this monument to terrorists on ground zero is simply obscene. They already have another one a couple blocks away and it has low occupancy, there is no need for this thing other than to rum American's faces into their victory.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, "Eminent Domain" says that you don't have a place to live if the government so chooses. Why anybody would ever support such nonsense, I've yet to figure out.

 

(Response to Terrorism coming soon)

 

This is not going to be a residence so I have no idea what your talking about, they don't need this monument to live in.

 

I was saying that being "for" Eminent Domain can go either way for you. Remember that.

 

Also, "monument to terrorists"? Really? That's quite a description for a community center. I'm mildly impressed.

 

And as it turns out, terrorist acts tend to get attention. What are they going to do? Tell us to get out of their country and leave their stuff alone? How well will that work? Obviously they're so passionate about what they believe that they think the only way to get their message across is to kill people. If there's one thing that people respond to, it's death. I don't think it's right, but they obviously think it's worth it. So maybe we need to figure out a way to get people against their views, instead of killing them and making others believe they were killed for their views. Creating martyrs is a horrible way to fight someone.

 

it is also not supposed to be a dictatorship where our American values and needs are set asibe just because a couple politicians want to "look" politically correct.

 

So, in order to not look like a dictatorship, we're going to stop construction on this building so we can appease some narrow-minded morons. Yeah. That's a good idea.

[eddo]

How many innocent people have been killed by Muslim extremists in the last 20 years?

How many innocent people have been killed by Christian extremists in the last 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Do you have to go all the way back to the Crusades to come up with a number even comparable to the deaths by Muslim Extremists in just the last 20 years?

Seems one group has progressed since the Dark Ages, and one hasn't...

 

Well eddo.. I'd venture to guess that our country has killed exponentially more innocent people around the world in our military forays over the last 50 years than every "Islamic terroristic act" combined in the history of the world. Hell, make that the last 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq alone.. Did either attack us and declare war on our country? I don't think so.. 16 of the people that flew planes into the trade center, as well as Bin Laden, came from Saudi Arabia.. what the hell are we doing?

 

Should we pin it on Christianity?

#1- why would we pin the actions of the US on a religion? or specifically Christianity? I can't recall the US attacking anyone because Billy Graham said to do so. Or Jerry Falwell. or Rick Warren. or even the pope. Am I missing something?

 

Many Islam clerics have called for the destruction of the US. Many more fund it. Parts of the Islamic religion are most definitely at war with the United States- and will be if we fight back or not.

Your comparison seems way off.

 

#2- Your numbers are way off too, but I'll give you a chance to prove them if you can. Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

...

 

 

One's Islamic extremist terrorism and the other is what? Pick a word.. unfortunately, words don't fool me, so don't waste your time trying. Granted, we do it a lot prettier than someone strapping a bomb on their chest and blowing up a bus in Israel, but dead is dead, isn't it? Shock and awe on an entire city is good... flying planes into 3 buildings is bad? .. Is that how that works?

 

Yep.. we've progressed alright.. into the most lethal, advanced killing machine ever known in the history of the world.. we should be proud.. not.

 

again, you are comparing my comment about Christianity to the United States. I'm not arguing that, and that isn't the issue as brought up by JAW that my comment refers to.

 

Tossing in your hatred for the US is irrelevant in this part of the discussion. Now if you want to compare Christianity vs. Islam vs. the United States, you could possibly have a legit discussion. But equaling Christianity with the United States, especially when so many citizens have tried so hard to remove all governmental acknowledgments to God, is frankly, silly.

 

BTW, Have you moved to Canada yet?

[wez]

#1- why would we pin the actions of the US on a religion? or specifically Christianity? I can't recall the US attacking anyone because Billy Graham said to do so. Or Jerry Falwell. or Rick Warren. or even the pope. Am I missing something?

 

Funny you mentioned Billy Graham..

 

"The very first act of the new Bush administration was to have a Protestant Evangelist minister officially dedicate the inauguration to Jesus Christ, whom he declared to be 'our savior.' Invoking 'the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'the Holy Spirit,' Billy Graham's son, the man selected by President George W Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists from his blessing by his particularistic and parochial language."

 

The plain message conveyed by the new administration is that George W Bush's America is a Christian nation and that non-Christians are welcome into the tent so long as they agree to accept their status as a tolerated minority rather than as fully equal citizens. In effect, Bush is saying: 'This is our home, and in our home we pray to Jesus as our savior. If you want to be a guest in our home, you must accept the way we pray.'" -- Alan M Dershowitz, in "Bush Starts Off by Defying the the Constitution," Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2001

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.-- George W Bush

 

God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them. -- George W Bush

 

To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al Qaeda.... All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. -- George W Bush

 

"Suspected terrorists" ? Interesting..

 

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. -- George W Bush

 

When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive.-- George W Bush

 

[i encourage] employers to permit their workers time off during the lunch hour to attend the noontime services to pray for our land -- George W Bush

 

We come before God to pray for the missing and the dead, and for those who loved them.... Our purpose as a nation is firm, yet our wounds as a people are recent and unhealed and lead us to pray.... This world he created is of moral design. Grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time. Goodness, remembrance, and love have no end, and the Lord of life holds all who die and all who mourn.... Neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities, nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth can separate us from God's love. -- George W Bush

 

Through my Faith-Based and Community Initiative, my Administration continues to encourage the essential work of faith-based and community organizations. Governments can and should support effective social services, including those provided by religious people and organizations. When government gives that support, it is important that faith-based institutions not be forced to change their religious character. -- George W Bush

 

Tyrants and dictators will accept no other gods before them. They require disobedience to the First Commandment. They seek absolute control and are threatened by faith in God. They fear only the power they cannot possess -- the power of truth. So they resent the living example of the devout, especially the devotion of a unique people chosen by God. -- George W Bush

I ask Americans to bow our heads in humility before our Heavenly Father, a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors, but to love them, to ask His guidance upon our nation and its leaders in every level of government. -- George W Bush

That answer your question as to why? Apparently you missed a lot.. Need more? There's plenty..

 

#2- Your numbers are way off too, but I'll give you a chance to prove them if you can. Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

Being that no one in our government feels it necessary to count the number of civilians killed, here is the best estimate from foreign sources found here.. Mind you, this is just Iraq for the last 7 years.. Even if our "crusaders" didn't directly kill each and every one, our presence there is fully responsible.

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

“We don’t do body counts” ~ General Tommy Franks

 

Documented civilian deaths from violence

 

97,461 – 106,348 (2003 - 2010)

 

How about I give you the chance to prove the greater total killed by "muslim extremists" than just those in the last 7 years in Iraq if you can.. go ahead.. I'll wait

 

..

 

again, you are comparing my comment about Christianity to the United States. I'm not arguing that, and that isn't the issue as brought up by JAW that my comment refers to.

 

Tossing in your hatred for the US is irrelevant in this part of the discussion. Now if you want to compare Christianity vs. Islam vs. the United States, you could possibly have a legit discussion. But equaling Christianity with the United States, especially when so many citizens have tried so hard to remove all governmental acknowledgments to God, is frankly, silly.

 

I hate the US? How ya figure? I'd lie to myself and others and try to create different terms and double standards to fool people into thinking I'm better than someone else if I didn't hate it?

 

Maybe the difference is I don't hate muslims either, or excuse the actions of me and mine whilst judging, labeling, and looking down on others for a sliver of our log, like you.

 

I'm with you or against you, George Jr.?

 

BTW, Have you moved to Canada yet?

 

Nope.. not yet..

[timesjoke]

 

I was saying that being "for" Eminent Domain can go either way for you. Remember that.

 

Being as you completely missed how Eminent Domain was relivent to the discussion I don't think you need to now pretend like your some kind of all knowing professor. Of course I know it goes both way, but all laws are created in the concept of serving the public, and the vast majority of all Americans (they are the public they are supposed to serve) say they don't want the terrorist monument to be built on grond zero.

 

 

 

 

Also, "monument to terrorists"? Really? That's quite a description for a community center. I'm mildly impressed.

 

If I build a swimming pool next to a Catholic Church, does the church stop being a church?

 

This is a mosque, a fancy one to be true, but still a mosque.

 

There are around a hundred of them in the New York area and the mosque a couple blocks away from this site is at very low capacity so the area does not need a new mosque for the Muslims in that area to follow their faith.

 

So if they don't need the space to worship, what other reason are they building it?

 

In my opinion, based on how this guy is defending the actions of terrorists and refuses to say where the money is coming from I would believe the reason for building it is clear.

 

 

 

 

And as it turns out, terrorist acts tend to get attention. What are they going to do? Tell us to get out of their country and leave their stuff alone? How well will that work? Obviously they're so passionate about what they believe that they think the only way to get their message across is to kill people. If there's one thing that people respond to, it's death. I don't think it's right, but they obviously think it's worth it. So maybe we need to figure out a way to get people against their views, instead of killing them and making others believe they were killed for their views.

 

And the only peopel who will ever be able to change this is the Muslims themselves, just like it was Christians who got their bad elements to stop.

 

 

Creating martyrs is a horrible way to fight someone.

 

Tell that to the Muslims who are doing it.

 

 

 

So, in order to not look like a dictatorship, we're going to stop construction on this building so we can appease some narrow-minded morons. Yeah. That's a good idea.

 

No, so they can appease almost all of Americans who are against allowing the terrorist monument to be built on ground zero.

 

The few who want it to be built are all progressives who believe America is bad in general or those who are being politically correct.

[wez]

 

Creating martyrs is a horrible way to fight someone.

 

Tell that to the Muslims who are doing it.

 

 

So, in order to not look like a dictatorship, we're going to stop construction on this building so we can appease some narrow-minded morons. Yeah. That's a good idea.

 

No, so they can appease almost all of Americans who are against allowing the terrorist monument to be built on ground zero.

 

The few who want it to be built are all progressives who believe America is bad in general or those who are being politically correct.

 

Funny.. you don't revere our fallen Americans/crusaders into martyrdom, do ya? Nope.. not you..that's a Muslim problem..

 

So.. why is Coke Zero hallowed ground? .. Gotta honor someones death into martyrdom, hypocrite?

[eddo]

#1- why would we pin the actions of the US on a religion? or specifically Christianity? I can't recall the US attacking anyone because Billy Graham said to do so. Or Jerry Falwell. or Rick Warren. or even the pope. Am I missing something?

 

Funny you mentioned Billy Graham..

 

"The very first act of the new Bush administration was to have a Protestant Evangelist minister officially dedicate the inauguration to Jesus Christ, whom he declared to be 'our savior.' Invoking 'the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'the Holy Spirit,' Billy Graham's son, the man selected by President George W Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists from his blessing by his particularistic and parochial language."

 

The plain message conveyed by the new administration is that George W Bush's America is a Christian nation and that non-Christians are welcome into the tent so long as they agree to accept their status as a tolerated minority rather than as fully equal citizens. In effect, Bush is saying: 'This is our home, and in our home we pray to Jesus as our savior. If you want to be a guest in our home, you must accept the way we pray.'" -- Alan M Dershowitz, in "Bush Starts Off by Defying the the Constitution," Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2001

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.-- George W Bush

 

God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them. -- George W Bush

 

To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al Qaeda.... All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. -- George W Bush

 

"Suspected terrorists" ? Interesting..

 

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. -- George W Bush

 

When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive.-- George W Bush

 

[i encourage] employers to permit their workers time off during the lunch hour to attend the noontime services to pray for our land -- George W Bush

 

We come before God to pray for the missing and the dead, and for those who loved them.... Our purpose as a nation is firm, yet our wounds as a people are recent and unhealed and lead us to pray.... This world he created is of moral design. Grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time. Goodness, remembrance, and love have no end, and the Lord of life holds all who die and all who mourn.... Neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities, nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth can separate us from God's love. -- George W Bush

 

Through my Faith-Based and Community Initiative, my Administration continues to encourage the essential work of faith-based and community organizations. Governments can and should support effective social services, including those provided by religious people and organizations. When government gives that support, it is important that faith-based institutions not be forced to change their religious character. -- George W Bush

 

Tyrants and dictators will accept no other gods before them. They require disobedience to the First Commandment. They seek absolute control and are threatened by faith in God. They fear only the power they cannot possess -- the power of truth. So they resent the living example of the devout, especially the devotion of a unique people chosen by God. -- George W Bush

I ask Americans to bow our heads in humility before our Heavenly Father, a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors, but to love them, to ask His guidance upon our nation and its leaders in every level of government. -- George W Bush

That answer your question as to why? Apparently you missed a lot.. Need more? There's plenty..

 

you could answer the question. In all that I didn't see on instance where Billy Graham nor his son said to invade or attack anyone...

 

Nor is George W Bush any kind of religious leader that I am aware of.

 

or is he?

[wez]

you could answer the question. In all that I didn't see on instance where Billy Graham nor his son said to invade or attack anyone...

 

Nor is George W Bush any kind of religious leader that I am aware of.

 

or is he?

He's the self proclaimed Christian "War President".. God told him to strike Al Qaida and Saddam.. so he did.. then he set out on a crusade to "fix" the middle east..

 

Did ya ever hear Billy Graham speak out against the war or advise his son not to bless the "war president"? No"? Wonder why...

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The Dark Side of Rev. Billy Graham

A Prince of War Exposed

By WILLIAM HUGHES

September 27, 2007

 

"The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same." - Stendhal

 

The propaganda machine of the Evangelical Christian Right will soon be in counter attack mode. One of its darling preachers is about to take it on the proverbial chin. The Rev. Billy Graham, who has created a multimillion dollar media empire, that a Rupert Murdock would envy, is the subject of a shocking expose' due out on Nov. 15, 2007. It's entitled, "The Prince of War: Billy Graham's Crusade for a Wholly Christian Empire." The author is Cecil Bothwell. He hails from Asheville, North Carolina and is an award winning investigative reporter. Bothwell's unflattering portrait of Rev. Graham shows him as a wily warmonger and a lackey for the Establishment. He describes Rev. Graham as a public figure who: "Undermined the Founders' skeptical Deism and sought to rebrand the U.S. as a Christian nation, [and] its armies [as] the rightful instruments of [a] Christian crusade and empire."

Bothwell documents that there wasn't a war the U.S. was involved in that Rev. Graham couldn't bless. In fact, he reveals that during the horrific Vietnam conflict, (1959-75), he had urged the then-President, Richard M. Nixon, to bomb North Vietnam! In a 13-page letter, that Rev. Graham had forwarded to the White House in April, 1969, it was stated: "There are tens of thousands of North Vietnamese defectors to bomb and invade the North. Why should all the fighting be in the South?...Especially let them bomb the dikes which could over night destroy the economy of North Vietnam." Mr. Bothwell underscored that such a military action against the dikes, a huge complex of earthworks, would probably "kill a million people and wipe out an already poor nation's agricultural system" He added that the advice in Graham's transmittal "fell on receptive ears. Not longer after, Nixon moved the air war north and west."

 

There is more. After the deadly Kent State U. affair, (May 4, 1970), where four students, who were protesting the Nixon-Henry Kissinger-inspired bombing of Cambodia, were killed by Ohio's National Guard troops, Rev. Graham invited the mostly unbalanced Nixon to address his crusade. It was held in Knoxville, TN. While parents of the students were still grieving and burying their dead, Rev. Graham shamelessly shilled: "All Americans may not agree with the decision a president makes--but he is our president..."

 

Also, every chance Rev. Graham got he ripped into antiwar protesters in this country, while the Vietnam inferno was raging. After a large pro peace demonstration in late 1969, he railed in a letter to then President Lyndon B. Johnson, that the protesters were "radicals and those seeking to overthrow the American way of life." When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke out, in 1967 against the war in a sermon at the Riverside Church in NYC, Rev. Graham, jumped right in and tagged his criticism as "an affront to the thousands of loyal Negro troops who are in Vietnam." When Dr. King marched for Civil Rights in Selma, Alabama, Rev. Graham was no where to be found. And, after Dr. King was gunned down in Memphis, TN, he couldn't be bothered to attend his funeral either.

Rev. Graham made a career out of sucking up to U.S. presidents. Mr. Bothwell wrote how he loved those "endless photo-ops" at the White House, and how he was always, "so eager to shake the hands of...despots, movie stars and industrial kingpins, and to offer grandiose approval of their greatness. Obsequy, more than money, seemed to drive the man--though his pockets were never empty." Fortunately, not all the presidents bought into Rev. Graham's bogus act. One of my favorites, President Harry S. Truman, who was born in Lamar, MO, knew a wide variety of people from political bosses to political hacks. He had a built in b... s... detector. This is what President Truman had to say about the war-loving, camera-mugging preacher: "Graham has gone off the beam. He's...well, I hadn't ought to say this, but he's one of those 'counterfeits' I was telling you about. He claims he's a friend of all the presidents, but he was never a friend of mine when I was president. I just don't go for people like that. All he's interested in is getting his name in the paper."

Just before Bush 1 (George H.W. Bush) launched the Persian Gulf War, he invited Rev. Graham to the White House. On Jan. 16, 1991, they both watched the "air war against Iraq on CNN." Later that same evening, he prayed "three times" with the president before he delivered a "televised address to the nation." In a phone call to Bush 1, prior to that White House invite, Rev. Graham had supposedly referred to Saddam Hussein as the "Antichrist." This conversation reportedly helped Bush 1 to resolve "all the moral issues in my mind. It's black and white, good versus evil." Can anyone imagine Jesus watching a war on TV, without weeping aloud for its innocent victims, and demanding that it be stopped immediately?

 

As for the ongoing Iraq War, started by Bush 2 (George W. Bush Jr.), and based on a pack of rotten lies, not one word of criticism has been heard from Rev. Graham. Even after the notorious torture scandal at Abu Ghraib was revealed, the preacher maintained his vow of silence on this country's worst president, a man who deserves impeachment and jail time for violating his oath of office. (1) The country has lost 3,801 of its finest sons and daughters in Iraq and wasted $455 billion there. Another 27,000 U.S. troops have been seriously injured. An estimated one million Iraqis are now dead and about 3.7 million have become refugees. Yet, Rev. Graham, a supposed follower of the "Prince of Peace," has remained mute in his criticism of the outrageous conduct of this president and his insane policies. Why have we rarely heard Rev. Graham preach about Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount?" Why have we rarely, if ever, heard him repeat these words that came directly from the mouth of Christ: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God?"

 

Mr. Bothwell suggests a possible reason why Rev. Graham has failed to speak out about the unjust Iraq War and Bush 2's responsibility for it. At p. 164, he relates how the preacher, in 1985, had supposedly "saved" Bush 2 from perdition. It was at the family compound at Kennebunkport. Bush 2 was drunk and had allegedly "insulted a friend of his mother." It was around the time of Bush 2's 39th birthday. Mr. Bothwell writes: "George senior and Barbara blew up. Words were exchanged along the lines of something having to be done. George senior, then the vice-president, dialed up his friend, Billy Graham, who came to the compound and spent several days with George W. in probing exchanges and walks on the beach. George W. was soon 'born again.' He stopped drinking, attended Bible study and wrestle with issues of fervent faith. A man who was lost was saved."

 

We now know that Bush 2, although he may have stopped hitting the bottle, never did anything in the realm of therapy about his alcoholism problem. He's known by the experts in the field as a "dry drunk," a potential danger to himself and to others. (2) As for Bush 2 being "born again," the question must be asked: "Born again for what?" To kill Iraqis? Invade Iran? Bankrupt our Republic? "Brother" Elliott Nesch, an Evangelical and Peace advocate, believes that pro-War Christians "should repent." (3) I agree with him. The bottom line is clerics, like Rev. Graham, dominate today much of the Religious Right in America. Bothwell's tome deals, however, with a lot more relevant issues than just the preacher's disgusting war addiction. It's an insightful book that I am highly recommending. It's well documented, too, with 274 footnotes.

 

Finally, I wrote last year that "Rev. Graham wasn't a Phil Berrigan." The latter, an ex-priest, was a true apostle of peace, who spent 11 of his 79 years behind bars in the cause of justice. Unlike Rev. Graham, who skipped out of WWII, Berrigan was involved in the Normandy invasion and the "Battle of the Bulge" as a member of the U.S. Army. (4) I'm convinced that unless the Christian community in this country, Protestant and Catholic alike, opens its eyes to what Rev. Graham and his Establishment-serving ilk have been doing "in Christ's name," this nation is headed for a fall that will make the collapse of Rome look like a Sunday picnic.

 

http://www.counterpu...es09272007.html

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Hows that eddo?

 

Now.. about those Muslim extremist death figures? Onward Christian soldier..

 

[wez]

Here's an interesting perspective on his son.. Franklin, Blessed be this President, Graham.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Franklin Graham: Fraud

From: "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"

Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 19:12:51 -0700

Everyone is familiar with Billy Graham -- the old-time Baptist "evangelist" from NC who has "preached the Gospel of Jesus" and "saved souls" the world over. Billy is getting up there in years -- he's pushing 90 and is not able to carry on his "work."

 

Billy had a worthless, piece of son, Franklin. Franklin Graham rebelled against everything his father stood for. Franklin was addicted to several drugs; f cked everything in a skirt he could track down; drank himself stupid; and generally lived a useless demented life.

 

Then, one day, Franklin realized that his old man was making zillions of dollars a year, consorting with princes and kings, and was respected world-wide because he was a "man of God."

 

Faced with this realization, ol' Franklin got religion. He ditched his whores, swore off the coke and the booze, and gave his soul to Jesus. Of course, the fact that he inherited his father's multi- million $ enterprises with the private jets and access to the Oval Office had nothing to do with it. Nope, nothing at all.

 

Here's an example of how Franklin Graham lives.

 

Earlier this year Franklin Graham held a "crusade" in Knoxville, TN, were he preached a couple of sermons to a few thousand people at the Univ of Tenn football stadium, held a few prayer sessions with local preachers, and collected a BIG check.

 

A Knoxville group, Knoxville Spiritual Heritage, sponsored Graham's appearances. When KSH approached the Graham organization about Franklin coming to Knoxville to preach, they were told that this is what the Graham crowd needed:

 

-- Franklin arrived in Knoxville on a private jet. No commercial coach fare for this man of God. KHS had to pick up all the expenses for the Graham private jet at the Knoxville airport.

-- Franklin and his entourage were met by six limos -- and the six limos were to stay with them 24 hours a day for every day he was in town.

-- The Graham entourage needed hotel suites at the best place in town

-- every suite and room on four floors. Room service and all that.

-- Knox Spiritual Heritage had to raise over $250,000 just to get Franklin Graham to show up.

 

He preached two sermons in the stadium to, shall we say, less than overflow crowds. He had a couple of tepid "prayer meetings" with local clergy. Then he climbed back into the limos (paid for by Knox Spiritual Heritage), rode to the airport, got into his private jet, and went back home. Big whoop.

 

And now we learn that Franklin Graham and a bunch of similar money- grubbing holyrollers met with Senator Obama and grilled him about whether he had "given his soul to Jesus."

 

Well, let's look at this Jesus person.

-- He never owned anything other than the clothes on his back and when he was murdered, the guys who murdered him gambled for possession of his robe.

-- He walked everywhere he went, except for one time when he rode into town on a borrowed donkey.

-- When one of his followers tried to anoint his feet with expensive fragrance, he rebuked her and told her to sell the stuff and give the money to the poor.

 

Given a choice between Franklin Graham and his "evanglist" friends with their private jets and Savile Row suits, on the one hand, and Senator Obama and Jesus on the other hand, I'll take Jesus and Obama.

http://newsgroups.de...7/msg00673.html

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

hahahahahaha ..

[wez]

#1- why would we pin the actions of the US on a religion? or specifically Christianity? I can't recall the US attacking anyone because Billy Graham said to do so. Or Jerry Falwell. or Rick Warren. or even the pope. Am I missing something?

 

Don't forget Benny, We're on God's Side, Hinn..

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

ATTACKS ON MUSLIMS BY CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTS:

Graham, Hinn, Falwell, Robertson, Swaggart & Baldwin

Copyright © 2001 & 2003 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

Originally written: 2001-SEP-19

Latest update: 2003-MAY-13

Author: B.A. Robinson

 

Benny Hinn proclaimed to thousands of Christians at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, TX that "We are on God's side. This is not a war between Arabs and Jews. It's a war between God and the devil." Several conservative Christian ministers from the Dallas area, who shared the podium, clapped and nodded their approval. Later, a few of them said that the line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between good and evil.

 

Most of the Dallas pastors who joined Benny Hinn on the stage refused to be interviewed or to respond to faxed questions asking whether they endorsed Hinn's remarks. However, some religious leaders reacted to the speech:

 

[attach=full]2895[/attach] Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson for the Dallas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was distressed. He said: "The demonizing of Islam. The actual call for the elimination of Islam. It's disturbing."

 

[attach=full]2895[/attach] Ronald Flowers, a religion professor at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth said that the [religious] shift to the right among Christians can be traced to the same political drift toward conservatism. He said: "It's a search for certainty in an uncertain world. The fact that Muslims and Christians worship the same God seems to escape these people."

 

[attach=full]2895[/attach] J. Don George, senior pastor of Calvary Temple in Irving, TX, accompanied Hinn on stage. He said: "Our faith is in Jesus Christ, and the Muslim community does not accept Jesus and God, and therefore we're at odds with Muslims....Any religion or ideology that refuses to acknowledge the lordship of Jesus Christ could be typified as a war against Satan."

[attach=full]2895[/attach] Paul Mills, pastor of Arlington Faith Chapel, said that Muslims would find Hinn's statement inappropriate. However, their complaints would be irrelevant because Jesus is the only way to heaven. He said: "The religion [of Islam] is a false religion as far as we believe."

 

[attach=full]2895[/attach] Brent Arterbury, pastor of Life Church in Haltom City, is sometimes critical with Hinn, especially over his alleged refusal to be financially accountable. But Arterbury said that he agrees that Christians are engaged in a spiritual war. He said: "From a biblical standpoint, I have to agree that there is good and there is evil. From that standpoint, I believe what he said is in line with what the Scriptures say." He added that Islam "is a very destructive type of faith....They're a revengeful people....We as Christians don't despise the Muslims. We love them. We just don't like what they stand for."

[attach=full]2895[/attach] Dr. Nasir Ahmad, an imam with the Muslim American Society in Dallas. He said that Arterbury's comments are irresponsible and that his statement is untrue. He added that the nature of Islam is peace. Ahmad said: "In the Torah and the Bible you can pick out a sentence, pick out many things distasteful to even the adherents of that faith....At least I have the integrity to quote the [Christian] religion correctly." He added that "There are demigod leaders in politics, religion and education that play upon the blind emotions of the masses. He's playing on the emotions of the people. Those persons [Hinn preaches to] are kept in the dark and out of light of what's really going on."

 

[attach=full]2895[/attach] "Ike" Cowell, pastor of Grace Evangelical Methodist Church in Fort Worth, said one can expect that dialogue between Christians and Muslims would involve some difference of opinion but should involve some outreach and be based on mutual respect. He said: "I would not be combative myself. I would want there to be a dialogue, to hear what they have to say. All I know about [Muslims] is what I read or hear."

 

http://www.religious...reac_ter18b.htm

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Had enough eddo or are you still missing something? Might I once again suggest removing the log from your eye?

[hugo]

you could answer the question. In all that I didn't see on instance where Billy Graham nor his son said to invade or attack anyone...

 

Nor is George W Bush any kind of religious leader that I am aware of.

 

or is he?

He's the self proclaimed Christian "War President".. God told him to strike Al Qaida and Saddam.. so he did.. then he set out on a crusade to "fix" the middle east..

 

Did ya ever hear Billy Graham speak out against the war or advise his son not to bless the "war president"? No"? Wonder why...

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The Dark Side of Rev. Billy Graham

A Prince of War Exposed

By WILLIAM HUGHES

September 27, 2007

 

"The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same." - Stendhal

 

The propaganda machine of the Evangelical Christian Right will soon be in counter attack mode. One of its darling preachers is about to take it on the proverbial chin. The Rev. Billy Graham, who has created a multimillion dollar media empire, that a Rupert Murdock would envy, is the subject of a shocking expose' due out on Nov. 15, 2007. It's entitled, "The Prince of War: Billy Graham's Crusade for a Wholly Christian Empire." The author is Cecil Bothwell. He hails from Asheville, North Carolina and is an award winning investigative reporter. Bothwell's unflattering portrait of Rev. Graham shows him as a wily warmonger and a lackey for the Establishment. He describes Rev. Graham as a public figure who: "Undermined the Founders' skeptical Deism and sought to rebrand the U.S. as a Christian nation, [and] its armies [as] the rightful instruments of [a] Christian crusade and empire."

Bothwell documents that there wasn't a war the U.S. was involved in that Rev. Graham couldn't bless. In fact, he reveals that during the horrific Vietnam conflict, (1959-75), he had urged the then-President, Richard M. Nixon, to bomb North Vietnam! In a 13-page letter, that Rev. Graham had forwarded to the White House in April, 1969, it was stated: "There are tens of thousands of North Vietnamese defectors to bomb and invade the North. Why should all the fighting be in the South?...Especially let them bomb the dikes which could over night destroy the economy of North Vietnam." Mr. Bothwell underscored that such a military action against the dikes, a huge complex of earthworks, would probably "kill a million people and wipe out an already poor nation's agricultural system" He added that the advice in Graham's transmittal "fell on receptive ears. Not longer after, Nixon moved the air war north and west."

 

There is more. After the deadly Kent State U. affair, (May 4, 1970), where four students, who were protesting the Nixon-Henry Kissinger-inspired bombing of Cambodia, were killed by Ohio's National Guard troops, Rev. Graham invited the mostly unbalanced Nixon to address his crusade. It was held in Knoxville, TN. While parents of the students were still grieving and burying their dead, Rev. Graham shamelessly shilled: "All Americans may not agree with the decision a president makes--but he is our president..."

 

Also, every chance Rev. Graham got he ripped into antiwar protesters in this country, while the Vietnam inferno was raging. After a large pro peace demonstration in late 1969, he railed in a letter to then President Lyndon B. Johnson, that the protesters were "radicals and those seeking to overthrow the American way of life." When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke out, in 1967 against the war in a sermon at the Riverside Church in NYC, Rev. Graham, jumped right in and tagged his criticism as "an affront to the thousands of loyal Negro troops who are in Vietnam." When Dr. King marched for Civil Rights in Selma, Alabama, Rev. Graham was no where to be found. And, after Dr. King was gunned down in Memphis, TN, he couldn't be bothered to attend his funeral either.

Rev. Graham made a career out of sucking up to U.S. presidents. Mr. Bothwell wrote how he loved those "endless photo-ops" at the White House, and how he was always, "so eager to shake the hands of...despots, movie stars and industrial kingpins, and to offer grandiose approval of their greatness. Obsequy, more than money, seemed to drive the man--though his pockets were never empty." Fortunately, not all the presidents bought into Rev. Graham's bogus act. One of my favorites, President Harry S. Truman, who was born in Lamar, MO, knew a wide variety of people from political bosses to political hacks. He had a built in b... s... detector. This is what President Truman had to say about the war-loving, camera-mugging preacher: "Graham has gone off the beam. He's...well, I hadn't ought to say this, but he's one of those 'counterfeits' I was telling you about. He claims he's a friend of all the presidents, but he was never a friend of mine when I was president. I just don't go for people like that. All he's interested in is getting his name in the paper."

Just before Bush 1 (George H.W. Bush) launched the Persian Gulf War, he invited Rev. Graham to the White House. On Jan. 16, 1991, they both watched the "air war against Iraq on CNN." Later that same evening, he prayed "three times" with the president before he delivered a "televised address to the nation." In a phone call to Bush 1, prior to that White House invite, Rev. Graham had supposedly referred to Saddam Hussein as the "Antichrist." This conversation reportedly helped Bush 1 to resolve "all the moral issues in my mind. It's black and white, good versus evil." Can anyone imagine Jesus watching a war on TV, without weeping aloud for its innocent victims, and demanding that it be stopped immediately?

 

As for the ongoing Iraq War, started by Bush 2 (George W. Bush Jr.), and based on a pack of rotten lies, not one word of criticism has been heard from Rev. Graham. Even after the notorious torture scandal at Abu Ghraib was revealed, the preacher maintained his vow of silence on this country's worst president, a man who deserves impeachment and jail time for violating his oath of office. (1) The country has lost 3,801 of its finest sons and daughters in Iraq and wasted $455 billion there. Another 27,000 U.S. troops have been seriously injured. An estimated one million Iraqis are now dead and about 3.7 million have become refugees. Yet, Rev. Graham, a supposed follower of the "Prince of Peace," has remained mute in his criticism of the outrageous conduct of this president and his insane policies. Why have we rarely heard Rev. Graham preach about Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount?" Why have we rarely, if ever, heard him repeat these words that came directly from the mouth of Christ: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God?"

 

Mr. Bothwell suggests a possible reason why Rev. Graham has failed to speak out about the unjust Iraq War and Bush 2's responsibility for it. At p. 164, he relates how the preacher, in 1985, had supposedly "saved" Bush 2 from perdition. It was at the family compound at Kennebunkport. Bush 2 was drunk and had allegedly "insulted a friend of his mother." It was around the time of Bush 2's 39th birthday. Mr. Bothwell writes: "George senior and Barbara blew up. Words were exchanged along the lines of something having to be done. George senior, then the vice-president, dialed up his friend, Billy Graham, who came to the compound and spent several days with George W. in probing exchanges and walks on the beach. George W. was soon 'born again.' He stopped drinking, attended Bible study and wrestle with issues of fervent faith. A man who was lost was saved."

 

We now know that Bush 2, although he may have stopped hitting the bottle, never did anything in the realm of therapy about his alcoholism problem. He's known by the experts in the field as a "dry drunk," a potential danger to himself and to others. (2) As for Bush 2 being "born again," the question must be asked: "Born again for what?" To kill Iraqis? Invade Iran? Bankrupt our Republic? "Brother" Elliott Nesch, an Evangelical and Peace advocate, believes that pro-War Christians "should repent." (3) I agree with him. The bottom line is clerics, like Rev. Graham, dominate today much of the Religious Right in America. Bothwell's tome deals, however, with a lot more relevant issues than just the preacher's disgusting war addiction. It's an insightful book that I am highly recommending. It's well documented, too, with 274 footnotes.

 

Finally, I wrote last year that "Rev. Graham wasn't a Phil Berrigan." The latter, an ex-priest, was a true apostle of peace, who spent 11 of his 79 years behind bars in the cause of justice. Unlike Rev. Graham, who skipped out of WWII, Berrigan was involved in the Normandy invasion and the "Battle of the Bulge" as a member of the U.S. Army. (4) I'm convinced that unless the Christian community in this country, Protestant and Catholic alike, opens its eyes to what Rev. Graham and his Establishment-serving ilk have been doing "in Christ's name," this nation is headed for a fall that will make the collapse of Rome look like a Sunday picnic.

 

http://www.counterpu...es09272007.html

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Hows that eddo?

 

Now.. about those Muslim extremist death figures? Onward Christian soldier..

 

 

At least he was not a pedo, like Gandhi.

[wez]

 

At least he was not a pedo, like Gandhi.

 

hahahahahaha.. true dat.. at least..

[ImWithStupid]

At least he was not a pedo, like Gandhi.

 

hahahahahaha.. true dat.. at least..

 

Or the prophet Muhammed.

[ImWithStupid]

At least he was not a pedo, like Gandhi.

 

hahahahahaha.. true dat.. at least..

 

Or the prophet Muhammed.

 

Or Roman Polanski.

[ImWithStupid]

At least he was not a pedo, like Gandhi.

 

hahahahahaha.. true dat.. at least..

 

Or the prophet Muhammed.

 

Or Roman Polanski.

 

Or the sick fukk that I just arrested today.

[ImWithStupid]

I understand that this isn't most of Islam...

 

 

But it's enough, and a valid enough fear, and enough of a historical reality, that people are terrorized enough that they feel fearful of speaking their opinions openly without fear that they may be the next Theo VanGough, unlike any other religion in modern times.

[wez]

How many innocent people have been killed by Muslim extremists in the last 20 years?[/Quote]

Still waiting for those figures eddo.. You must be at church..

 

How many innocent people have been killed by Christian extremists in the last 20 years? 50 years? 100 years?

Minimum of 97,461 – 106,348 in Iraq alone in the last 7 years.. Some estimates put it over a million.. hard to say because the Christian extremists don't keep track and prevent their media outlets from reporting the truth to their fellow citizens.. Unlike Muslim extremists, they like to keep their killing under wraps and try to distance themselves from it by operating under the banner of organized "government" so they don't look bad in the eyes of the world.. they're a sneaky bunch.. different strokes for different folks.

You really want me to tally the last 100 years? .. Cuz I will.. conservatively..

 

Do you have to go all the way back to the Crusades to come up with a number even comparable to the deaths by Muslim Extremists in just the last 20 years?

No eddo, "we" don't.. See ya after church!

[hugo]

I understand that this isn't most of Islam...

 

 

But it's enough, and a valid enough fear, and enough of a historical reality, that people are terrorized enough that they feel fearful of speaking their opinions openly without fear that they may be the next Theo VanGough, unlike any other religion in modern times.

 

He is right about some things but he is wrong in his attempt to weaken the 1st Amendment. There is no justification for government intervention to prevent this mosque from being built. You do not have the right not to be offended. Freedom of religion and property rights are much more important than a mosque which will drop out of the media's attention after the November elections. It is the protections offered individuals (even scumbags) that seperates our nation from the nations of the Middle East.

 

What we have foolishly inserted ourselves into is a civil war between moderate and fundamentalist Islam. It has cost us untold billions of dollars in wars, homeland security, increased costs to businesses (as an example my company, which has hazardous materials on site, started employing security guards after 9/11) and declining stock values. Moderate Islam can better defeat fundamentalist Islam without us providing propaganda to the fundamentalists with our military presence in the ME. What the best outcome for this mosque situation would be is if moderate Muslims control this mosque and loudly speak out against the fundamentalists who wish to keep Muslims in the dark ages.

 

Pat Buchanan March 2000:

 

Because of our sanctions on scores of nations, cruise missile strikes upon others, and intervention in the internal affairs of still others in the wake of the Cold War, a seething resentment of America is brewing all over the world. And the haughty attitude of our foreign policy elite only nurses the hatred. Hearken, if you will, to the voice of our own Xenia, Madeline Albright, announcing new air strikes on Iraq: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future."

 

Now I count myself an American patriot. But if this Beltway braggadocio about being the world's "indispensable nation" has begun to grate on me, how must it grate upon the Europeans, Russians, and peoples subject to our sanctions because they have failed, by our lights, to live up to our standards?

 

And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution? Recall: it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya that Khadafi's agents blew up Pan Am 103. And it is said to have been in retaliation for the Vincennes' accidental shoot-down of that Iranian airliner that Teheran collaborated with terrorists to blow up the Khobar towers. From Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar – have we not suffered enough not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price of empire?

 

America today faces a choice of destinies. We can be the peacemaker of the world – or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle. Let us use this transitory moment of American power and preeminence to encourage and assist old friends and allies to stand on their own feet and provide and pay for their own defense.

 

Our meddling led to 9/11 and our answer to 9/11 was to do more of the same crap that led to the events of 9/11. My Momma always told me "Don't mess with crazy people." In macroeconomics courses I was basically taught there were two mainstream economic theories. Big government Keynesianism, and small government neoclassicism. In political science I was taught two different foreign policy ideologies, The big government Wilsonianism of Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, GW Bush and Barack Obama or the foreign policy of our founding fathers who emphasized staying out of foreign affairs and entangling alliances and utilizing liberalized trade to foster peace among nations. Ron Paul's comments posted earlier on this thread address this basic foreign policy disagreement.

[wez]

I think we should worry about ourselves and what's happening in our own backyard..

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[attach=full]2896[/attach]

 

By Jane Lampman, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

October 4, 2007

 

At Speicher base in Iraq, US Army Spec. Jeremy Hall got permission from a chaplain in August to post fliers announcing a meeting for atheists and other nonbelievers. When the group gathered, Specialist Hall alleges, his Army major supervisor disrupted the meeting and threatened to retaliate against him, including blocking his reenlistment in the Army. Months earlier, Hall charges, he had been publicly berated by a staff sergeant for not agreeing to join in a Thanksgiving Day prayer.

 

On Sept. 17, the soldier and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) filed suit against Army Maj. Freddy Welborn and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, charging violations of Hall's constitutional rights, including being forced to submit to a religious test to qualify as a soldier.

 

The MRFF plans more lawsuits in coming weeks, says Michael "Mikey" Weinstein, who founded the military watchdog group in 2005. The aim is "to show there is a pattern and practice of constitutionally impermissible promotions of religious beliefs within the Department of Defense."

 

For Mr. Weinstein – a former Air Force judge advocate and assistant counsel in the Reagan White House – more is involved than isolated cases of discrimination. He charges that several incidents in recent years – and more than 5,000 complaints his group has received from active-duty and retired military personnel – point to a growing willingness inside the military to support a particular brand of Christianity and to permit improper evangelizing in the ranks. More than 95 percent of those complaints come from other Christians, he says.

 

Read the rest here..

 

Related article here about the Thanksgiving prayer refusal..

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Military Evangelism Deeper, Wider Than First Thought

By Jason Leopold

Truthout Report, Friday 21 December 2007

For US Army soldiers entering basic training at Fort Jackson Army base in Columbia, South Carolina, accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior appears to be as much a part of the nine-week regimen as the vigorous physical and mental exercises the troops must endure.

 

That's the message directed at Fort Jackson soldiers, some of whom appear in photographs in government issued fatigues, holding rifles in one hand, and Bibles in their other hand.

 

Frank Bussey, director of Military Ministry at Fort Jackson, has been telling soldiers at Fort Jackson that "government authorities, police and the military = God's Ministers,"Bussey's teachings from the "God's Basic Training" Bible study guide he authored says US troops have "two primary responsibilities": "to praise those who do right" and "to punish those who do evil - "God's servant, an angel of wrath." Bussey's teachings directed at Fort Jackson soldiers were housed on the Military Ministry at Fort Jackson web site. Late Wednesday, the web site was taken down without explanation. Bussey did not return calls for comment. The web site text, however, can still be viewed in an archived format.

 

The Christian right has been successful in spreading its fundamentalist agenda at US military installations around the world for decades. But the movement's meteoric rise in the US military came in large part after 9/11 and immediately after the US invaded Iraq in March of 2003. At a time when the United States is encouraging greater religious freedom in Muslim nations, soldiers on the battlefield have told disturbing stories of being force-fed fundamentalist Christianity by highly controversial, apocalyptic "End Times" evangelists, who have infiltrated US military installations throughout the world with the blessing of high-level officials at the Pentagon. Proselytizing among military personnel has been conducted openly, in violation of the basic tenets of the United States Constitution.

Onward Christian Soldier

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________