Islam is evil...

[Gunny]

He dropped bombs on Baghdad. Bombs make fire. Did you sleep through 2003?

You are incorrect on several levels. One, your statement "Bush lit Baghdad on fire," is a lie. Two, bombs do not necesarily make fire, so you are uninformed.

Third, not only did I support the second Gulf War, I participated in the first one. In neither case, did I read, hear nor was I otherwise informed that US troops used incendiary munitions.

To summarize, you are full of shit.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You are incorrect on several levels. One, your statement "Bush lit Baghdad on fire," is a lie. Two, bombs do not necesarily make fire, so you are uninformed.

Third, not only did I support the second Gulf War, I participated in the first one. In neither case, did I read, hear nor was I otherwise informed that US troops used incendiary munitions.

To summarize, you are full of shit.

Does not every bomb involve combustion of some combustible material? Doesn't combustion involve fire? Your not dropping water balloons, are you?

So its OK to start fires, as long as the bombs you drop weren't specifically designed to cause the largest possible fire for the amount of explosives in them?

What about all the civilians who died, and continue to die, from US bombs? Was that in the name of God or big business?

 

[Gunny]

Does not every bomb involve combustion of some combustible material? Doesn't combustion involve fire? Your not dropping water balloons, are you?

So its OK to start fires, as long as the bombs you drop weren't specifically designed to cause the largest possible fire for the amount of explosives in them?

What about all the civilians who died, and continue to die, from US bombs? Was that in the name of God or big business?

Only bombs specifically designed as incindiary are used for the purpose of creating fire. Basically, you're trying to take combustion out of context and misuse it to suit your left-wingnut agenda.

There is no war against noncombatants anywhere but in the liberal mind. Noncombatants become casualties of war, but they are not targetted by the US military.

While you're shedding all your crocodile tears for them, be sure and drop one or two for the non-Iraqi and Iraqi noncombatants tagetted and murdered by the criminals you seem to omit from your one-sided, dishonest argument.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Only bombs specifically designed as incindiary are used for the purpose of creating fire.

So only bombs which are designed to set fires - actually set fires, and bombs which are not designed to set fires, never set anything on fire?

Basically, you're trying to take combustion out of context and misuse it to suit your left-wingnut agenda.

There is no war against noncombatants anywhere but in the liberal mind. Noncombatants become casualties of war, but they are not targetted by the US military.

So Bush didn't know that our bombing campaign would result in civilian losses?

While you're shedding all your crocodile tears for them, be sure and drop one or two for the non-Iraqi and Iraqi noncombatants tagetted and murdered by the criminals you seem to omit from your one-sided, dishonest argument.

So killing innocent people is OK as long as other people do it, too? OK. I get it.

 

[Gunny]

So only bombs which are designed to set fires - actually set fires, and bombs which are not designed to set fires, never set anything on fire?

You just don't give up being a dishonest idiot, do you? I did not state they NEVER set fires. I can happen.

That STILL is not "Bush setting fire to Baghdad."

So Bush didn't know that our bombing campaign would result in civilian losses?

Civilian losses are regretable, but acceptable. That's the way wars have been fought since the very first one. It isn't going to change. Find something else to rant about and quit acting like the US is somehow worse for doing it.

So killing innocent people is OK as long as other people do it, too? OK. I get it.

I neither implied nor stated such. Just your usual way of thinking coming to the fore.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So did some buildings in Baghdad burn to the ground because of bombs that Bush ordered be dropped there or not? Make up your mind.




So your saying its OK to kill innocent civilians as long as its because you invaded a foreign country that you wanted to wage war on?

 

[Merlin]

So did some buildings in Baghdad burn to the ground because of bombs that Bush ordered be dropped there or not? Make up your mind.




So your saying its OK to kill innocent civilians as long as its because you invaded a foreign country that you wanted to wage war on?

Why do you keep saying "Bush did this, or Bush did that?" Congress authorized the bombing of Iraq which is made up of Democrats and Republicans alike. The President may have power, but he doesn't have that much. And yes, it is perfectly ok and acceptable to have civilian causalities in a war. There has never been a war without civilian causalities and never will be. And there will be war as long as the world exist. Good Lord, wake up and smell the coffee, and while you are at it, GROW UP!!!!!!!!!

 

[Powerman]

Why do you keep saying "Bush did this, or Bush did that?" Congress authorized the bombing of Iraq which is made up of Democrats and Republicans alike. The President may have power, but he doesn't have that much. And yes, it is perfectly ok and acceptable to have civilian causalities in a war. There has never been a war without civilian causalities and never will be. And there will be war as long as the world exist. Good Lord, wake up and smell the coffee, and while you are at it, GROW UP!!!!!!!!!

I agree. Civilian casualties happen. We try to avoid them but it's not always possible. And I'm the 3rd person in a row from Louisiana to post. Sweet.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why do you keep saying "Bush did this, or Bush did that?" Congress authorized the bombing of Iraq which is made up of Democrats and Republicans alike. The President may have power, but he doesn't have that much. And yes, it is perfectly ok and acceptable to have civilian causalities in a war. There has never been a war without civilian causalities and never will be. And there will be war as long as the world exist. Good Lord, wake up and smell the coffee, and while you are at it, GROW UP!!!!!!!!!

Uhh, no.

Congress authorized the President to make the decision of whether or not to bomb. They didn't order him to bomb Iraq. Bush was the one who decided "hey, I think I'm going to bomb Iraq". Congress merely abdicated their authority.


Bush made the decision to bomb.






So, I think you misspoke. What you meant to say was that its OK for the US to kill innocent civilians in war, because we are the good guys, but not OK for our enemies to, because they are the bad guys.
Or, did you mean to say that civilian casualites are unavoidable in war, which is why you don't go around starting wars?

 

[Merlin]

Uhh, no.

Congress authorized the President to make the decision of whether or not to bomb. They didn't order him to bomb Iraq. Bush was the one who decided "hey, I think I'm going to bomb Iraq". Congress merely abdicated their authority.


Bush made the decision to bomb.






So, I think you misspoke. What you meant to say was that its OK for the US to kill innocent civilians in war, because we are the good guys, but not OK for our enemies to, because they are the bad guys.
Or, did you mean to say that civilian casualites are unavoidable in war, which is why you don't go around starting wars?

What I meant to say is, Bush's biggest mistake was not taking the Enola Gay out of retirement (so to speak) and making glass out of all that sand in Iraq and daring any of the other countries to say anything.

 

[Powerman]

What I meant to say is, Bush's biggest mistake was not taking the Enola Gay out of retirement (so to speak) and making glass out of all that sand in Iraq and daring any of the other countries to say anything.

Well I suppose they wouldn't have called it Iraqi Freedom in that case. Maybe they would have called it something like Operation Let's Start A Global Nuclear War instead.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What I meant to say is, Bush's biggest mistake was not taking the Enola Gay out of retirement (so to speak) and making glass out of all that sand in Iraq and daring any of the other countries to say anything.

Because unprovoked mass genocide is the American way of life.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well I suppose they wouldn't have called it Iraqi Freedom in that case. Maybe they would have called it something like Operation Let's Start A Global Nuclear War instead.

Or

Operation: Making the U.S. Worse Than 1000 Saddam Husseins Plus Four Hitlers and a Stalin

 

[Powerman]

Or

Operation: Making the U.S. Worse Than 1000 Saddam Husseins Plus Four Hitlers and a Stalin

Exactly. I'm trying to figure out how massive genocide on civilians will help us fight the war on terror. It's people like this that make the good folks of Louisiana like ourselves look like idiots.

Nuking Iraq might be one of the only ways to guarantee that we would get attacked again soon.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Exactly. I'm trying to figure out how massive genocide on civilians will help us fight the war on terror. It's people like this that make the good folks of Louisiana like ourselves look like idiots.

Nuking Iraq might be one of the only ways to guarantee that we would get attacked again soon.

If we don't nuke them, we are just appeasing the terrorists.

 

[Powerman]

If we don't nuke them, we are just appeasing the terrorists.

Of course. Everyone knows that. We're just waiting to find their own weapons of mass destruction to bomb them with so we don't have to waste ours.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because unprovoked mass genocide is the American way of life.

You know, genocide isn't an accusation that should be tossed around lightly. Accusing your political opponents of genocide without evidence doesn't really help your cause and it trivializes real acts of genocide.

Of course, you could just be completely ignorant of what genocide means. But I doubt that is the case.

Enough people will be killed in the future. There is no need to rush the killing of others.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You know, genocide isn't an accusation that should be tossed around lightly. Accusing your political opponents of genocide without evidence doesn't really help your cause and it trivializes real acts of genocide.

Of course, you could just be completely ignorant of what genocide means. But I doubt that is the case.

Enough people will be killed in the future. There is no need to rush the killing of others.

Are you serious? I was responding to Merlin's suggestion that we nuke the entire nation of Iraq. I think you're the one who doesn't know what genocide means! Are you saying that turning a nation of over 25 million people into a complete nuclear wasteland doesn't qualify as genocide? How many millions of one nationality do you need to kill for it be a genocide for crying outloud?

Please tell me your kidding, or you can't read, or both?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Are you serious? I was responding to Merlin's suggestion that we nuke the entire nation of Iraq. I think you're the one who doesn't know what genocide means! Are you saying that turning a nation of over 25 million people into a complete nuclear wasteland doesn't qualify as genocide? How many millions of one nationality do you need to kill for it be a genocide for crying outloud?

Please tell me your kidding, or you can't read, or both?

Still not genocide. WHites will die. Blacks will die, whoever is around, will die.

Our nation should not lay down and die from guilt as you seem to think it should. Iran's refusal to backdown will get it transformed into glass, as it should. You need to learn to put things in context instead of just taking them out of context to prove your assinine points.

 

[Mariner]

You're Osama bin Laden's dream.

His whole hope in committing 9/11 was to get Christians to hate Muslims, so he could further inflame Muslims to hate Christians. You're playing right along. Want to fight Osama bin Laden? Find a way to love Muslims. Doesn't Christianity say to love everyone?

People who say, "Well, Christianity isn't violent now, but Islam is," aren't making a lot of sense to me. Christianity has been brutally violent. Crusades? The Inquisition, anyone? Colonialism? Without the arrogant our-religion-is-better-than-yours feeling that Christianity gave them, the European nations would lost a major justification for their brutal colonial projects around the world. Look at all the cultures around the world whose native religions and ideas were steamrollered by missionaries. Think of Hawaii, where surfing culture was killed off by prudish Christians who thought bathing suits should start at the ankles. If you add up all the pain caused by these forms of Christian violence and oppression, it makes 9/11 look like a drop in the bucket.

I also believe that Christianity has been a great force for good. I'm married to a Christian. But I think that Christians who want to be honest need to acknowledge that their religion has its own ghosts in the closet. Islam was not the provocateur in the Crusades, which is when all this started. The first move was made by the Christians, against a peacable, multicultural Islamic kingdom that was far in advance of Europe in science, philosophy, and the arts at the time.

I eat lunch every day at one of two Muslim-owned restaurants. One owner maintains a "shrine for peace" in his restaurant, with posters and brochures about dozens of interfaith peace initiatives. The other family runs a hair salon, restaurant, and grocery. Good people. I don't hold it against them that my father's family was expelled from Pakistan by other Muslims 55 years ago. Maybe we shouldn't hold it against all Muslims that a few have become extremists.

Mariner.