PDA

View Full Version : Christians now Battling, it is not enough that the Muslims want them dead!!!


Logical
07-11-2007, 11:38 AM
LOL the Pope has declared all other christian faiths as not real Christians.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003783746_pope11.html

I guess it is not enough that the Muslims have declared Jihad against the Christians now the Christians are battling for primacy.

What is Next Global Holy War and the return of the Crusades?

patteeu
07-11-2007, 11:42 AM
http://www.600rr.net/gallery/files/2/6/8/9/repost.bmp (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165741)

CHIEF4EVER
07-11-2007, 12:12 PM
This thread is sooooooo 1300's. LMAO This was new news to Martin Luther, not to us.

StcChief
07-11-2007, 12:13 PM
too bad we can't get the Polish pope back.

This German one seems to be a bit too political about the almighty great Catholic church. :rolleyes:

Logical
07-11-2007, 12:41 PM
http://www.600rr.net/gallery/files/2/6/8/9/repost.bmp (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165741)
Not really a repost, this is about the inability of all the major religions to get along now. You don't find it both disturbing and funny at the same time.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 12:47 PM
This is why I don't have anything to do with organized religion.

Cochise
07-11-2007, 12:49 PM
The subject line ought to say something about Catholics instead of lumping in all Christians.

Logical
07-11-2007, 12:57 PM
The subject line ought to say something about Catholics instead of lumping in all Christians.Why do you say that, you don't believe Baptists, Lutherans, and other non-Catholics will object strongly to being told they are not Christians?

Cochise
07-11-2007, 01:08 PM
Why do you say that, you don't believe Baptists, Lutherans, and other non-Catholics will object strongly to being told they are not Christians?

I read it wrong. But your characterization is still lame.

"Battling"? I don't see any battle here. The Pope said that you have to be Catholic to attain salvation. Protestant folks say that he's wrong. There's no battle. They have disagreed on this matter of centuries. A, no one is 'battling', B, this is nothing new.

trndobrd
07-11-2007, 01:19 PM
I read it wrong. But your characterization is still lame.

"Battling"? I don't see any battle here. The Pope said that you have to be Catholic to attain salvation. Protestant folks say that he's wrong. There's no battle. They have disagreed on this matter of centuries. A, no one is 'battling', B, this is nothing new.


Damnit! I missed the 100 years war and thought this was my chance.

Cochise
07-11-2007, 01:22 PM
Damnit! I missed the 100 years war and thought this was my chance.

Don't worry, I'm sure you will soon be able to join a legion of evangelicals blowing themselves up inside St. Peter's Basilica. I'm sure it's going to start any minute.

Warrior5
07-11-2007, 01:23 PM
I read it wrong. But your characterization is still lame.

"Battling"? I don't see any battle here. The Pope said that you have to be Catholic to attain salvation. Protestant folks say that he's wrong. There's no battle. They have disagreed on this matter of centuries. A, no one is 'battling', B, this is nothing new.

Agreed. If Protestants cared a whole lot about what the Pope's opinion of them is, then they probably wouldn't be Protestants.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 01:45 PM
Again, one sect of a faith claiming the only truth, creates an inequality in power...and breaks down any chance for unity. Unity, of all things, should be the major drive of the Christian faith (catholicism and protestant), in the world we live in, imo. We should be able to see each other's differences as strengths, and work together. We can disagree with doctrines, but we should be able to unite in practice. For example: I should be able to disagree with the Pope, but the pope and I should still be able to look at world hunger and do things about it. But if the pope is saying to me that my faith is not valid...then the pope makes it hard for me to want to work side by side with him. Not that that would ever happen, but hypothetically speaking.

Brock
07-11-2007, 01:49 PM
Isn't this news about 500 years late?

Jilly
07-11-2007, 02:00 PM
Isn't this news about 500 years late?

Yes and that's my problem with it. Why TODAY in the world we live in, would the pope choose to bring this back to the forefront?

Brock
07-11-2007, 02:03 PM
Shouldn't he be excommunicating NASA scientists or something?

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 02:03 PM
Why do you say that, you don't believe Baptists, Lutherans, and other non-Catholics will object strongly to being told they are not Christians?

I don't mind.

chagrin
07-11-2007, 02:08 PM
LOL the Pope has declared all other christian faiths as not real Christians.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003783746_pope11.html

I guess it is not enough that the Muslims have declared Jihad against the Christians now the Christians are battling for primacy.

What is Next Global Holy War and the return of the Crusades?


What bothers me about your lead in is that there is NO mention of the in fighting between the different Muslim sects, where they are actually brutalizing each other. Furthermore there's no mention of Saladin, who in an effort to "unify" the Muslims against the Christians, slaughtered thousands of his own people, Muslims, to gain leadership (to fight against the Christians in the Crusades).

I realize that Christianity takes a beating here but it would be nice to see some legitimate griping instead of the same ole anti Christian rhetoric... :shrug:

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 03:21 PM
too bad we can't get the Polish pope back.

This German one seems to be a bit too political about the almighty great Catholic church. :rolleyes:
I'll bet you loved it when Pope Benedict, called out Muslims for their violence well over a year or so ago.

How does it differ regarding certain Christians bashing Muslims for their religion being violent, even though it in itself has denominations and abrogated verses in the Koran, instead of looking at the political aspects of their warring? Or being pro-life while being pro-war at the same time, especially when that war does not protect and save more lives?

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 03:25 PM
Agreed. If Protestants cared a whole lot about what the Pope's opinion of them is, then they probably wouldn't be Protestants.
Exactly! Cochise is right, there's no battle just a different pov which makes one faith different from another.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 03:29 PM
Exactly! Cochise is right, there's no battle just a different pov which makes one faith different from another.

his statement doesn't make it different, it makes it better and upsets a balance of power and therefore upsets unity.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 03:32 PM
his statement doesn't make it different, it makes it better and upsets a balance of power and therefore upsets unity.
That may be. The fact, however, is that the Christian church as a whole, has no unity. It is one of the most splintered with hundreds of different sects. BTW this is one of the ideas behind even having a Pope, so that there aren't millions of different interpretations.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 03:35 PM
That may be. The fact, however, is that the Christian church as a whole, has no unity. It is one of the most splintered with hundreds of different sects. BTW this is one of the ideas behind even having a Pope, so that there aren't millions of different interpretations.

Different interpretations are a blessing to the world. The point is to see it that way and to start working towards unity. We are better because we are diverse.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 03:37 PM
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

*The word "catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Benedict can say what he wants. Even if I'm not his brother, he is mine.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 03:39 PM
Benedict can say what he wants. Even if I'm not his brother, he is mine.
I'm sure he does still see you as his brother anyway.

BTW I see catholic as universal as well but as one body not thousands...eventhough I am no longer a RC.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 03:43 PM
Different interpretations are a blessing to the world. The point is to see it that way and to start working towards unity. We are better because we are diverse.
I understand what you saying. I'm just saying the RCC doesn't see it that way.
Nor should they be compelled to...that there doesn't respect diversity either.

I think that pov is just as valid as theirs. I also think it's more a civic value though. OTT, I don't really care what one believes. FTR, I was told I could no longer be a RC as I didn't accept parts of it. I'm fine on that too....as I wasn't being a RC.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 03:54 PM
I'm sure he does still see you as his brother anyway.

He may see me, Biblically speaking, more as a neighbor than a brother.

I guess if I were a member of the RCC, I'd be his son rather than his brother.

Maybe I should have said that even if Benedict is not my father, he's still my brother.

(BTW, I think the Mahareeshi Mahesh Yogi might be my third cousin once removed.)

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 04:08 PM
(BTW, I think the Mahareeshi Mahesh Yogi might be my third cousin once removed.)
Really, so you and I are related then? :)

(Beware, my second team I root for is the Pats since I'm from a town next to Foxborough MA. I know the Donks have their number though.)

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 04:13 PM
Really, so you and I are related then? :)

(Beware, my second team I root for is the Pats since I'm from a town next to Foxborough MA. I know the Donks have their number though.)

Aunty BEP!

All is good, since the second team I root for is the Browns and everyone has their number.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 04:21 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

SLAG
07-11-2007, 04:50 PM
He may see me, Biblically speaking, more as a neighbor than a brother.

I guess if I were a member of the RCC, I'd be his son rather than his brother.

Maybe I should have said that even if Benedict is not my father, he's still my brother.

(BTW, I think the Mahareeshi Mahesh Yogi might be my third cousin once removed.)


we see you as our seperated brothers and sisters...if you have been baptized we are all members of the Mystical body of Christ, but because you are not in union with the Catholic we say that you are seperated from the fullness of truth.

DaneMcCloud
07-11-2007, 05:02 PM
we see you as our seperated brothers and sisters...if you have been baptized we are all members of the Mystical body of Christ, but because you are not in union with the Catholic we say that you are seperated from the fullness of truth.

Slag, I respect your opinion and views of the RCC. Are you Opus Dei?

SLAG
07-11-2007, 05:05 PM
Slag, I respect your opinion and views of the RCC. Are you Opus Dei?
No I am not Opus Dei, Just firmly Catholic some would Label "Traditional" Catholic.

We do assist at the Traditional Latin Extraordinary Form of Mass Every Sunday

CHIEF4EVER
07-11-2007, 05:07 PM
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

*The word "catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Benedict can say what he wants. Even if I'm not his brother, he is mine.

Amen Brother. The Apostles Creed is something all Lutherans are required to read and remember. I am glad you posted it.

DaneMcCloud
07-11-2007, 05:19 PM
No I am not Opus Dei, Just firmly Catholic some would Label "Traditional" Catholic.

We do assist at the Traditional Latin Extraordinary Form of Mass Every Sunday

Cool. Thanks for sharing!

penchief
07-11-2007, 05:54 PM
The entire planet is losing it's freaking mind. It's like the human race is regressing.

HolmeZz
07-11-2007, 06:08 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/11/pope_wideweb__470x334,0.jpg

LETS GET READY TO HUMBBBBBBBLLLLLLLLEEEEE

Oh Snap
07-11-2007, 08:32 PM
yes the pope is full of shit.... He is no closer to god then any other self respecting "Christian".

Jenson71
07-11-2007, 08:41 PM
This is not a moral statement towards non-Catholics. The Pope is not saying non-Catholics are going to hell.

This is a great example of how media can pick and tear apart true messages to form their own stories.

The Pope is a great man, one who is totally committed to love and dialogue with all humans, Catholics and non-Catholics. Read his first (and recent) encyclical. He does not want to do away with Vatican II or run back to the dark ages. How false can that be? Joseph Ratzinger, who at such a young age, was asked to help WITH Vatican II, and help he did!

That whole article makes me terribly sad. How beautiful a message can get so twisted!

Logical
07-11-2007, 08:57 PM
I read it wrong. But your characterization is still lame.

"Battling"? I don't see any battle here. The Pope said that you have to be Catholic to attain salvation. Protestant folks say that he's wrong. There's no battle. They have disagreed on this matter of centuries. A, no one is 'battling', B, this is nothing new.

So did you see this statement?

The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders. "It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity," said the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a fellowship of 75 million Protestants in more than 100 countries.

alnorth
07-11-2007, 09:05 PM
So did you see this statement?

Thats a little something called opportunism. The Protestants are hardly interested in unity, thats sort of the whole point of the Protestant faith.

This very simple message that "we are correct" is a simple belief that nearly every religion in the world has to some degree, from the Muslims, to Jews, to Mormons, to Baptists, etc.

This message is about as shocking and controversial as you or I saying that the opinions of Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, or both are wrong.

Logical
07-11-2007, 09:12 PM
...

This message is about as shocking and controversial as you or I saying that the opinions of Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, or both are wrong.Well they are both wrong, though Franken is more wrong than Rush, but also a lot more entertaining.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 09:12 PM
Thats a little something called opportunism. The Protestants are hardly interested in unity, thats sort of the whole point of the Protestant faith.

This very simple message that "we are correct" is a simple belief that nearly every religion in the world has to some degree, from the Muslims, to Jews, to Mormons, to Baptists, etc.

This message is about as shocking and controversial as you or I saying that the opinions of Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, or both are wrong.

Please don't speak on behalf of Protestants...especially with a statement like you start with here. It's not so much that he said it or that I'm shocked by it. Like I said, I'm shocked by the timing of it. I think it is a bad time in world history to be reemphasizing such a divisive statement.

alnorth
07-11-2007, 09:16 PM
Please don't speak on behalf of Protestants...especially with a statement like you start with here. It's not so much that he said it or that I'm shocked by it. Like I said, I'm shocked by the timing of it. I think it is a bad time in world history to be reemphasizing such a divisive statement.

Well, given that I am criticising the reaction from these quoted Protestant leaders, I'm definitely not speaking for them at all, only from historical fact that they broke from the RCC. I didnt say that unity was a good thing. Blind unity is bad if it means unity with something you dont believe in. However, for the Protestants to complain that the RCC is harming Christian unity here strikes me as silly.

Jilly
07-11-2007, 09:19 PM
again...and again..and again...it's an imbalance of power and authority and therefore promotes inequality and therefore threatens unity....

memyselfI
07-12-2007, 05:35 AM
Like I said in the other thread, he's merely a religious fundamentalist whacko. Not the violent type....

yet.

go bowe
07-12-2007, 08:11 AM
Like I said in the other thread, he's merely a religious fundamentalist whacko. Not the violent type....

yet.yikes, you didn't just say that, did you?

pope = fundamentalist whacko?

this is not going to sit well with many of our posters...

you're a braver man than me...

BucEyedPea
07-12-2007, 09:15 AM
The Protestants are hardly interested in unity, thats sort of the whole point of the Protestant faith.

Exactly!

List of Christian Denominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations)

Pretty splintered AAMOF.
Now they claim to not care about the Pope or submit to his authority....yet they do care about the Pope. At least seek his agreement. They want the Pope to submit to their idea. Projection.

This very simple message that "we are correct" is a simple belief that nearly every religion in the world has to some degree, from the Muslims, to Jews, to Mormons, to Baptists, etc.
Exactly!

BucEyedPea
07-12-2007, 09:20 AM
This is not a moral statement towards non-Catholics. The Pope is not saying non-Catholics are going to hell.

This is a great example of how media can pick and tear apart true messages to form their own stories.

The Pope is a great man, one who is totally committed to love and dialogue with all humans, Catholics and non-Catholics. Read his first (and recent) encyclical. He does not want to do away with Vatican II or run back to the dark ages. How false can that be? Joseph Ratzinger, who at such a young age, was asked to help WITH Vatican II, and help he did!

That whole article makes me terribly sad. How beautiful a message can get so twisted!
Excellent post. Rep!

I posted earlier the media is inflaming this too. I bet all the other Christians loved what he said about Muslim violence earlier too. That was okay because they agreed with him. Even that was taken out of context, and twisted in order to inflame Muslims.

Jilly
07-12-2007, 09:35 AM
Exactly!

List of Christian Denominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations)

Pretty splintered AAMOF.
Now they claim to not care about the Pope or submit to his authority....yet they do care about the Pope. At least seek his agreement. They want the Pope to submit to their idea. Projection.


Exactly!

Do you seriously think because there are all these denominations that have splintered that protestants don't care about unity? Since when does unity mean that everyone has to be the same??

Adept Havelock
07-12-2007, 09:38 AM
This is not a moral statement towards non-Catholics. The Pope is not saying non-Catholics are going to hell.

This is a great example of how media can pick and tear apart true messages to form their own stories.

The Pope is a great man, one who is totally committed to love and dialogue with all humans, Catholics and non-Catholics. Read his first (and recent) encyclical. He does not want to do away with Vatican II or run back to the dark ages. How false can that be? Joseph Ratzinger, who at such a young age, was asked to help WITH Vatican II, and help he did!

That whole article makes me terribly sad. How beautiful a message can get so twisted!


OK. So his recent statement reiterates his statements in Dominus Iesus, stating non Catholic-Churches are merely "ecclesial communities", and thus "lack the means of salavation". They lack the means of salvation, but he's not saying their going to hell.

:spock:

Cool, as I basically reject anything to do with the supernatural, and "lack the means of salvation", I guess that means I'm in the clear if there actually is a hell.

Good to know. PBJ PBJ PBJ

BucEyedPea
07-12-2007, 09:46 AM
Do you seriously think because there are all these denominations that have splintered that protestants don't care about unity?

No. I just think it's "unity" per their own idea or conscience of what that means.
Just because someone claims to be for something doesn't mean it's feasible or that they really are for unity.

Since when does unity mean that everyone has to be the same??
It means united right? As in one.

Definitions of unity

(1)oneness, unity; the quality of being united into one
(2)integrity: an undivided or unbroken completeness or totality with nothing wanting;


I know what you're sayin' as you posted it earlier. It means oneness in acceptance of Christ. I think there is unity on that between RCs and Protestants. But it's unity on one main point. There is no unity on what is essential beyond that. Merely a starting point.

Adept Havelock
07-12-2007, 09:56 AM
It means oneness in acceptance of Christ. I think there is unity on that between RCs and Protestants. But it's unity on one main point. There is no unity on what is essential beyond that. Merely a starting point.

Pardon the question from an unbeliever without a dog in the fight, but I've read a couple of different flavors of the Bible...and that seemed to be the only essential. Did I miss something else in there? Or is that RC notion based on writings and ideas that didn't quite make it into the Big Book of Christianity?

Just saying...Just curious. :shrug:

Jilly
07-12-2007, 10:00 AM
No. I just think it's "unity" per their own idea or conscience of what that means.
Just because someone claims to be for something doesn't mean it's feasible or that they really are for unity.


It means united right? As in one.

Definitions of unity

(1)oneness, unity; the quality of being united into one
(2)integrity: an undivided or unbroken completeness or totality with nothing wanting;


I know what you're sayin' as you posted it earlier. It means oneness in acceptance of Christ. I think there is unity on that between RCs and Protestants. But it's unity on one main point. There is no unity on what is essential beyond that. Merely a starting point.

To have unity do you believe there has to be a sameness of mind? Do you think that people can all believe somethign completely different with NO starting point and still have unity?

Jilly
07-12-2007, 10:01 AM
Excellent post. Rep!

I posted earlier the media is inflaming this too. I bet all the other Christians loved what he said about Muslim violence earlier too. That was okay because they agreed with him. Even that was taken out of context, and twisted in order to inflame Muslims.

I'm a Christian and I f-ing hated it...and I'm tired of being lumped into some category or branding...

SLAG
07-12-2007, 10:09 AM
Pardon the question from an unbeliever without a dog in the fight, but I've read a couple of different flavors of the Bible...and that seemed to be the only essential. Did I miss something else in there? Or is that RC notion based on writings and ideas that didn't quite make it into the Big Book of Christianity?

Just saying...Just curious. :shrug:


The Catholic Church does not Hold the Bible as the Sole Authority on Faith the bible never Claims to be the Sole Authority either, they teach that the Bible and Tradition that has been passed down from the Apostles are key to Authority

Additional Reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_Nulla_Salus
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

BucEyedPea
07-12-2007, 10:09 AM
Pardon the question from an unbeliever without a dog in the fight, but I've read a couple of different flavors of the Bible...and that seemed to be the only essential point.

Just saying... :shrug:
As one who is considered a "Fallen-Away-Catholic", who is now an eclectic mix of spiritiual contradictions these days (Catholic-Buddhist-Judaist mainly) while I admit to trying at least to be sorting it all out, that would be a correct observation. :)


Did I miss something else in there? Or is that RC notion based on writings and ideas that didn't quite make it in the Big Book of Christianity?
Well you did miss an essential point of RC, another major point of disagreement by many Protestants with regard to Catholicism, in particular Bibly-only Christians:

Yes RC is based on things that have not made it into the Big Book. It's also based on "tradition"in addition to the idea that the Bible/faith does not end per them with the death of Christ or the Apostles but continues to be defined as the world moves on. Hence the need of a Pope which is authorized in the Bible per the RC pov anyways.

Please, also note that, the early Christian church didn't even have a Bible for the first 300 something years. It was the RCC who decided to compile one. So I don't understand the logic of being a Bible-only Christian.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2007, 10:14 AM
I'm a Christian and I f-ing hated it...and I'm tired of being lumped into some category or branding...
I'm not lumping you or branding you. I said I "bet." I just remember the debates and articles supporting him on it here and elsewhere. A lot of protestants did. Again, the media took a lot of it out of context. Someone posted the whole speech here.

Redrum_69
07-12-2007, 10:16 AM
If you arent a Cheifs fan...you are going to hell

Jilly
07-12-2007, 10:31 AM
I'm not lumping you or branding you. I said I "bet." I just remember the debates and articles supporting him on it here and elsewhere. A lot of protestants did. Again, the media took a lot of it out of context. Someone posted the whole speech here.

I just mean in general....seems Christian like me often get branded into some category that makes us judgmental and hateful and unaccepting... and if I see something that perpetuates that idea, I just get upset. Sorry I took it out on you!!!!

But seriously...I just would like people to know...that there are us Christians out there who are accepting of people of EVERY Faith...and who are willing to even stand up for the rights and beliefs of those of those different faiths.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2007, 10:44 AM
I just mean in general....seems Christian like me often get branded into some category that makes us judgmental and hateful and unaccepting... and if I see something that perpetuates that idea, I just get upset. Sorry I took it out on you!!!!
Actually, based on your posts where you say what you believe, you're not like that at all. Far from it.

Ya' know I have a couple of friends that are very devout traditional RCs, (theyl ove what Pope Benedict is doing) who accept me even if they consider me a Fallen-Away-Catholic. I consider them exceptionally good people and they helped me out in life with a major personal crisis. I know they'd love me to return to the RCC. I'm sure they pray for me to do so. I know they disagree with me on certain spiritual things. But that does not mean they hate me.

I think there have been a lot more Christians against the Iraq war too, than is let on due to the press. I know I've met them. There was even an article that I glanced at once, that had a rundown of all the denominations that didn't support it. I was surprised to see how many more weren't.

SLAG
07-12-2007, 11:06 AM
Heres the Deal, Jesus gave us the Commandment to Love...

So I must Put everyone before me and Love everyone..

He gave us the Commandment to LOVE and he FORBID us.. I reitereate he FORBID US to Judge!
I want to Live my life as close to Jesus as possible, So when people meet me they Might say... I dont know Jesus but if he is anything like you.. I cant wait to meet him.

Jenson71
07-12-2007, 12:23 PM
OK. So his recent statement reiterates his statements in Dominus Iesus, stating non Catholic-Churches are merely "ecclesial communities", and thus "lack the means of salavation". They lack the means of salvation, but he's not saying their going to hell.

:spock:

Cool, as I basically reject anything to do with the supernatural, and "lack the means of salvation", I guess that means I'm in the clear if there actually is a hell.

Good to know. PBJ PBJ PBJ

Good to know, Adept Havelock. If you care to read Dominus Iesus, it's at the Vatican website. It's about a 20 minute read.

Let me just highlight a key phrase from it:

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

Adept Havelock
07-12-2007, 02:37 PM
Good to know, Adept Havelock. If you care to read Dominus Iesus, it's at the Vatican website. It's about a 20 minute read.

Let me just highlight a key phrase from it:

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66


Thank you kindly. I was misinformed as to the content.

Jenson71
07-12-2007, 04:18 PM
Thank you kindly. I was misinformed as to the content.

You are not the only one. That's what this whole outrage has been caused by - misinforming people. :( Pope Benedict XVI is so much about peace and dialogue between other religions, it's extremely disheartening to see this great man being hated or disliked.

Taco John
07-12-2007, 04:25 PM
I want to Live my life as close to Jesus as possible, So when people meet me they Might say... I dont know Jesus but if he is anything like you.. I cant wait to meet him.


Nice avatar then.

Adept Havelock
07-12-2007, 05:48 PM
Nice avatar then.

Who would Jesus tell "Kill them all, God will know his own". ;)

go bowe
07-12-2007, 09:08 PM
What bothers me about your lead in is that there is NO mention of the in fighting between the different Muslim sects, where they are actually brutalizing each other. Furthermore there's no mention of Saladin, who in an effort to "unify" the Muslims against the Christians, slaughtered thousands of his own people, Muslims, to gain leadership (to fight against the Christians in the Crusades).

I realize that Christianity takes a beating here but it would be nice to see some legitimate griping instead of the same ole anti Christian rhetoric... :shrug:ok folks, take this guy to the lions and give him a spork...

or, better yet, give the lions the spork...

SLAG
07-13-2007, 12:08 AM
Nice avatar then.

My avatar only represents that I am willing to Fight and Die when necessary for my religion.

If your not then your no follower of religion at all

interesting that you wish to attack my Statement of Peace and love with an attack on my avatar.

Logical
07-13-2007, 12:45 AM
Heres the Deal, Jesus gave us the Commandment to Love...

So I must Put everyone before me and Love everyone..

He gave us the Commandment to LOVE and he FORBID us.. I reitereate he FORBID US to Judge!
I want to Live my life as close to Jesus as possible, So when people meet me they Might say... I dont know Jesus but if he is anything like you.. I cant wait to meet him.Slag you comport yourself with class and dignity in the way you post. If everyone was able to present their views with such non-judgemental and matter of fact presentation this world would be a better place.

alnorth
07-13-2007, 12:52 AM
Slag you comport yourself with class and dignity in the way you post. If everyone was able to present their views with such non-judgemental and matter of fact presentation this world would be a better place.

From what I've seen, he's unflappable. He even sees hateful vile insults as a teaching opportunity, or something to calmly ignore.

crazycoffey
07-13-2007, 12:57 AM
cheers to Slag....

Sully
07-13-2007, 07:54 AM
My avatar only represents that I am willing to Fight and Die when necessary for my religion.

If your not then your no follower of religion at all

interesting that you wish to attack my Statement of Peace and love with an attack on my avatar.
You may want it to represent that, but unless you want to completely redefine what actually happened historically, then it means a hell of a lot more than that.

Your second statement is bullshit.

And it makes sense to attack someone's statement on love and peace when a picture he represents himself with illustrates one of the more unjust, hateful and violent periods in human history.

Taco John
07-13-2007, 08:11 AM
My avatar only represents that I am willing to Fight and Die when necessary for my religion.

If your not then your no follower of religion at all

interesting that you wish to attack my Statement of Peace and love with an attack on my avatar.


Justify your mixed message however you want. Your "statement of peace and love" is nothing more than a self-serving joke. And for the record, Jesus never required that people die for religion. If you think that is what Jesus wants of you, then it appears that you've missed the point more than your avatar would seem to indicate.

SLAG
07-13-2007, 11:16 AM
You may want it to represent that, but unless you want to completely redefine what actually happened historically, then it means a hell of a lot more than that.

Your second statement is bullshit.

And it makes sense to attack someone's statement on love and peace when a picture he represents himself with illustrates one of the more unjust, hateful and violent periods in human history.

Sully

Speaking from history, The pope was originally petitioned to send his papal army's to help resist Muslim advances into the Byzantine Empire, This then Esclated and we Christian's have been fighting muslims ever since. From the start it was much more of a defensive move that then in turn changed and grew into an offensive battle. Whats done is done, yet today we are still attacked by Muslims just the folks fighting back are not strictly Catholic. This is nothing new. The Avatar is a Satire on the current times in light of the past and I explicitly stated my meaning for use as posted earlier.

My second Statement is directed toward most persons today who follow a religion in the true sense of the word - as opposed to "spirituality" etc where one makes up their own beliefs as they go....those to claim to follow a relgion are so quick to disregard major tennants and pilliars of their faith that they should not even claim to be members of the "Religion"




Justify your mixed message however you want. Your "statement of peace and love" is nothing more than a self-serving joke. And for the record, Jesus never required that people die for religion. If you think that is what Jesus wants of you, then it appears that you've missed the point more than your avatar would seem to indicate.


Taco-

My testament to Loving as Jesus Loves is nothing more than truth, it is in no way self serving to me, infact as a Christian I must be self-less, I must Die as Christ Died but I live because he (Jesus) lives in me.

No Jesus never REQUIRED one to die for his beliefs, but he did say that there is no love greater than to Give your life up for another.. I cannot think of a better person to give my life up for than Jesus the Christ.

Pax Vobiscum

JohnnyV13
07-13-2007, 12:39 PM
You are not the only one. That's what this whole outrage has been caused by - misinforming people. :( Pope Benedict XVI is so much about peace and dialogue between other religions, it's extremely disheartening to see this great man being hated or disliked.


While I certainly agree Benedict's words are being inflammed to create controvesy, I think "great man" is going a bit far. Benedict believes and supported elevating Humane Vitae to infalllible doctrine, and stripped the credentials of over 400 catholic theologians who objected to making Humane Vitae infallible.

Anyone who could support the poor reasoning of Humane Vitae is hardly "great".

Cochise
07-13-2007, 12:44 PM
By the way, this thread title is ridiculous in either of two ways. (1) It's saying Muslims want Christians to die, which is only true of a certain percentage of them. (2) That percentage wants you dead too, if you aren't a Muslim.

Cochise
07-13-2007, 12:46 PM
In what way is this pope a great one, already? He's only been in office 2 years, and all I can think of that he's done is make Muslims angry.

Taco John
07-13-2007, 12:54 PM
Taco-

My testament to Loving as Jesus Loves is nothing more than truth, it is in no way self serving to me, infact as a Christian I must be self-less, I must Die as Christ Died but I live because he (Jesus) lives in me.

No Jesus never REQUIRED one to die for his beliefs, but he did say that there is no love greater than to Give your life up for another.. I cannot think of a better person to give my life up for than Jesus the Christ.

Pax Vobiscum



Blah blah blah blather...

Christ would approve of someone dying for their religion, to be sure. He wouldn't approve of someone killing someone else for it though.

All the bloviating in the world is not going to change the fact that what you are writing is hypocritical to the avatar you are sporting.

I could personally care less, except for the fact that you're going public with your hypocrisy, and thus making yourself an easy target. Me taking advantage of your stupidity isn't necessarily christianlike either.

go bowe
07-13-2007, 01:27 PM
By the way, this thread title is ridiculous in either of two ways. (1) It's saying Muslims want Christians to die, which is only true of a certain percentage of them. (2) That percentage wants you dead too, if yyou aren't a Muslim.hell, the terrorists have been killing fellow muslims for a long time...

in iraq there are sunni vs. shia killing each other...

and aq killing members of both sects...

with all 3 groups killing our people...

Cochise
07-13-2007, 01:29 PM
hell, the terrorists have been killing fellow muslims for a long time...

in iraq there are sunni vs. shia killing each other...

and aq killing members of both sects...

with all 3 groups killing our people...

Yeah, there are some Muslims that don't want you dead. There are some that want non-Muslims dead. And there are others that want everyone but their particular stripe dead. I was just saying.

Jenson71
07-13-2007, 01:50 PM
In what way is this pope a great one, already? He's only been in office 2 years, and all I can think of that he's done is make Muslims angry.

As I said, he's a great man. Great is subjective, of course. But I could list many reasons as to why I believe he's great. Becoming Pope is quite an accomplishment now. It certainly makes him a great Catholic.

go bowe
07-13-2007, 01:53 PM
Yeah, there are some Muslims that don't want you dead. There are some that want non-Muslims dead. And there are others that want everyone but their particular stripe dead. I was just saying.and saying quite well...

i think we're pretty much saying the same thing...

Logical
07-13-2007, 02:16 PM
By the way, this thread title is ridiculous in either of two ways. (1) It's saying Muslims want Christians to die, which is only true of a certain percentage of them. (2) That percentage wants you dead too, if you aren't a Muslim.Cochise, on item (2) that percentage does want every non-muslim dead so I don't know why you wrote that?

Cochise
07-13-2007, 02:26 PM
As I said, he's a great man. Great is subjective, of course. But I could list many reasons as to why I believe he's great. Becoming Pope is quite an accomplishment now. It certainly makes him a great Catholic.

Well, what can you wiki up then? To what do we owe this greatness...?

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 02:30 PM
Cochies, on item (2) that percentage does want every non-muslim dead so I don't know why you wrote that?

Because you titled the thread the way you did.

Stop drinking.

Logical
07-13-2007, 03:18 PM
Because you titled the thread the way you did.

Stop drinking.That title does not exclude others being wanted dead by Muslims it only specifically talks about Muslims wanting Christians dead.

You quit drinking.:harumph:

Jenson71
07-13-2007, 05:06 PM
Well, what can you wiki up then? To what do we owe this greatness...?

If you wanted me to repeat information from wikipedia, I will just supply you with the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 06:55 PM
That title does not exclude others being wanted dead by Muslims it only specifically talks about Muslims wanting Christians dead.

Bullshit.

EDIT: Poker tonight. I can't stick around to call you a weasel.

Logical
07-13-2007, 07:18 PM
Bullshit.

EDIT: Poker tonight. I can't stick around to call you a weasel.Let us review the title:

Christians now Battling, it is not enough that the Muslims want them dead!!!

Does it say

Christians now Battling, it is not enough Muslims want only them dead!!!

No I did not think so.:harumph::harumph:

CHIEF4EVER
07-13-2007, 07:26 PM
Let us review the title:

Christians now Battling, it is not enough that the Muslims want them dead!!!

Does it say

Christians now Battling, it is not enough Muslims want only them dead!!!

No I did not think so.:harumph::harumph:

Potato, pototo. :p :D

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 08:57 PM
Let us review the title:

Christians now Battling, it is not enough that the Muslims want them dead!!!

Does it say

Christians now Battling, it is not enough Muslims want only them dead!!!

No I did not think so.:harumph::harumph:

I got half way to the poker game, called my buddy and was reminded that it was changed to tomorrow night. So it turns out I have time call you a weasel after all.

Radical Islamists want you dead, Logical. Not Christians. They want all of us dead.

Weasel.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 09:00 PM
Nope they want troops off their lands.

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 09:06 PM
Nope they want troops off their lands.

Bullshit to you, too, honey. Which of "their" lands were our troops in when the Iranians took hostages for 444 days?

EDIT: 444 days, not 444 hostages.

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 09:07 PM
This most recent war between Islam and the West started damn near 30 years ago. You should have received an invitation.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 09:11 PM
Bullshit to you, too, honey. Which of "their" lands were our troops in when the Iranians took 444 hostages?
You do know that was blowback for the CIA coup in the 1950s that put the Shah in power, over oil contracts? A leader who was hated by the people and who per our own CIA was on the phone with him nearly weekly and who helped the Shah run his torture chambers? I believe, or so I've read, some of those hostages were secret CIA too. Not exactly troops but I coulda added more like internal interference in their country as well. Doing things like that doesn't make friends. Not that I think their govt is a good one. I do know a recent poll of Iranians show they want to recognize Israel, end hostilities with the US and trade with us now though. I certainly think we should play our cards right this time. But the AEI/PNAC guys who want a Pax Americana instead may not.

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 09:13 PM
You do know that was blowback for the CIA coup in the 1950s that put the Shah in power, over oil contracts? A leader who was hated by the people and who per our own CIA was on the phone with him nearly weekly and who helped the Shah run his torture chambers? I believe, or so I've read, some of those hostages were secret CIA too. Not exactly troops but I coulda added more like internal interference in their country as well. Doing things like that doesn't make friends. Not that I think their govt is a good one. I do know a recent poll or Iranians show they want to recognize Israel, end hostilities with the US and trade with us now though. I certainly think we should play our cards right this time.

I don't give a damn if it was blowback from the freaking Crusades. They want your ass dead, BEP.

Logical
07-13-2007, 09:15 PM
I got half way to the poker game, called my buddy and was reminded that it was changed to tomorrow night. So it turns out I have time call you a weasel after all.

Radical Islamists want you dead, Logical. Not Christians. They want all of us dead.

Weasel.You really need to improve your reading skills.

Adept Havelock
07-13-2007, 09:17 PM
You do know that was blowback for the CIA coup in the 1950s that put the Shah in power, over oil contracts? A leader who was hated by the people and who per our own CIA was on the phone with him nearly weekly and who helped the Shah run his torture chambers? I believe, or so I've read, some of those hostages were secret CIA too. Not exactly troops but I coulda added more like internal interference in their country as well. Doing things like that doesn't make friends. Not that I think their govt is a good one. I do know a recent poll of Iranians show they want to recognize Israel, end hostilities with the US and trade with us now though. I certainly think we should play our cards right this time. But the AEI/PNAC guys who want a Pax Americana instead may not.


Yeah, everyone just wants to sweep the US involvement with SAVAK under the rug.

Kind of like our previous relationship with Saddam Hussien.

Granted, it doesn't matter which party is in power. They both cozy up to useful thugs.

I don't give a damn if it was blowback from the freaking Crusades. They want your ass dead, BEP.

I'll begin hiding under my bed and cowering in fear immediately.

There have been people have wanted Americans dead as long as this nation has existed. At one time there was a nation state that had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us to achive just that purpose. Matter of fact, they still have a sizable number that could be.

I didn't waste time on being scared then, and I certainly won't now.

No matter how much Fear you keep selling to defend what is IMO a piss poor foriegn policy.

And yes, I know you were not speaking to me. Bravo Foxtrot Delta.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 09:17 PM
I don't give a damn if it was blowback from the freaking Crusades. They want your ass dead, BEP.
Because one way to handle them wanting that is to adjust some of our FP.
Not to mention, not allowing any in the country as we're doing just like England and Europe. Instead we let them in and give them footwashing stands in our airports. That's just plain treason...yet we cheer our govt for protecting us by being over there. Doesn't anyone see the illogic here? People need a severe reality adjustment. There are certain influences in our govt that are NOT on our side. And they are controlling you with fear.

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 09:17 PM
You really need to improve your reading skills.

Improve your writing skills and it won't be an issue, you freaking weasel.

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 09:18 PM
Because one way to handle them wanting that is to adjust some of our FP.

Bullshit. It's not our foreign policy that's the problem. It's theirs.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 09:20 PM
Bullshit. It's not our foreign policy that's the problem. It's theirs.
Just what are the radical's foreign policy if they have no real govt power?
What nations have they invaded?

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 09:21 PM
I didn't waste time on being scared then, and I won't be now.

I wasn't scared then, and I'm not scared now. I'm angry. There's a difference.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 09:22 PM
Actually, I'll admit I'm scared. I do think there is a threat.
But I am just as scared of how my govt is handling it too.

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 09:27 PM
Just what are the radical's foreign policy if they have no real govt power?
What nations have they invaded?

Most notably Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority and Somalia. Some have real government power, others were just invaded by lunatics.

Adept Havelock
07-13-2007, 09:28 PM
Instead we let them in and give them footwashing stands in our airports.

:spock:

Tell me that's TIC and you are not really stating the staff of KCI is treasonous for installing some new plumbing at the airport cabbie waiting area.

My sarcasm meter may need to be recalibrated. I hope so.

Most notably Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority and Somalia. Some have real government power, others were just invaded by lunatics.

Hmmm. Which of those predominantly Islamic nations was invaded by Muslims?

BTW- You're angry? Good. Then you'll understand that I am as well. I'm angry with the SOB's that blindsided us, angry with the SOB's that ignored a problem that started in the 1970's (on both sides of the aisle), and angry with the folks that IMO completely buggered our response to being blindsided. Sorry if you feel that last note is partisan, but it's hardly my fault that one party controlled this nations foreign policy from 2000-2006.

I'm also angry with the current crop for not doing more to remove our national Johnson from the meatgrinder of Iraq.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 09:33 PM
Most notably Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority and Somalia. Some have real government power, others were just invaded by lunatics.
I'm talkin' ONLY about the ones that target Americans here on our soil which is AlQaeda...not the ones that do their dirty work in Israel. The one's in Pakistan don't have power but may get it as they don't like Musharraf our ally. Afghanistan was legit, but we may not be able to take it back. The Russian's couldn't hold it. I could care less about the rest. None of our business.

I like to reverse some things to see how we'd like the same transgressions....you one practicing one of the ten commandments. How would you like foreign influence in our govt waging a secret coup inside? Wouldn't that make you angry too?

You may say we had help from the French in our liberation...the difference is they didn't stay and build bases.

Bush Sr, post PGWI made permanent bases on their Holy Lands after that was over. That brought them home to America. It's date coincident.

Logical
07-13-2007, 09:35 PM
Improve your writing skills and it won't be an issue, you freaking weasel.My writing skills are just fine read it again:

Originally Posted by Logical
Let us review the title:

Christians now Battling, it is not enough that the Muslims want them dead!!!

Does it say

Christians now Battling, it is not enough Muslims want only them dead!!!

No I did not think so.:harumph::harumph:

Adept Havelock
07-13-2007, 09:36 PM
My writing skills are just fine read it again:

He's only reading what he wants to read.

It's a common enough occurance here in DC, I suppose.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 09:40 PM
:spock:

Tell me that's TIC and you are not really stating the staff of KCI is treasonous for installing some new plumbing at the airport cabbie waiting area.

My sarcasm meter may need to be recalibrated. I hope so.

I just saw it on the news when I got in. I thought wtf? So no, not tic...not this time anyway.


You'd think if we were at war with "Islamofascism," that we'd not let any of them in the country 'til it's over with. It's too hard to tell who harbors ill will or is part of some cell. Non nation state terror like AQ can't be stopped with conventional military means for the most part. That was only workable in Afghanistan where she should have stayed.

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 09:45 PM
My writing skills are just fine read it again:

Whatever you say. You love playing the weasel, Logical. Just admit it.

Adept Havelock
07-13-2007, 09:49 PM
I just saw it on the news when I got in. I thought wtf? So no, not tic...not this time anyway.


You'd think if we were at war with "Islamofascism," that we'd not let any of them in the country 'til it's over with. It's too hard to tell who harbors ill will or is part of some cell. Non nation state terror like AQ can't be stopped with conventional military means for the most part. That was only workable in Afghanistan where she should have stayed.

OK...so:

1. KCI installed a new janitor's sink in the cabbie waiting area at KCI.
2. Some nutjob decided it was a luxury foot bath installed in anticipation of rule by our Wahabist Overlords and went whining to World Nut Daily, where Joseph Farah decides his web site really needs a screed condeming this henious action.
3. The national media picks up on this nonsense, and as usual spreads it further.
4. Somehow 1+2+3= The staff of KCI has committed High Trason.

Sorry, not only do I not see it, I think it's rather nutty.

Granted I'm utterly mad so that's OK. Damn flat glass. PBJ

Logical
07-13-2007, 09:50 PM
Whatever you say. You love playing the weasel, Logical. Just admit it.When I deserve it I admit it, in this case you are reading it wrong.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 09:53 PM
Okay I see what you mean now Adept.

NO! The treason is allowing immigration from those countries where the enemy resides ( basically) while being at war with them. The sinks are secondary. So that was more a reminder that we also accomodate them too. I really didn't get all the details on it anyway. It was indeed Fox and it brought up not just the foot sinks but also public funding for Muslim schools in NY. They just shouldn't be allowed in during a war.

BTW, you should make the airport some mirrors for them. :p

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 09:57 PM
I'm talkin' ONLY about the ones that target Americans here on our soil which is AlQaeda...not the ones that do their dirty work in Israel. The one's in Pakistan don't have power but may get it as they don't like Musharraf our ally. Afghanistan was legit, but we may not be able to take it back. The Russian's couldn't hold it. I could care less about the rest. None of our business.

I like to reverse some things to see how we'd like the same transgressions....you one practicing one of the ten commandments. How would you like foreign influence in our govt waging a secret coup inside? Wouldn't that make you angry too?

You may say we had help from the French in our liberation...the difference is they didn't stay and build bases.

Bush Sr, post PGWI made permanent bases on their Holy Lands after that was over. That brought them home to America. It's date coincident.

On the other hand, I lump them all together. And it's all our business if even a small fraction of them want us dead. I'm not interested in their rationalizations, nor your agreement with those rationalizations.

You are turning a blind eye to their intentions in this war, IMO, BEP. They're no longer interested in simply forcing us out of "their" lands. They're attacking when they can on "our" land. (And when I say "our" land, I include western Europe and the U.K.) That's an unacceptable situation to me.

Adept Havelock
07-13-2007, 09:57 PM
Okay I see what you mean now.

NO! The treason is allowing immigration from those countries where the enemy resides ( basically) while being at war with them. The sinks are secondary. So that was more a reminder that we also accomodate them too. I really didn't get all the details on it anyway. It was indeed Fox and it brought up not just the foot sinks but also public funding for Muslim schools in NY. They just shouldn't be allowed in during a war.
Concerning immigration, the problem is are we at war with all Islam, or just the extremists? How do we help keep moderates from becoming extremists if we treat them all equally? While it would be nice, I don't think it's anywhere nearly as simple as "let 'em in" or "keep 'em out". JMO.

As for the schools, I dislike the notion of public funding of any religious school or institution. Let people fund their own superstitions.



BTW, you should make the airport some mirrors for them. :p


- I don't make mirrors these days. That's what Apts are for. :)

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 09:58 PM
When I deserve it I admit it, in this case you are reading it wrong.

My bad, you're just full of shit, then. You're no weasel.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 09:59 PM
Concerning immigration, the problem is are we at war with all Islam, or just the extremists? How do we keep moderates from becoming extremists if we treat them all equally?

That's answered in my earlier post.

As for the schools, I dislike the notion of public funding of any religious school or institution. Let people fund their own superstitions.
Whatever. My point is that they are being accomodated as well.

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 10:03 PM
Let people fund their own superstitions.

As long as you let others opt out of supporting government monopoly schools, which teach their own superstitions, especially when it comes to the free market.

Seriously, how can a pack of union employees teach capitalism?

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 10:06 PM
As long as you let others opt out of supporting government monopoly schools, which teach their own superstitions, especially when it comes to the free market.

Seriously, how can a pack of union employees teach capitalism?
Excellent points.
Since when is all superstition religious.

Adept Havelock
07-13-2007, 10:12 PM
As long as you let others opt out of supporting government monopoly schools, which teach their own superstitions, especially when it comes to the free market.

Which "superstition" are you specifically referring to, and how is it taught?

They can opt out of the system. They can send their kids to private schools.

As for opting out of the funding...Do I get to ensure that my tax dollars don't get to be spent on a foreign policy clusterf**k like Iraq as well? Seems reasonable. Or to support a "get the word out" effort for Athiesm in schools?

I'd also say that if federal funds are going to churchs and religious schools (as they are under the faith-based initiatives) then they should be provided to all religions. According to the establishment clause, the Government isn't allowed to put one above another. That means fed funds for Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, The Church of the FSM, the Scientologists, Fred Phelps and his bunch of Merry Psychotics, the First Church of National Socialism, etc.

Seems like a simpler and better policy to tell them all "No". JMO.

Seriously, how can a pack of union employees teach capitalism?

The same way a Science Teacher who never went to the moon can teach the history and science of the Apollo program? Or perhaps the same way a man or woman who is celibate can teach sexual morality?

Or did I just misinterpret that lame attempt to paint all Union folks as followers of Marx?
Excellent points.
Since when is all superstition religious.

Well, while it's a minority opinion, it's simple logic IMO:

To me, All Religion (A) equals Superstion (B).

If A=B, then B must equal A.

I'm sure you disagree. Whatever. :shrug:

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 10:20 PM
The same way a Science Teacher who never went to the moon can teach the history and science of the Apollo program? Or perhaps The same way a man or woman who is celibate can teach sexual morality?
Yeah but that's easy because they understand those things. At least a celibate person understands how to be celibate. What I got from CB's post was unionists don't usually understand capitalism and they don't practice it either. So how can they teach what they don't really know? ( even if they think they know it but don't)

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 10:21 PM
Which "superstition" are you specifically referring to, and how is it taught?

I already said.

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 10:24 PM
The same way a Science Teacher who never went to the moon can teach the history and science of the Apollo program?

No, the same way a science teacher who believes we never went to the moon can teach the history of Apollo.

The vast majority of union employees do not understand capitalism and cannot teach it properly.

Adept Havelock
07-13-2007, 10:28 PM
Yeah but that's easy because they understand those things. At least a celibate person understands how to be celibate. What I got from CB's post was unionists don't usually understand capitalism and they don't practice it either. So how can they teach what they don't really know? ( even if they think they know it but don't)

Got it. Anyone who joins a Union is automatically mentally deficient to a degree they are unable to understand, teach, and articulate the theory of a pure unfettered form of capitalism. However, capitalists are apparently automatically brilliant enough to understand their own system, and the inner workings of all others. Furthermore, they are granted the uncanny knack to intuit the mental capacities and abilites of those followers of other socio-economic systems. Fascinating. :p

I already said.

Guess I missed it. Please state the specific superstition taught by the state you were alluding to, (the manner in which it's taught as well, please) as I don't see it above.

If that's too much trouble, perhaps a cut-and-paste or a link?

Also, would you like to take a moment to comment on the difficulty a Biology teacher in the Southwest US would have in teaching the ecosystem of the Northeastern Coastline of the US. It would be as relevant as your previous point alluding to Union folks singing the Internationale.

No, the same way a science teacher who believes we never went to the moon can teach the history of Apollo.

The Apollo Debunker nuts I've read are usually very familiar with NASA's claims of the Apollo Moon Landings. IMO they would have to, in order to "debunk" it. I won't comment on their mental ability if they were asked to present NASA's claims, as well as their own. I'm sure some could, and others could not.

The vast majority of union employees do not understand capitalism and cannot teach it properly.
Got a link to back that up? Or is that like 97.3% of internet statistics, and just pulled out of your ass? ;)

It's been fun folks, but the Vino bottle is empty, and the Old Lady is nagging me to come to bed.

Have a good night, BEP and ClevelandBronco.

Logical
07-13-2007, 10:41 PM
My bad, you're just full of shit, then. You're no weasel.Actually I have had the runs today so I am pretty empty.:p

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 10:42 PM
Got it. Anyone who joins a Union is automatically mentally deficient to a degree they are unable to understand, teach, and articulate the theory of a pure unfettered form of capitalism. However, capitalists are apparently automatically brilliant enough to understand their own system, but the inner workings of all others. Furthermore, they are granted the uncanny knack to intuit the mental capacities and abilites of those followers of other socio-economic systems. Fascinating. :p

Your words. Not mine.
I said nothing about mental deficiency. It could just be how they're educated or that they just are unwilling ( or unethical in some cases) because they can do better by using extortion.

It's been fun folks, but the Vino bottle is empty, and the Old Lady is nagging me to come to bed.

Does she know you call her that?

Have a good night, BEP and ClevelandBronco.
You too. Don't wake up with a hangover.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 10:45 PM
Actually I have had the runs today so I am pretty empty.:p
Don't Chief's fans start threads about such things?

ClevelandBronco
07-13-2007, 10:50 PM
Got it. Anyone who joins a Union is automatically mentally deficient to a degree they are unable to understand, teach, and articulate the theory of a pure unfettered form of capitalism.

Yes.

However, capitalists are apparently automatically brilliant enough to understand their own system, and the inner workings of all others. Furthermore, they are granted the uncanny knack to intuit the mental capacities and abilites of those followers of other socio-economic systems. Fascinating. :p

In order, yes; who cares about any other system?; and yes.

Guess I missed it. Please state the specific superstition taught by the state you were alluding to, (the manner in which it's taught as well, please) as I don't see it above.

If that's too much trouble, perhaps a cut-and-paste or a link?

Also, would you like to take a moment to comment on the difficulty a Biology teacher in the Southwest US would have in teaching the ecosystem of the Northeastern Coastline of the US. It would be as relevant as your previous point alluding to Union folks singing the Internationale.

The Apollo Debunker nuts I've read are usually very familiar with NASA's claims of the Apollo Moon Landings. IMO they would have to, in order to "debunk" it. I won't comment on their mental ability if they were asked to present NASA's claims, as well as their own. I'm sure some could, and others could not.

Got a link to back that up? Or is that like 97.3% of internet statistics, and just pulled out of your ass? ;)

It's been fun folks, but the Vino bottle is empty, and the Old Lady is nagging me to come to bed.

Have a good night, BEP and ClevelandBronco.

In order: probably; there's no way on God's green earth I'm going to write you a book about how union employees are incapable of teaching capitalism; no; no; no; sorry about the bottle being empty; and good night.

Logical
07-13-2007, 11:00 PM
Don't Chief's fans start threads about such things?You might have a point, but I tend to start religious threads for filling the main forum with shit.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 11:04 PM
You might have a point, but I tend to start religious threads for filling the main forum with shit.
I notice those really run too! :p

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 11:37 PM
I must've embarrassed wogical. :hmmm:

Logical
07-14-2007, 12:33 AM
I must've embarrassed wogical. :hmmm:No, just nothing happening in DC tonight.

Taco John
07-14-2007, 01:28 AM
Reading this, I have one thing to say:

I'm glad my poker game didn't get cancelled tonight.

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 01:39 AM
Actually I have had the runs today so I am pretty empty.:p

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much info Jim. :shake:

ROFL

patteeu
07-14-2007, 08:26 AM
Different interpretations are a blessing to the world. The point is to see it that way and to start working towards unity. We are better because we are diverse.

The Pope told me that Jilly should be renamed "Jilly the Heretic" by the mods. He assured me that God would not consider this mod abuse. :)

patteeu
07-14-2007, 08:48 AM
You do know that was blowback for the CIA coup in the 1950s that put the Shah in power, over oil contracts? A leader who was hated by the people and who per our own CIA was on the phone with him nearly weekly and who helped the Shah run his torture chambers? I believe, or so I've read, some of those hostages were secret CIA too. Not exactly troops but I coulda added more like internal interference in their country as well. Doing things like that doesn't make friends. Not that I think their govt is a good one. I do know a recent poll of Iranians show they want to recognize Israel, end hostilities with the US and trade with us now though. I certainly think we should play our cards right this time. But the AEI/PNAC guys who want a Pax Americana instead may not.

In addition to leading us toward a loss in the GWoT, your blowback phobia would have led us to lose the war against communism too. The Golden Rule is a good thought to keep in mind, but it can't be the sole guidepost of our foreign policy. The world is a lot more like a prison yard than a convent, IMO.

patteeu
07-14-2007, 08:50 AM
Just what are the radical's foreign policy if they have no real govt power?
What nations have they invaded?

What nation haven't they invaded?

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 09:01 AM
In addition to leading us toward a loss in the GWoT,
So you're finally admitting that we're losing the GWoT while using more unecessary interventions. Take a look at it. It's not the media it's the policy you support that's leading us there.
....your blowback phobia would have led us to lose the war against communism too.
It's not a phobia. It's not rocket science and is STUPID, arrogant hubris. You're the one who suffers from a phobia regarding Islamofascism.

The Colds War was fought mostly using proxys and more sabre rattling.
It was not at all like the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War.

Put down the NC authors you're so fond of reading. This is not the Cold War not is it WWII. You favor a cookie cutter approach.

The Golden Rule is a good thought to keep in mind, but it can't be the sole guidepost of our foreign policy.

I'm not following the Golden Rule. That's you're opinion. It's a practical point. It works better.

I could make a chart showing all the blowback over 30 years. I also never said it should be a "guidepost" either, more a consideration of an after effect as in the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The world is a lot more like a prison yard than a convent, IMO.
You're words not mine. Promiscuous intervention, in the name of globalism or internationalism is a major "cause" of this current conflict.

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 09:06 AM
So you're finally admitting that we're losing the GWoT while using more unecessary interventions. Take a look at it. It's not the media it's the policy you support that's leading us there.


It's not a phobia. It's not rocket science and is STUPID, arrogant hubris. You're the one who suffers from a phobia regarding Islamofascism.

Put down the NC authors you're so fond of reading.



I'm not following the Golden Rule. That's you're opinion. It's a practical point. It works better.

I could make a chart showing all the blowback over 30 years.


You're words not mine. Promiscuous intervention, in the name of globalism or internationalism is a major "cause" of this current conflict.

Sorry BP but I have to disagree with you. Germany, Holland, Denmark and France have undertaken no such 'promiscuous interventions" and have major problems with the Muslim populations in their countries.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 09:07 AM
What nation haven't they invaded?
Militarily? Or are you talking ancient history?

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 09:14 AM
Sorry BP but I have to disagree with you. Germany, Holland, Denmark and France have undertaken no such 'promiscuous interventions" and have major problems with the Muslim populations in their countries.
That goes to their immigration policies and embracing multi-culturalism. Meanwhile we're doing the same in those areas. That's not exactly the same except as far as the Muslim's immigrating to take over as some sort of payback.

However, I have addressed that they've had issues with the west historically for a long time, due to constant outside intervention by the West in particular England and France which snuffed out Arab nationalism with their colonial attitude in the area. We took over the British Empire's Hat after the WW's as they were broke administering and warring for it's empire. History repeats. France eventually learned it's lesson in Algiers until they finally recognized they could not put down an insurgency there.

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 09:20 AM
That goes to their immigration policies and embracing multi-culturalism. Meanwhile we're doing the same in those areas. That's not exactly the same except as far as the Muslim's immigrating to take over as some sort of payback.

However, I have addressed that they've had issues with the west historically for a long time, due to constant outside intervention by the West in particular England and France which snuffed out Arab nationalism with their colonial attitude in the area. We took over the British Empire's Hat after the WW's as they were broke administering and warring for it's empire. History repeats. France eventually learned it's lesson in Algiers until they finally recognized they could not put down an insurgency there.

The reasoning in your rebuttal makes no sense to me BP because Germany, Holland and Denmark weren't colonial powers in Muslim nations. What 'payback' are they and the other nations of Europe due from these nutballs? Fact is, they try to spread their religion and their values through intimidation if persuasion doesn't work.

patteeu
07-14-2007, 09:41 AM
So you're finally admitting that we're losing the GWoT while using more unecessary interventions. Take a look at it. It's not the media it's the policy you support that's leading us there.

No, I'm not admitting such a thing. I don't know whether we are or not. I'm saying that your approach would lead us toward losing it.

It's not a phobia. It's not rocket science and is STUPID, arrogant hubris. You're the one who suffers from a phobia regarding Islamofascism.

The Colds War was fought mostly using proxys and more sabre rattling.
It was not at all like the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War.

Put down the NC authors you're so fond of reading. This is not the Cold War not is it WWII. You favor a cookie cutter approach.

Ironically, the Shah was one of our proxies. Our involvement in war-by-proxy generated blowback too. That's what I mean. Your no-blowback approach would have gone a long way toward helping the Soviet Union to win the cold war.

I'm not sure what is "cookie cutter" about the approach I favor. I favor an aggressive approach that is constantly refined and re-imagined as the threat evolves. I guess that's cookie-cutter if every cookie is unique. :shrug:

I could make a chart showing all the blowback over 30 years. I also never said it should be a "guidepost" either, more a consideration of an after effect as in the Law of Unintended Consequences.

On that point, I agree. We should certainly factor in the potential of blowback in any operation we consider. The Law of Unintended Consequences can't be repealed and, unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to being easily considered before the fact. However, we can't let the existence of such a Law paralyze us and prevent us from taking any action at all. There are unintended consequences associated with that course of action too.

patteeu
07-14-2007, 09:44 AM
Militarily? Or are you talking ancient history?

Don't limit yourself to thinking inside that box. Radical Islamists have already invaded the US, Western Europe, the entire Middle East, and large parts of Africa and Asia.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 09:52 AM
The reasoning in your rebuttal makes no sense to me BP because Germany, Holland and Denmark weren't colonial powers in Muslim nations. What 'payback' are they and the other nations of Europe due from these nutballs? Fact is, they try to spread their religion and their values through intimidation if persuasion doesn't work.
Who are they? They don't all do that even if there is some truth in that. I've been to the ME. The people were strange but I could walk the streets of Cairo at 3AM and not be harmed due to Islam. I couldn't do that in the west anywhere.

That pov comes from historical rancour and ancient history. Islam has divisions on such beliefs as well as abrogated verses. Infidel is not just a non believer but someone who has also done their people great harm. However, they are culturally different and some prefer to live under Sharia law which is anathema to a westerner. Some don't. They do have blood feuds between tribes too. That's how they fight. Reagan mentioned this when he pulled out of Beirut. I've posted that quote several times.

I'da rather we supported the original Arab nationalism, which was secular and which died after the 1967 War giving rise to the fundamentalists. (I commented on this earlier in detail). So this movement was still spawned by the European colonial powers in general, including even Russia...but I said "in particular" France and England. It wasn't all military either.

As for the immigration/cultural clash in other countries that's the failed policy of Europeans. It's balkanizing them. I only know of one incident in Holland. I don't know of others in the other countries except that Denmark was our ally in going into Iraq and those inflammatory cartoons came from there. They do go after our allies ( Spain) as well just as we support ours in their region. But I did not say all or those immigration issues are the same as not wanting our troops on their land.

BTW, I don't say there is no threat from this. I just think doing more of what spawned it, the exception being Afghanistan, is not the solution. It will make it worse which it has imo. I think it was exploited by certain interests in our govt
to establish more global hegemony a la Pax Americana just as the PNAC Mission Statement and a Clean Break stated.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 09:56 AM
Don't limit yourself to thinking inside that box. Radical Islamists have already invaded the US, Western Europe, the entire Middle East, and large parts of Africa and Asia.
Why not? You limited yourself the box you see things from. By those definitions then you see the Mexican immigration as an invasion.

BTW Africa was mostly Muslim anyways and Asia has a large Muslim population for a long time, long before 9/11. In fact, I believe India has one of the largest Muslim populations. Thank you for making my point, conventional warfare can't handle them. They're even in countries where the official govts are our allies.

You're trying to redefine words to win the argument.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 10:07 AM
Ya' know pat we've been through the same points before, over and over. I'm not going to go round with you in a circle again. That's my opinion.

If I don't respond don't think I've given in or agree.

If I have one suggestion to make, is crack a history book or two instead of Townhall, NR or Fox News. Get at least one from a non Western pov and even try Lawrence of Arabia, a westerner who witnessed some of the western betrayal.

Try "A History of the Arab Peoples"
Albert Houriani

He's written a bunch including "Europe and the Middle East." "Arabic Thought in a Liberal Age," "The Emergence of the Modern Middle East."

" a study that supercedes all earlier treatmenst...an astonishing feat."- Roy Mottahedeh, Harbard University

I'm not going to write a history book for ya'll on a BB. You can refer to my archive. There's plenty there.

patteeu
07-14-2007, 10:13 AM
Why not? You limited yourself the box you see things from. By those definitions then you see the Mexican immigration as an invasion.

BTW Africa was mostly Muslim anyways and Asia has a large Muslim population for a long time, long before 9/11. In fact, I believe India has one of the largest Muslim populations. Thank you for making my point, conventional warfare can't handle them. They're even in countries where the official govts are our allies.

You're trying to redefine words to win the argument.

No, you're trying to limit the definition of words to win one. As if a military invasion with a uniformed army is the only form a threat can take.

This isn't about Muslims, this is about Radical Islamists. Mexican immigration would only qualify as the type of invasion I'm talking about if it was done for the purpose of attacking us and I don't see much indication of that. To the extent that there may be some elements within the Mexican immigrant community that are so inclined (let's call them Radical Mexicanists) then, yes, it's an invasion too.

I agree that conventional warfare cannot handle all aspects of the GWoT. Thankfully, our current President realizes this as well and has taken a multi-dimensional approach to the problem. However, saying that conventional warfare is insufficient is different than saying it's not useful or necessary.

Adept Havelock
07-14-2007, 10:53 AM
BEP and ClevelandBronco:

To wrap up from last night, one statement and one thought:

BEP- As she refers to me as "Old Bastard" or "Old Man", of course she does. ;)

Both of you- JMO, but I think you are allowing your dislike of Unions to dominate your ability to reason on the subject. Personally, I find that belief as absurd and arrogant as it would be for me to claim that neither of you is capable of understanding or discussing science, or a non-supernatural viewpoint because you both embrace the idea of religion/spirituality/supernaturalism.

I certainly don't believe that, but perhaps that example can help you understand why I find your comments about the inability of Union members to understand and articulate other POV's to be equally as arrogant and absurd.

Again, JMO.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 11:05 AM
I certainly don't believe that, but perhaps that example can help you understand why I find your comments about the inability of Union members to understand and articulate other POV's to be equally as arrogant and absurd.

Again, JMO.

Well thank Zeus, it's only an opinion as was ours. Certainly, though, one could test all members to check out the matter scientifically. However, you're making an assumption here, which is that I dislike unions. You extrapolated that on your own. That's two valued logic, if one says one thing about something, it means the opposite is true.

One thing I had in mind when I said that, was that when they demand higher pay, that just gets passed on to the consumers a group to which they belong.
So they don't always gain the advantage they think they get. That would take an understanding of economics. I fail to see the absurdity or arrogance. I think you're being a tad emotional.

FTR I have nothing against joining a union in a free country, it's the right to assemble. I do have a problem with forcing workers to joing a union though...and taking things to the point that they destroy their own jobs. This does not mean I think management can't be unfair at times or that there wasn't a need for them at one time.

I only said they didn't understand capitalism...not fully anyway.

ClevelandBronco
07-14-2007, 05:00 PM
Sorry BP but I have to disagree with you. Germany, Holland, Denmark and France have undertaken no such 'promiscuous interventions" and have major problems with the Muslim populations in their countries.

Better examples than I gave. Good job, CHIEF4EVER.

This garbage on legs is waging jihad in lands that were never Islamic. If we got out of "their" lands tomorrow, we'd still be seeing what we're seeing in western Europe.

The radical Islamists see "their" lands as every place on earth. Until we make it too painful for them to bear, they're going to keep pushing.

ClevelandBronco
07-14-2007, 05:10 PM
That goes to their immigration policies and embracing multi-culturalism. Meanwhile we're doing the same in those areas. That's not exactly the same except as far as the Muslim's immigrating to take over as some sort of payback.

However, I have addressed that they've had issues with the west historically for a long time, due to constant outside intervention by the West in particular England and France which snuffed out Arab nationalism with their colonial attitude in the area. We took over the British Empire's Hat after the WW's as they were broke administering and warring for it's empire. History repeats.

If what you say above is true, then these guys are after us because of history, and history is unchangeable. We can't just withdraw from history and ask them to stand down.

France eventually learned it's lesson in Algiers until they finally recognized they could not put down an insurgency there.

So they allowed Algierians and others to immigrate. Now they'll have to figure out how to put down an insurgency in France. Brilliant plan.

No, I don't think France learned its lesson at all in Algiers.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 06:30 PM
If what you say above is true, then these guys are after us because of history, and history is unchangeable. We can't just withdraw from history and ask them to stand down.
I didn't say that. That's your interpretation...with a twist I might add.
I find that pov apathetic. Those who don't know history repeat it.

Recent history shows leaving troops on permanent bases on Saudi soil post PGWI is what began to bring terror to American shores...all through the 90's.
We may have won that war, but we did not win any peace. Leaving troops angered them ( amongst others). Even Wolfowitz owned up to it and he's a one of the leading NC architects of this war.

Rancour against the West, in general, comes from earlier history pre-Israeli conflict. Christian Muslim rancour toward each other comes from even earlier.
Of course, the Palestinian rancour stems from England's Balfour Declaration after promising them that land if they'd help them defeat the Ottomans.

The entire area of the ME has suffered from outside conquest for thousands of years, as they were on valuable trade routes at one time and now due to oil.
Just look up the history. You outta know that being a Bible guy. It is a big factor in their current mentality.

So they allowed Algierians and others to immigrate. Now they'll have to figure out how to put down an insurgency in France. Brilliant plan.

No, I don't think France learned its lesson at all in Algiers.
That's not what that meant. I was referring to the 8 year insurgency during the Algierian War 1954-1962 after years of occupation that was resented by Algierians. The French finally gave up and lost. Even in France the dark side of colonial rule isn't known by the French public as some Algierians claim. The Muslims from there hated them and claim they committed acts of genocide.

There is blowback in Europe from the Bosnian intervention as well. I think one of the Holland incidents stemmed from that. Germany's Muslims I believe are Turks mainly. These Muslims have not assimilated into those societies. I did not say all those countries incidents are blowback I said some was due to multiculturalism where they don't assimilate. But there is blowback in England, Spain and there were threats on Italy. That's just for Iraq.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 06:40 PM
This garbage on legs is waging jihad in lands that were never Islamic. If we got out of "their" lands tomorrow, we'd still be seeing what we're seeing in western Europe.
I can actually prove that incident by incident ...I just don't have the time.
There was a blow by blow account on the Independent Institute...if your really interested you can google and find a bunch there. But I know you won't.

For one after RR pulled the Marine's out of Beirut, the attacks died down.

"A country without memory is a country of madmen."--George Santayana

The radical Islamists see "their" lands as every place on earth. Until we make it too painful for them to bear, they're going to keep pushing.
Even though, it's unfeasible for them to carry something like that out.
You believe propaganda from the religious right.

"A country forges its progress and cultural future by remembering and building on the mistakes of the past – thus if the country has no past due to lack of memory – the future is uncertain and bound to be full of colossal mistakes." -- George Santayana

Logical
07-14-2007, 07:40 PM
I can actually prove that incident by incident ...I just don't have the time.
There was a blow by blow account on the Independent Institute...if your really interested you can google and find a bunch there. But I know you won't.

For one after RR pulled the Marine's out of Beirut, the attacks died down.

"A country without memory is a country of madmen."--George Santayana


Even though, it's unfeasible for them to carry something like that out.
You believe propaganda from the religious right.

"A country forges its progress and cultural future by remembering and building on the mistakes of the past – thus if the country has no past due to lack of memory – the future is uncertain and bound to be full of colossal mistakes." -- George Santayana

I tend to believe you are far too influenced by a limited set of authors/thinkers

Logical
07-14-2007, 07:42 PM
The reasoning in your rebuttal makes no sense to me BP because Germany, Holland and Denmark weren't colonial powers in Muslim nations. What 'payback' are they and the other nations of Europe due from these nutballs? Fact is, they try to spread their religion and their values through intimidation if persuasion doesn't work.This is an excellent example of why blowback does not fit as the primacy for Muslim extremism. I don't believe BEP will understand because she is too invested in her current set of beliefs to follow your reasoning.

penchief
07-14-2007, 07:56 PM
I tend to believe you are far too influenced by a limited set of authors/thinkers

I think you're right. BucEyedPea is obviously very well-read and very intelligent. Whether she believes it or not, I have a great deal of respect for her and her knowledge.

I just think she has consciously chosen to stand enthusiastically for something that is currently being exploited. Mainly because the neocons are a bunch of phonies who have chosen to hijack the conservative cause for political purposes.

IMO, that is the reason for her being offended by my responses to her posts and my being offended by her insistance that the neocons are doing the liberals' work.

Buc, if you're reading this.....we liberals want the same as you libertarians. Just as your causes have been hijacked by corporatists, our causes have been derided and scorned by them.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 10:30 PM
I tend to believe you are far too influenced by a limited set of authors/thinkers
I believe you are too influenced by the major media and the status quo.
I'll sticke with CIA pros and the 9/11 Commission report.

This is an excellent example of why blowback does not fit as the primacy for Muslim extremism. I don't believe BEP will understand because she is too invested in her current set of beliefs to follow your reasoning.

I think you need to read more carefully...I cited some other causes for some of those. I haven't read of any terror attacks by AQ there though. Pray tell...can you name any?

Mr. Kotter
07-14-2007, 10:36 PM
I believe you are too influenced by the major media and the status quo.
I'll sticke with CIA pros and the 9/11 Commission report.



I think you need to read more carefully...I cited some other causes for some of those. I haven't read of any terror attacks by AQ there though. Pray tell...can you name any?

So, are you Lisa Loeb? :shrug:

Cross thread reference, you may....as yet....be unaware of.... ;)

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 10:54 PM
To the folks who think Holland, Germany and Denmark have no troops on Muslim lands:

The Netherlands had troops in Iraq but have since pulled out.
Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands have troops in Afghanistan under NATO…in fact the list reads like the entire European continent.

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

According to the German govt's security officials Germany faces a heightened threat of terrorist attacks because of its military involvement in Afghanistan.


Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/world/europe/23germany.html?ex=1340251200&en=0d348f125d562641&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 11:10 PM
To the folks who think Holland, Germany and Denmark have no troops on Muslim lands:

The Netherlands had troops in Iraq but have since pulled out.
Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands have troops in Afghanistan under NATO…in fact the list reads like the entire European continent.

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

According to the German govt's security officials Germany faces a heightened threat of terrorist attacks because of its military involvement in Afghanistan.


Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/world/europe/23germany.html?ex=1340251200&en=0d348f125d562641&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

BAD argument BEP. I can say that because I was a resident of Germany. Germans have had a problem with their Muslim population LONG before Germany lended assistance to the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 11:19 PM
BAD argument BEP. I can say that because I was a resident of Germany. Germans have had a problem with their Muslim population LONG before Germany lended assistance to the NATO mission in Afghanistan.
No it's not a bad argument because I said they had other problems with them unrelated to having troops on their land. I said what I felt those were generally.
Initially, I was discussing terrorism not other problems inside a country with a certain group. So, it you take the original point a few shades off the original it's no longer the same point being made. It's a different argument.

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 11:31 PM
No it's not a bad argument because I said they had other problems with them unrelated to having troops on their land. I said what I felt those were generally.
Initially, I was discussing terrorism not other problems inside a country with a certain group. So, it you take the original point a few shades off the original it's no longer the same point being made. It's a different argument.

Where did you post that the Islamic terrorism problems in Germany, Denmark and Holland didn't derive from Imperialism? I can't seem to recall it. If I am missing something, please correct me BEP.

Logical
07-14-2007, 11:50 PM
...

As for the immigration/cultural clash in other countries that's the failed policy of Europeans. It's balkanizing them. I only know of one incident in Holland. I don't know of others in the other countries except that Denmark was our ally in going into Iraq and those inflammatory cartoons came from there. They do go after our allies ( Spain) as well just as we support ours in their region. But I did not say all or those immigration issues are the same as not wanting our troops on their land.

BTW, I don't say there is no threat from this. I just think doing more of what spawned it, the exception being Afghanistan, is not the solution. It will make it worse which it has imo. I think it was exploited by certain interests in our govt
to establish more global hegemony a la Pax Americana just as the PNAC Mission Statement and a Clean Break stated.Chief4ever, I think this is what she was referring to, part of a much longer response to you. I don't think it is a solid response but???

CHIEF4EVER
07-15-2007, 12:07 AM
Chief4ever, I think this is what she was referring to, part of a much longer response to you. I don't think it is a solid response but???

If that is what she is referring to, it has nothing to do with any sort of European Imperialism that would be eligible for the payback that I mentioned earlier.