redlegphi

But, the religious folks in the "Jesus" thread are telling us we should "turn the other cheek" and not fight back against evil! It should be enough for us to know that god will punish these evil girls when they die, some 50 years in the future, and therefore we should endure all their bullying and do nothing. Because violence never solves anything. They aren't "evil". They're teenage girls with an extremely poor upbringing and an extremely misguided sense of their own import in the world. Maybe by the time they hit college, they'll get a little dose of reality and the impact of what they've done will hit them square in the chest.

Many of them do think like that. We are trying to keep that idea from taking hold any more than it already has. At most bases in Afghanistan I visited, the US and Afghan flags flew side by side. This is not an accident, nor is it liberal, pussy, PC shit. The Afghans obviously know that Arericans are in their country. The message we try to stay on (and things like these scopes distract from) is, "We are here to help you help yourselves." The messages we desperately want to avoid broadcasting are, "We are here to occupy and force you to live like us," and, "We are here to destroy Islam and replace it with Christianity." That's what the enemy wants the people to think. Little things like these scopes, or soldiers passing out Bibles, or big things like collateral damage to mosques, or mullahs being accidentally lit up like what happened earlier this week, make it really hard to maintain a consistent message. Well said. Couldn't agree more.

We're in an IO war. IO wars can be won or lost on seemingly insignificant events. For example, was Abu Gharaib a "big deal"? While it was certainly well outside of what we expect of American Soldiers, much worse happened in that prison while it was being run by Saddam. But it became a big deal because it played right into insurgency and AQ talking points about how the Americans were here to occupy Iraq and were no better than Saddam. The bible verses on the sights are ammunition for our enemies' IO wings. Will they lose the war for us? No, of course not. But they can be used by enemy recruiters to convince recruits that this war is a justified holy war to defend Islam from the invading Christians. That's the exact opposite of our goal.

Wait, wait, wait . . . doesn't the Lord's prayer specifically say "GIVE US this day our daily bread"? Wasn't it Jesus that fed the 5,000? So, you're saying that the State should adopt Christian principles? I obviously can't speak for quade, but I'd say that there are some Christian principles which also happen to be principles that are beneficial for running a state.

I'm pretty sure the Native Americans would disagree with this statement. Also, it's irrelevent, as the founding document of our nation and its subsequent edits have made it clear that our nation has no national religion. Hopefully, it never will.

Since he isn't making his statement in German he might want to shut the hell up. You know, I agree that the French guy is an idiot, but at some point we really have to stop thinking that our contributions in WW2 mean we have a free pass to do what we want. Like spending hundreds of millions of dollars helping a disaster area? How arrogant of us to win WWII AND provide humanitarian aid to Haiti. I think you missed my point. My bad. To clarify, my point is that if we want to argue that our troops in Haiti is a good thing (which is a good thing) then we should just make that argument based on its merits instead of suggesting that some idiot opposed to our troops being there has no right to speak because of our actions in WW2. Argue from reason, not emotion.

In the end they'll find any excuse to accuse the Unites States of engaging in a holy war. I just wonder how some here would feel if these were references to verses in the Koran instead of the Bible. My guess would be that these same people would be up in arms going, going ape s%$t and would want to hang the execs of this company for promoting terrorism. ...um...they've already been clamoring that the US has been engaged in a "holy war", and "they" have already stated they are in a hold war with us... Yes, but not everybody believes it...until the fundies get something like this to use as a propaganda/recruitment tool. I agree, it's stupid to get worked up over this, but it's probably also going to lead to a couple more idiots joining the side that wants to blow us up. Above all else, we're in a global IO war and we still aren't very good at fighting it.

Since he isn't making his statement in German he might want to shut the hell up. You know, I agree that the French guy is an idiot, but at some point we really have to stop thinking that our contributions in WW2 mean we have a free pass to do what we want.

4) More time spent getting free publicity from our corporate media by going on their shows. I'm not a big fan of giving even more power to the media who have already shown themselves to be largely incompetent in basic reporting skills and/or biased in one direction or the other.

No, he's not. Sorry. If your boyfriend was a skydiver, he would never have missed a trip to the DZ, let alone a trip to the DZ where his girlfriend was going to make a jump. Even if his back hurt, he didn't have to jump, but to not go to the DZ at all? While I"m leaning towards the "not a skydiver" side of this, there are other possibilities. For example, maybe he's a douchebag and nobody at the DZ likes him, so he doesn't want to go. Or maybe he got banned for doing something stupid. Who knows. There are lots of reasons for him to possibly make up reasons why he couldn't go jumping. He does sound like a tool box though.

We used them for cigarette papers in the 80's when we were teenagers! I'm sure they have plenty of other good purposes, like a door stop, wind drift indicator, tinder for lighting the fireplace... No problem, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the reader it is just another book. I don't hold the Bible (or Quran or Torah or whatever) to be particularly special. At the same time, I understand that other people do, so I try to treat it (them) with respect. Just because we don't think something is special doesn't mean we need to be rude to those who do. YMMV

>Yes, because they are animals. This is a circular argument. I can make the same argument in favor of eating man. "Is it OK to eat man?" "Yes, because they are man." "Oh, OK then." Logical fail. >They are here to serve Man not to be served by Man. I would argue that it's not demonstrable that they're here to serve man or to be served by man. They are simply here. As far as I know, they don't have a purpose statement stamped onto their bodies somewhere. >They do not have a soul. Prove it. >They are not held accountable. They most certainly are. Dogs that attack humans will be executed. Same goes for pretty much any other animal. It doesn't get much more accountable than that.

Yeah, I've watched a couple episodes of Whale Wars and was immediately struck by how incompetent the crew seemed. Had I donated money to fund their operation, I'd probably be pissed. That said, Paul Watson does seem to have some concept of how to fight an IO fight. I would wager that not only was this collision his fault, it was intentionally orchestrated by him to draw attention to "the cause". In essence, he's traded a 2 million dollar boat for publicity.

Or maybe not... Well then, I do not know why Bush did it either. Stupid on both counts Maybe because he was a Brit? What the judge said to Reid after the sentence was passed: "'You are not an enemy combatant, you are a terrorist' ... 'You are not a soldier in any army, you are a terrorist. To call you a soldier gives you far too much stature." Here's the full quote from the Reid judge, which I think lays out really well why it's important that we treat these people like the criminals they are: We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice. You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice. So war talk is way out of line in this court. You're a big fellow. But you're not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense Trooper Santiago had it right when first you were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and you said you're no big deal. You're no big deal.

Since I am, indeed, quite the ass hole, I'll point out that the new decade doesn't start for another year. Much like the new millenium didn't start until 2001. You're welcome.

what i'm talking about is that the UN is not an unbiased body and its resolutions cannot be taken as fair. ...unless they can be used to justify the American invasion of Iraq.

I'm currently in Iraq, which I think you'll acknowledge is a largely Muslim country. Most of the young men I meet on a daily basis don't have beards. Most dress in western clothing almost exclusively. Those who wear traditional Arabic clothing tend to also have western style clothing they can wear, depending on the event. And claiming that most Muslims pray 5 times a day is like claiming most Catholics go to Mass every Sunday. Also, every single one of the customs you've mentioned can be changed prior to showing up at the airport, making its use for screening potential terror candidates absolutely useless. Ugh.... My point is this: I will make this as simple as I can for you, and you, and you. If I asked you to post a picture of someone most resembling the following groups of people do you think you would be able to do it. -Orthodox Jew -Rastafarian -Cowboy -Muslim -Buddhist Monk Feel free to use 'Google Images'. I think it will help you out. The fact is, as I stated in my initial post that although these are generalizations and not representative of ALL they are still descriptions. Now I'm sure those of you who are arguing against this point will dodge this challenge... and come back with one of your 'I know you are but what am I' reply's. So please give me a simple "yes or no" answer to this question: If I used 'Google Images' to find a picture representative of the aforementioned groups of people and showed them to the average person, do you think they would be able to identify which group the person in the picture most resembled? I think you're confusing "Muslim" with "Arab" with "terrorist". Not all Muslims are Arabs (in fact, the vast majority aren't) and therefore don't conform to Arabian dress norms. A Muslim in Saudi Arabia doesn't look like a Muslim in Nigeria doesn't look like a Muslim in Somalia doesn't look like a Muslim in Indonesia doesn't look like a Muslim in Afghanistan etc. To complicate matters, Muslims from any of those countries can choose to dress in the tradition of their country or, as more and more are doing, choose to dress in the western style. Finally, regardless of how an individual Muslim may dress, he/she can choose to dress/appear in a completely different way prior to showing up at the airport. It wouldn't be that hard for Osama bin Laden to shave his beard and throw on some western style clothes and show up at the airport next to you in line, looking like a perfectly normal guy. Which means trying to pick out the Muslims for special screening is a completely useless technique for trying to prevent terror attacks. Also, it dehumanizes approximately a sixth of the population of the world. Being dehumanized tends to make people angry, which tends to make them want to blow stuff up, so your plan to search all the Muslims would likely increase terrorist attacks.

I'm currently in Iraq, which I think you'll acknowledge is a largely Muslim country. Most of the young men I meet on a daily basis don't have beards. Most dress in western clothing almost exclusively. Those who wear traditional Arabic clothing tend to also have western style clothing they can wear, depending on the event. And claiming that most Muslims pray 5 times a day is like claiming most Catholics go to Mass every Sunday. Also, every single one of the customs you've mentioned can be changed prior to showing up at the airport, making its use for screening potential terror candidates absolutely useless.

"Muslim" is a generalization true... but chances are if you put a muslim, a mormon and a lutheran in a line-up you would be able to pick out the muslim by that very description. The majority of muslims will fit a certain description just as the majority of mormons will also fit a certain description. So yes, even though it is a generalization it can be helpful in a description. It's hard to imagine why some Muslims might feel that they're being dehumanized, leading to them being filled with rage at certain western nations.

There's a theory that AQ not only expected us to invade Afghanistan, they wanted us to. That was the overarching goal behind the attacks. Because, as OBL saw in the Soviet-Afghan wars, a foreign nation invading Islamic territory is pretty much the best recruitment tool he can ask for. It also disproportionately sucks cash from our side. In that vein, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was OBL's wet dream.

My gawd, another head in the sander! Yes, because I know that I and my fellow military commanders get daily calls from the White House on who we should and shouldn't hit with non-judicial punishment.

I beieive that God is invisible, spirit, light, and power. Does make me a fundamentalist? Just out of curiousity? Just out of curiosity, does your invisible light god exist on the IR or UV end of the spectrum?

It's a product of our two party system. Both parties govern from the center because they know that most of the fringe voters in their party will vote for them regardless (because to protest them by not voting or by voting for a minor party candidate could lead to the opposition winning). Instant-runoff voting would help fix that, allowing better representation of all elements of society (even the whackos) which could lead to a legislative body that would actually build legislation through intelligent debate and compromise instead of the ridiculous system we have now where you can't get shit done if you don't have a super-majority in the Senate. Sadly, it'll never happen because there's no way either party is going to enact a system that would guarantee they'd have less power.

They're being court martialed because they refused to accept a lesser punishment (Article 15). This tells me that either their lawyer has told them that they have a really good case or that they think they have a really good case. Either way, in my experience, UCMJ tends to be pretty fair towards the defendants, so if they did nothing wrong, then they'll get off. If they did something wrong, they'll probably be punished appropriately. As for following the rules no longer elevating us, the writer got that exactly wrong. Following the rules elevates us even more. More importantly, events like this (if proven) and Abu Gharaib are IO losses. In the Global War on Terror (or whatever the hell we're calling it now) IO losses are of much more impact than physical battlefield wins.

It is actually much simpler than you think. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that who ever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." Our good & moral works will never cut it. HAVE A WONDERFUL CHRISTMAS!!!!! ... The power in the life of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is not His birth but rather in His death. Therein lies the gift. Merry Christmas; Easter is coming. Except then Jesus supposedly rose from the dead three days later. So John 3:16 should really start off "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son and then took him back...". Death really doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice if it's not eternal.