In none of my posts have I referred to all Muslims. My responses to your posts have been directed at fundamentalist Muslims who support terrorism. Muslim fundamentalists are much more likely to support, applaud, and engage in terrorism as modern Christian fundamentalists. Attempts to paint fundamentalists of all religions with the same broad brush are ridiculous.

 

The biggest threat to US citizens both here and abroad is not Christian fundamentalist terrorists. The greatest threat to them is terror acts perpetrated by Muslim fundamentalists.

I'm sorry, I was unaware that Christian fundamentalist were so much better than Muslim fundamentalist.

 

I think the biggest threat is terrorist acts, regardless of faith.

In none of my posts have I referred to all Muslims. My responses to your posts have been directed at fundamentalist Muslims who support terrorism. Muslim fundamentalists are much more likely to support, applaud, and engage in terrorism as modern Christian fundamentalists. Attempts to paint fundamentalists of all religions with the same broad brush are ridiculous.

 

The biggest threat to US citizens both here and abroad is not Christian fundamentalist terrorists. The greatest threats to them are terror acts perpetrated by Muslim fundamentalists.

I think it's ridiculous to turn a blind eye to acts of violence committed by members of your own faith. I guess it's easier to point fingers at other religions.:irked:

Bush deserves credit for his post 9/11 efforts to fight all types of terror in this country.

He also deserves some criticism, as well, starting with Iraq ...

He also deserves some criticism, as well, starting with Iraq ...

Gee, there's something he hasn't gotten yet.

Yeah, its all about the Moslems hating the Great Satan. If that helps you sleep at night, then go ahead and believe it. If you want the truth about Moslem terrorism, below is a small part of the list terroristic acts by Muslims, none of which are against Americans.

 

2001 Indian Parliament attack

2001 attack on Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly

2002 Bali bombings

2002 Qasimnagar massacre of Kashmiri Pandits

2003 Casablanca bombings

2003 Istanbul bombings

2003 Nadigram killings of Kashmiri Hindus

2004 Australian embassy bombing

2004 Khobar massacre

2005 Alexandria riot

2005 killings of Christians in Nigeria

2006 Central Mindanao bombings

2006 Dahab bombings

2006 Doda massare of Hindus

2006 Varanasi bombings

2007 Casablanca bombings

21 July 2005 London bombings

Gee, there's something he hasn't gotten yet.

He deserves it ...

He deserves it ...

He's a politician, they all deserve it. So....

 

Do you give him credit when he deserves it?

He's a politician, they all deserve it. So....

 

Do you give him credit when he deserves it?

I was with Bush on the decision to go into Afghanistan. He lost me at Iraq ...

 

And, like I've said earlier, if we're going to give Bush credit for there not being another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, Clinton deserves some, too, for preventing one after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

As do Christian fundamentalist. Abortion clinic violence for instance is carried out by Christian fundamentalist. The Oklahoma City bombings carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols had their roots in Christian fundamentalism. Mormon fundamentalist do as well, read "Under the Banner of Heaven" an account of the vicious murders Ronald and Dan Lafferty committed in the name of God. Jewish fundamentalist have carried out many acts of violence in the Middle East.

 

My point being, it's not Islamic fundamentalist that are the problem. Fundamentalist in every religion have carried out heinous acts of violence all in the name of God. I think it's very unfair to stereotype that the problem lies within the Islamic faith, when in fact it can be found in the present, past, and unfortunately the future of all religions.

 

I never said there weren't terrible acts committed under the guise of Christianity...but, again, you missed the whole point.

 

The Koran specifically commands Muslims to kill people. A Muslim doesn't have to twist or distort his/her holy book to reach that conclusion...a Christian does. They're taking their book at its word and obeying it. A Christian terrorists is distorting the truth written in the book. That's the difference...

 

Please, until somebody can dispute that point, I'm not replying to this same response again.

Apparently, we know Iran has WMD...however, we've not attacked them! The crux of this is that W wanted to "flex his muscle", and Iraq was seen as a much more "winable" option than Iran. Of course we all remember that "shock and awe" was going to be the solution. It actually turned out to be a huge miscalculation, and apparently Americans were "shocked" that it didn't turn out as promised, and the only "awe" is the "awwww shucks, it didn't work" attitude of many who still can't admit the decision was flawed.

 

There was a nice opinion piece in yesterday's WSJ (page A14) concerning what Hussein told FBI agent George Piro. Piro debriefed Hussein after his capture. Hussein told Piro that while Hussein no longer had active WMD programs in 2003, he intended to resume them as soon as he possibly could including chemical, biological and even nuclear. The opinion piece then quoted the LA times as having reported in December of 2000, the "sanctions are crumbling among U.S. allies, who have begun challenging them with dozens of unauthorized flights into Iraq". The opinion piece then states "And as we learned after the invasion, Saddam was well on his way to breaking free of the sanctions by bribing everyone froma British member of parliament to a former French cabinet minister, all through a U.N. convenience know as Oil for Food". The opinion piece's conclusion: the removal of Hussein was a necessity.

 

Which is kind of my thought on the whole WMD issue. I'm very glad they did not exist when our troops went in. I don't care whether Bush was wrong on the issue or intentionally misled us as to the presence of WMDs (well, it would bother me if he lied) but even if he did lie, that does not relieve the necessity of getting rid of Hussein. I have zero trust in the U. N. or for that matter some of our allies that were going to deal with Hussein for their own monetary benefit. Hussein confirmed what the person whom had been in charge of his WMD programs told us: at the earliest opportunity, he was going to resurrect his programs. And I believe that the sanctions were on their way out.

 

By the way, the focus of the opinion piece was actually pointing out how 60 Minutes tried to bury the above part of Piro's interview. Shame on 60 Minutes. I fervently believe that if the national media was presenting all the facts in the proper light, a lot more of America would determine that invading Iraq to rid the world of a very dangerous man was the right thing and a very necessary thing to do.

 

I'm sure I won't convince the Bush haters of that; then again, I'm not sure any one or any thing can ever convince the Bush haters that he's ever done any thing right. Sad.

 

By the way, for those of you that do not read the WSJ, you should. Of all the newspapers I read, I consider it to be the best, most balanced of them all. Excellent reporting and very well researched.

I was with Bush on the decision to go into Afghanistan. He lost me at Iraq ...

 

And, like I've said earlier, if we're going to give Bush credit for there not being another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, Clinton deserves some, too, for preventing one after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

I have no problem with that.

Hasty? He had been thumbing his nose for how long at the UN sanctions. 10 years? How long does a person get to disregard the demands placed on him by the world till he has to pay for it?

 

The thing is that Hillary said last night that for a fact he had some "a lot of bad stuff." Where it went, I guess he destroyed it has he said he did AFTER the fact.

 

But also remember in his interrogation, he made the claim that he was purposely doing things WANTING everyone to believe that he had the stuff. He wanted to prevent an Iran invasion. He never anticipated that USA would come in and take care of him.

 

Hillary says we know that he had it.

Saddam says he wanted and did things to make everyone believe that he had it.

And somehow GW is the one to blame for believing what was KNOWN according to Hillary and what Saddam he wanted them to believe.

 

After the initial war, could it have been handled better. Seems like it could. But to say he was wrong for going in, I don't think that is the case.

 

 

Yes, I said hasty. Iraq said it did not have WMD and guess what? It didn't. The UN violations all come down to things like conventional missiles with ranges that exceeded limits the UN imposed after Gulf War I. The weapons inspectors had been let back in but were only able to do their work for a few months before Bush decided arbitrarily that it was time to start a war. The Iraq invasion demonstrated his unwillingness or ignorance to consider the doctrine of proportionality. It would have served U.S. interests in the world far more effectively if the President would have employed reasonable restraint in his pre-invasion dealings with Saddam Hussein. He had the upper hand--international resolve to apply pressure, the re-admission of weapons inspectors, a large and visible military force massed on the Iraqi border. Rather than press international community to honor the terms of their sanctions and let the inspections play out, Bush went in with guns blazing and created the mess we have been paying for the last five years. It was the equivalent of shooting first and asking questions later.

 

Bush seems completely unaware of subtlety and nuance. To him there is no gray, only black and white when in reality the world is full of grays. The U.S. and the world will be safer when he takes his drinking-buddy-style foreign policy with him when he leaves office next year.

Yes, I said hasty. Iraq said it did not have WMD and guess what? It didn't. .

 

Remember Hillary Clinton just said in the last debate that they KNEW Saddam had a lot of bad stuff after the first Gulf War.

 

It seems it was a fact during the Clinton years that Saddam had "bad stuff" which I assume means WMD.

 

Remember he had used gas warfare on his own people so we know he DID have them at one point and would USE them.

 

Remember while Iraq was publically saying they had them, Saddam himself said they were still doing things to indicate that they did HAVE THEM. He wanted countries to believe he had them even though he was publically saying he did not have them. He wanted to ward off an Iran invasion and expected at best bombing from GW like Clinton did. And that did not bother him.

 

He expected what he thought was a weak response from the US like Clinton pulled and did not get what he expected.

Yes, I said hasty. Iraq said it did not have WMD and guess what? It didn't. The UN violations all come down to things like conventional missiles with ranges that exceeded limits the UN imposed after Gulf War I. The weapons inspectors had been let back in but were only able to do their work for a few months before Bush decided arbitrarily that it was time to start a war. The Iraq invasion demonstrated his unwillingness or ignorance to consider the doctrine of proportionality. It would have served U.S. interests in the world far more effectively if the President would have employed reasonable restraint in his pre-invasion dealings with Saddam Hussein. He had the upper hand--international resolve to apply pressure, the re-admission of weapons inspectors, a large and visible military force massed on the Iraqi border. Rather than press international community to honor the terms of their sanctions and let the inspections play out, Bush went in with guns blazing and created the mess we have been paying for the last five years. It was the equivalent of shooting first and asking questions later.

 

Bush seems completely unaware of subtlety and nuance. To him there is no gray, only black and white when in reality the world is full of grays. The U.S. and the world will be safer when he takes his drinking-buddy-style foreign policy with him when he leaves office next year.

 

Come on H. Read personal accounts of the inspectors and they almost all said that Hussein jerked them around repeatedly as they tried to do their inspection duties. They were followed so the targeted inspection sites could be forewarned; they were denied access at sites for hours; and when they got access it looked to them that the sites had been sanitized. It that's your idea of allowing the inspectors to do their jobs, you and I have completely different opinions on that.

 

And for the longest time Iraq intentionally misled folks to believe that Iraq had WMDs to discourage Iran. It turned out to be a great bluff, but a stupid one at that.

 

If Hussein truly wanted to avoid an invasion, he should have fully cooperated with the inspectors. He DID NOT and he and he alone is responsible for the invasion occurring. I fully understand your position that he should have been given even more time; but to argue that he was not given enough time isn't a solid argument in my mind. At some point, if you are the President of the United States, you have to take action. Should he have waited another couple of month, maybe. Then again, its really easy to second guess that decision now. Had he waited several more months and Hussein used that time to create a stock pile of chemical and biological weapons (which are easily created) and then used them against our troops with deadly effect, there would have been a lot of Americans calling for Bush's head for the unnecessary deaths of our young men and women and I would have been one of them.

 

Why any American trusted Hussein to do the right thing over the long haul, given his past behavior and his insanity, is truly bewildering to me. Why any American trusts the UN to strictly enforce and keep in place the sanctions against Iraq is equally bewildering to me.

 

Iraq is not a good situation right now, I totally agree. I can only hope that with the country a safer place now, that the political mess can be solved. But even if it isn't, there's one less lunatic leading a country sworn to do us harm.

 

And I put zero stock in the argument that the invasion turned Muslims formerly friendly to the US, or even neutral, into hating us. We were hated ferociously before the invasion. 9/11 was before the invasion. The first attack on the WTC was before the invasion. There were many attacks against us by Islamic extremists before the invasion. Why?

 

Because we are the shining beacon for secular countries. We allow religious freedom; we allow democracy; we allow women and minorities to have rights. We are everything that the fanatics hate. And I am glad and proud of that.

Come on H. Read personal accounts of the inspectors and they almost all said that Hussein jerked them around repeatedly as they tried to do their inspection duties. They were followed so the targeted inspection sites could be forewarned; they were denied access at sites for hours; and when they got access it looked to them that the sites had been sanitized. It that's your idea of allowing the inspectors to do their jobs, you and I have completely different opinions on that.

 

And for the longest time Iraq intentionally misled folks to believe that Iraq had WMDs to discourage Iran. It turned out to be a great bluff, but a stupid one at that.

 

If Hussein truly wanted to avoid an invasion, he should have fully cooperated with the inspectors. He DID NOT and he and he alone is responsible for the invasion occurring. I fully understand your position that he should have been given even more time; but to argue that he was not given enough time isn't a solid argument in my mind. At some point, if you are the President of the United States, you have to take action. Should he have waited another couple of month, maybe. Then again, its really easy to second guess that decision now. Had he waited several more months and Hussein used that time to create a stock pile of chemical and biological weapons (which are easily created) and then used them against our troops with deadly effect, there would have been a lot of Americans calling for Bush's head for the unnecessary deaths of our young men and women and I would have been one of them.

 

Why any American trusted Hussein to do the right thing over the long haul, given his past behavior and his insanity, is truly bewildering to me. Why any American trusts the UN to strictly enforce and keep in place the sanctions against Iraq is equally bewildering to me.

 

Iraq is not a good situation right now, I totally agree. I can only hope that with the country a safer place now, that the political mess can be solved. But even if it isn't, there's one less lunatic leading a country sworn to do us harm.

 

And I put zero stock in the argument that the invasion turned Muslims formerly friendly to the US, or even neutral, into hating us. We were hated ferociously before the invasion. 9/11 was before the invasion. The first attack on the WTC was before the invasion. There were many attacks against us by Islamic extremists before the invasion. Why?

 

Because we are the shining beacon for secular countries. We allow religious freedom; we allow democracy; we allow women and minorities to have rights. We are everything that the fanatics hate. And I am glad and proud of that.

 

:thumb: