#124573 by cyrena on 1/05 at 2:30 pm
(2097 comments total)

Missy,

I love this!! Thanks for posting it. Needless to say, some of us have grown very weary pointing these things out.

It annoys me to no end, to have these morons claim that ALL of the “Founders” were religious men, (and Christian).

Then we need only look at the Constitution, to see that the ‘Christian’ part of it would appear to be ‘in name only’.

Were these same ‘Christians’ not responsible for the Fugitive Slave Act, of 1787, which later threatened a Constitutional crises, because so many people (who DID consider themselves ‘Christians’ - abolitionists among them) refused to comply with the law, because they believed it to be immoral, even though it WAS the law?

Thing is, none of the people that are arguing this whole ‘Christian’ principals thing, as fundamental to the Constitution, have any idea what they’re talking about. They base it on their own rabid ideology, and reach for any interpretation that they think will support it.

It doesn’t, but of course they cannot be convinced of that, because they’re stupid, and they don’t WANNA be convinced.
===================================================

Except for the kiffiyehs and burkas, christians and muslims are indistinguishable, to me.

While some people may find this video on youtube.com distasteful, I thought it was a most powerful message. It’s only about 6 minutes long.  What intigued me the most was toward the end when the herd of animals took BACK their baby.  VERY POWERFUL AND IMPORTANT MESSAGE!  Watch it to the end!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7KHUbuhgpQ

Except for the Bill of Rights, the Constitution is an unholy mess.  It has only been made worse by the creation of a supreme court.  No one adopts our system of government except at gun point.

Douglas

Definately not lame!  And you know so, of course!  Btw, very interesting sites you’ve posted...thanks!

Missy-

Cyrena

Thank you for bringing up the Fugitive Slave Act!!  I haven’t reflected upon such in relation to the Constitution.  I really don’t know why I haven’t, but your bringing it up has got me thinking about a lot of related issues.

Btw, thanks for your support too! It really means something to me, given these tough, alienating political times.

Al-Qaeda - phantom enemy.....

By Douglas Chalmers, January 6: “Benazir Bhutto also mentioned Beth-al-a Massoud (Ahmad Shah Massoud, I presume) who was supposedly assassinated in 2001...”

Just correcting that the other man mentioned, the “Afghan warlord”, is said to be Baitullah Mehsud although he is supposedly based in Waziristan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baitullah_Mehsud

However, he has denied being involved in the assassination of BB:-

Agence France-Presse - Saturday, December 29, 2007 (Peshawar): “An alleged Al-Qaida leader Baitullah Mehsud, blamed by the Pakistan government for killing Benazir Bhutto, denied any involvement in her death, his spokesman said on Saturday......’’He had no involvement in this attack,’’ spokesman Maulana Omar said in a telephone call. ‘’This is a conspiracy of the government, army and intelligence agencies.’’.....

He said it would have been ‘’impossible’’ for militants to get through the security cordon around the campaign rally where she was killed. ‘’Benazir was not only a leader of Pakistan but also a leader of international fame. We express our deep grief and shock over her death,’’ Omar said.... http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEW EN20070037176&ch=12/29/2007 1:32:00 PM

In previous post in last paragraph;

For ---- Benazir Bhutto is a major blow…
Please read--- Benazir Bhutto assassination is a major blow

This might have the requirement of Pakistan that in the face of typical conventional threats from India; in order to achieve the required depth in Pakistan defences; it was keeping its Afghan borders porous. Later on same porous borders served very well during Afghan war against Soviet Union to facilitate the movements of troops (Mujahideen), as well as their logistic and arms and ammunition.

With out an ample warning and time given to Pakistan that it was still stuck with the aftermath mess of Afghan War; USA (now a sole super power) launched an offensive in Middle East to physical move in to avail a foot hold in Iraq and finally move into Afghanistan to achieve a full control of Broader Middle East (Pakistan, Central Asia and Middle East) and beyond. Later incident of 9/11 in USA resulted in escalation and gave a boost in the operations in its war theatre.

Iraq has successively been manipulated to shed its sovereignty; and finally it is emerging as a American mega base; a well defined American launching Pad for its subsequent offensives to secure Afghanistan and Central Asian states. After Iraq the hurdle of Iran is proving to be a hard case to tackle. Afghanistan is the priority and Pakistan needs to be tamed and fully subjugated along with its nuclear assents as well communication ports to form a secured American Strategic border line with the emerging powers of the region like china and India. 

In Afghanistan US is already there along with the NATO forces. In view of the toilsome situation with Iran that it is taking very long to concede; it is most likely that Iran is by passed and US moves on.

After 9/11, Pakistan although accepted US terms in good faith to go along with USA in its war against terrorism but it has been very difficult for Pakistan to also change the realities on ground and achieve a 100 % successes.

It is but imperative for Pakistan that it clears out all the Taliban-Al Qaeda elements from its troubled tribal belt along the Afghan border where Taliban elements have infiltrated and farmed havens; and make sure that Pakistan attains a water tight security of its border to take out remnants of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates and make the clearing up operation a success.

Benazir Bhutto is a major blow for Pakistan while it is in thick of turmoil and anarchy but Pakistanis are very versatile and resilient lot. They know how to meet the difficult goals even in the direful and precarious situations. To tackle the odds successfully are the traits and dynamism which distinguish them from others.
--------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for none

Al-Qaeda - phantom enemy

By Expat, January 6: “Interesting read in the Asia Times...”

Had to laugh at Condi Rice’s statement, Expat, that “We don’t have permanent enemies...” and that she still expects others to accept solely US terms and conditions to end “confrontation or conflict”.

Quote: “For the first time since it expounded the “axis of evil” theory, exactly six years ago - grouping Iraq, Iran and North Korea - the Bush administration is compelled to view Iran with a sense of proportion. The hardline policies aimed at destabilizing the Iranian regime look downright irresponsible in the changed circumstances.....

With Bhutto’s assassination, Washington must now hasten its “thought process”. There is a hard decision to take. Both Iran and Russia would be sensible partners in the “war on terror” in Afghanistan.....”

The trouble is, though, that INDIA has already aligned with Russia and is buiding their own version of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, the Sukhoi stealth fighters. They will have something, quite a lot actually, to say about Pakistan which just happens to be their main adversary.

India has also aligned with China, a former adversary, and they and Russia now form the basis of the SCO (Shangghai Group). The USA is gradually being pushed aside in world affairs. That is a deserved fate given the way America has behaved, especially in the past 60 years. The forthcoming financial crisis will be telling.

But, apart from the possibility of OBL being dead since 2001-02, Benazir Bhutto also mentioned Beth-al-a Massoud (Ahmad Shah Massoud, I presume) who was supposedly assassinated in 2001, was perhaps still alive as others had already said, judging by the way she mentioned him as “the Afghan warlord”. She also mentioned “the Pakistan Taleban IN Islamabad.... or a group IN Karachi” !!!

By the way, Omar Sheikh who BB said killed Osama Bin Laden was a British double-agent and most probably could have infiltrated Al Qaeda. No doubt, Condi’s statement about not having permanent enemies could thus be characterized as indicating that Al Qaeda and the Taleban and just about everyone else there are all on the USA’s payroll, uhh http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=f1uLdmct8_E

Proof that Al Qaeda is a fake bogeyman is one thing, even the Taleban effectively, but the other issue was that Britain and Europe could have easily solved their own home terrorist problems by supporting BB’s survival and her election. That will now never happen and Britain and the USA now DO have “permanent enemies” across S.Asia and the M.East. Whose fault, eh?

What truth might that be Chris? What ‘truth’ do you suggest that I’m ignoring?

And, did I say I was ‘teaching’ any others? I study the stuff, and make it available to other scholars. I don’t have to re-write ANY of it. It’s all right there. That would be the TRUTH...that is right there.

So, who’s actually ignoring what here, or attempting to cherry-pick things, based on their own ideological interpretations?

I think you’re a sorry ass ideological whimp, who wouldn’t accept the ‘truth’ if it knocked you over the head.

Interesting read in the Asia Times;

Follow this link; http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df02.html

I have recently discovered this online paper and think it’s a gem.

Great post. I’m just going to re-post a small portion, because it makes the point with an excellent example..

“....I have previously spouted piss and vinegar in support of Catholocism, but that was ten years ago and my perspective has changed.  So, too, may have Benazir Bhutto’s view of the Taliban.  Citing Cold War decision making and those made in the direct aftermath of the Soviet collapse to current politics seems a stretch to me.  The world has changed in unpredictable ways, and so have ideologies...”

So, thanks for this.

It goes along with one of my favorite ‘quotes’ though I don’t know who came up with it…

“If you haven’t changed your mind lately, how do you know you still have one?”

Ideologies DO change. Times, circumstances, conditions, etc, etc, change. And, we gain MORE knowledge. (or, at least we’re expected to).

And, unless we can adjust accordingly, we’re screwed…

Missy,

I love this!! Thanks for posting it. Needless to say, some of us have grown very weary pointing these things out.

It annoys me to no end, to have these morons claim that ALL of the “Founders” were religious men, (and Christian).

Then we need only look at the Constitution, to see that the ‘Christian’ part of it would appear to be ‘in name only’.

Were these same ‘Christians’ not responsible for the Fugitive Slave Act, of 1787, which later threatened a Constitutional crises, because so many people (who DID consider themselves ‘Christians’ - abolitionists among them) refused to comply with the law, because they believed it to be immoral, even though it WAS the law?

Thing is, none of the people that are arguing this whole ‘Christian’ principals thing, as fundamental to the Constitution, have any idea what they’re talking about. They base it on their own rabid ideology, and reach for any interpretation that they think will support it.

It doesn’t, but of course they cannot be convinced of that, because they’re stupid, and they don’t WANNA be convinced.

Re: Hamsa Bin Laden, Omar Sheikh…

By Missy, January 5: “Thanks Chalmers! I do appreciate your comments...”

Lame, uhh!

Thanks Chalmers! I do appreciate your comments.

You wrote:
The Constitution IS based on Christianity.  EVERY member of the Continental Congress was Christian.  To deny their religious beliefs influence on their political ideology is simply stupid.

Firstly, WHO do you think helped to pass and ratifiy the treaty I just wrote about in my last post?  Yeap, the one and only, supposedly “ALL religous congress?”

Now if ALL of Congress were religous, (btw, saying “All” is really a greivous error and a stereotype) they sure as hell didn’t appear to give a damn about one of the first treaties ever ratified, which I will RE-POST again, which states:

As the Government of the U.S. is not in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character or enmity against the law, religion or tranquiliy of musselmen (Muslims); and as the states never have entered into any war or act ot hostility against any Mohemtan nation, it is declared by the parties that not pretext arising from religous opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.

With that said, I suggest you question your religous advocates and ask them what in hell are they talking about. 

Secondly, as for your referring to Democratic advocates as mental patients is really laughable, given that the majority of the evangelical side of the republicans are religously mass-delusional, steeped in tradition whether it is b/c of ignorance or not, and in a big way reponsible for our county being led by the nose b/c of stupid, childish beliefs, based NOT on education, but superstition and tradition.  Being just the opposite of such, rational reasoning utilized by the masses through education without religious and mythical input is the ONLY way to take back our government from the elitist clutch hold, and as I see it, most religous repubs are the dominant force that refuse to “help themselves” overcome their childish beliefs and traditions, which are the very way that elitist control us all...through stupid beliefs.  All the while, the very same tards point a finger at the down-trodden in society.  Perhaps if you gain a better understanding of the sociology of WHY people are in poverty, engaging in drugs, etc., you wouldn’t be so quick to spout such unfounded ignorance about them.

Thirdly, other than educating the masses so that they better understand the exploiting manner of politics and the real reasoning and solutions behind social ills, Do you have a better solution?  Why don’t you take your own advice, and SHUT UP AND DO SOMETHING?????????

Hamsa Bin Laden, Omar Sheikh…

By parmaher, January 5: “Re: By A Khokar, January 3: ...wanted to make you aware… “sexist bigot"ry.... you kinda cut your own legs out there....”

Why don’t you just say what you mean, parmaher? If you don’t like what I am saying, analyse it and comment on it. You might have to research some earlier posts, though......

While we are at it, Missy asked me to comment on the BBC’s David Frost interview with Benazir Bhutto re the murder of Osama Bin Laden - also January 3. So, too, have a couple of others on recent BB topics here but none have had the decency to respond in turn.

No wonder, then that people complain the the media treat them like sheep. They deserve it, uhh. By the way, have you searched “A Khokar” on the net yet - or are you one of his team? Try http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/forums/showthread.ph p?t=2167985 Junior Member.

Quote AK: “Al-Qaeda is the wings of US to help…take the flights; and perch or land any where, where ever they want. A friend in need is a friend indeed! Al-Qaeda is a…friend in deed; having a long lasting friendship accord with US. Of course; they can… rescue US in future also! http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/forums/showthread.ph p?t=1885369

Doug:
Just wanted to make you aware, the phrase “attacking like a woman” should not be used when accusing someone else of “sexist bigot"ry.  Just sayin’, man, you kinda cut your own legs out there.

The Constitution IS based on Christianity.  Every member of the Continental Congress was Christian.  To deny their religious beliefs influence on their political ideology is simply stupid.  Hindus are influenced by Bhagavad Veda morality, Buddhists by Siddharta’s, and Christians by Christ’s.  Whether or not we follow the teachings attributed to these religious figures, their influence on those who do can hardly be questioned.  The Constitutional question that needs to be answered is “Should we use writer’s intent as the basis for meaning?” If we say that we should, we agree that, despite far less information, 250 years ago some rich white slave owners were smarter than us.  While they were brilliant in their application of phlosophy to government structure, they were believers in God and Christ, and used the Christian philosophy, as transformed by Locke and Luther, to build this system.  Now, we need to use our society and our modern world to interpret that philosophy and apply it.  They made judges to interpret the application of law, and, by God, Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Buddha, or 42, we should hold them responsible to do so, and stop blaming the “repubs” or the president/figurehead for all that has gone wrong.  The founders warned that the only weakness to their system was de-evolution into a two party climate, and their were two parties before washington ran for re-elaction.  I agree that “repubs” are dumb, but Democrats?  Even worse.  The Republican Party is brutal in it’s power-grabbing schemes, but Democrats are like mental-patients in their inability to accept reality.  Not everybody will be healthy and succesful.  Some of us are screw-ups.  Drug addicts do drugs, they don’t work, why pay them?  While you think about that, the Republicans just passed another bill in a Democrat-majority Congress that you can deride on CNN next week.  They are in the majority of the only government body that can declare war, and yet they complain about us being at war.  SHUT UP AND DO SOMETHING!!!!

Must be a far right synaptic gap problem or perhaps some mis-firing of the neurons...lol

Now listen here Missy,
I think it is a combination of the two.
LOL

I didn’t see your post until now...I did post a reply below your comment about the Constitution premised around “Christianity.” Do repubs really believe that?  Must be a far right synaptic gap problem or perhaps some mis-firing of the neurons...lol

It is myth that the Founding Fathers established a Christian Nation. No matter what Falwell shouted from the pulpits, you will find different upon further exploration.
True, in our early history(1620) the signers of the Mayflower decree declared that they were founding a new colony for God and a Christian nation. with the exception of Maryland and Rhode Island, the early settlers practiced religous intolerance. The people had to pay taxes to support religion, only religous leaders could hold office, and non-believers were banished from the colonies. The Mass. Bay Colony was Puritanism at it’s pious worst.
Later, in 1787, those were the the very abuses that the framers of the constitution wanted to put an end to. WHY? They recognized the religous persecutions that had swept across Europe since the Protestant Reformation. They didn’t trust Christianity, because they saw the denial in freedoms. They bent over backwards to NOT create a Christian nation. They established no official state religion. They required no religious test to hold office, and the oath of office for the president did not end with the traditional “so help me god”. The lack of mention of god was no accident. The lack of mention of the divinity was a deliberate ommission and sends a powerful message. If they wanted a christian state, they could have done it.
The language is found in one of the first American treaties ever ratified: a pact between the United States and the Barbary States. Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:
As the Government of the U.S. is not in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character or enmity against the law, religion or tranquiliy of musselmen (Muslims); and as the states never have entered into any war or act ot hostility against any Mohemtan nation, it is declared by the parties that not pretext arising from religous opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.
The record is clear. George Washington and John Adams knew a lot more about who we are than does Jerry Falwell. The United States is “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” We are not a Christian nation and never intended to be.
Now, with that said...I think the Founding fathers may have been moreso protecting us from religion than the reverse. Do you think our Founding Fathers were truly religous men? It’s debateable, don’t you think? Certainly interesting....and with more research I’m sure you can find several athiestic quotes from the majority of them. That’s why Repubs never mention Thomas Jefferson very much.  As a matter of fact, what’s his face(I can’t think of his name..a relig fanatic) has admitted to making fraudulent/ficticious religous quotes up in some of the signer’s names that were religous.  It wasn’t printed on our monies until the “religous” freaks pushed their agendas.  Btw, Christian is mentioned in the constitution once...but damn sure not the premise.  Read up on “when” “In god we Trust” was pushed onto our coinage.  Good day!!

Actually the tide turned in favor of the Afghanis after the CIA supplied them with Stinger rockets.

I am not sure what is more frightening; that you study constitutional law and still find a way to ignore the truth, or that you teach others…

124194 Chris from the wrong side of…

• Need any more are do you stand corrected?
Nope, I don’t need anymore, seeing as I’ve read all of this long ago. That’s what Historians/Constitutional Legal Scholars do. And, there’s definitely nothing here that would require me to stand ‘corrected’. I never said that the Constitution didn’t have such words of ‘Christianity’ built into it.

Matter of fact, were you aware that Slavery is ALSO written into the Constitution? Oh yeah. And, have you ever read the ORIGINAL Constitution, where they argued back and forth with the Brits about this “Christian” thing? It’s really quite entertaining, since the whole concept of ‘Christianity’ was a bit difficult to reconcile with chattel slavery. So, it’s a really interesting document, as are all of the letters and other conversations that went flying around, in the write-up to the write-up.

So, it would appear that YOU might be the one who needs some additional knowledge. But alas, I’m not teaching any classes this evening. Maybe later, I can direct you to some helpful sources. Do you have access to JSTOR?

Meatime, have a good one, and don’t forget to say your prayers.

Oh..PS, I will give you one hint for your arguments. If I wasn’t already familiar with the stuff you wrote AFTER the ‘keyword’ -almost-, your argument would have been meaningless.

ALMOST doesn’t cut it.

Cyrena, Almost all of the founding fathers were very devout Christian’s.

You are right that they wanted a separation of church and state. They were afraid that if there was not a clear distinction then it would open the door for religious persecution, and rightly so.

Having said all that there are a few facts that you should be aware of:

1. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: “...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen”.

2. Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: “...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

3. John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; “The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

4. John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: “...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?” Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an “indissoluble” bond.

5.The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a ‘National Denomination” (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: “By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.” Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term “separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.

6.George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his “Farewell Address”: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” Sure doesn’t sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.

7.John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.

Need any more are do you stand corrected?

Actually, Chris, YOU are WRONG.

It’s definitely true that the Brits brought Christianity over here with them, and used it when it was convenient, and ignored it other times.

But for the most part, it WAS the prevailing ‘religious’ doctrine, and a really VIOLENT one at that.

Be that as it may, the Founders were very clear about the Establishment Clause, and that was to make sure that the Church and the State remained SEPERATE!!

So, the UNDENIABLE ‘fact’, is that they put that in their for a reason.

Hamsa Bin Laden, Omar Sheikh…

By Missy, January 3: “...I would very much know what you think of B. Bhutto’s comment on this video concerning Osama Bin Laden...”

Yes, I’ve seen part of this interview already, thanks, Missy, and I commented on it in one of the BB topics recently when cyrena queried it. I havn’t seen much comment yet......

BB speaks about Hamsa Bin Laden, the son of Osama Bin Laden as a threat to her. A few minutes further in, she then mentions that Omar Sheikh murdered Osama Bin Laden. She was definite about it, too.

I still haven’t heard David Frost respond to that. But, after all, he sounds like he is almost dribbling with dementia, uhh. The British, particularly the English, are peculiar though, and becoming more so these days.

Maybe he thought that she had merely meant to say that he had killed Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (in 2002), something already well known? It wouldn’t occur to Frost that she would be better informed living in Dubai.

I think BB was a compelling speaker and a finer leader than anyone the USA has to offer. So much sadder, then, that she was treated so contemptously by people in her own country who should have been serving her as president.

Of course, isn’t that so similar to the USA where every attempt has been made to smear Hillary Clinton despite her being “the most experienced and the most qualified person” for the presidency? No wonder that good people are hard to come by in politics..... anywhere!

Now you are crossing limits

By A Khokar, January 3: “So I close this chapter with you; with the prayer that May God bless you...”

Ha ha, I don’t need pleasant manners AK - you do, you mannerless hypocrite! And you are not closing anything here. We blog on without you. On your way, worthless jihadist for a male misogynist state!

1. To win war, we must vanquish the enemy.
Agreed

2. In an insurgency, we can’t readily identify the enemy. It could be that woman walking up to the roadblock, that man driving to work, or maybe those kids playing hide and seek.
Agreed

3. Therefore we must kill them all so that we can be sure the enemy is dead. Get the picture?
Sort of, but not in the context that you spin. The context you spin is trying to suggest that the US would engage in Genocide.

“Insurgencies arise for many reasons. One of them is the thought that their country is being occupied.”
I agree somewhat…

“Which is, in simple terms, what happened in Iraq.”
Delusional liberal rhetoric.
Liberation is what happened in Iraq. IF There was no Oil you liberals would love this war.

“AQI didn’t move in until AFTER 2003,”
...and you know this from your vast experience within the Iraqy intelligence community under the rule of Saddam? Or this is more baseless liberal speculation?”

“...and never really has been as much of a problem for the US as the insurgency. Insurgents, in general, are not terrorists.”
More delusional babble from an uninformed leftist with an obvious agenda…

As Scheer points out, Hollywood often doesn’t get the story quite right. Tom Hanks’ role as Congressman Charlie Wilson reportedly glosses over quite a few inconvenient and complex circumstances.

Hollywood can play an important and constructive role in providing useful information and insight if films are written and produced responsibly.

Along these lines, recent films by Clint Eastwood and Steven Spielberg and by Oliver Stone might be worth taking a look at via the articles ...

“Eastwood, Spielberg have one more angle to cover in Iwo Jima films”

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle. asp?articleID=21191

- - -

“New Oliver Stone movie about 9/11 brings Americans together”

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle. asp?articleID=12066

By Douglas Chalmers, January 3 at 1:40 pm

Douglas,
Now you are crossing limits.
So I close this chapter with you; with the prayer that May God bless you with the pleasant manners.

Douglas, not to change the subject, but I would very much know what you think of B. Bhutto’s comment on this video concerning Osama Bin Laden…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

By A Khokar, January 3: “Typical mentality of a slug that breathes no air, requires no water and engorges itself on…. shit, uhh… from your egotistic vocabulary…

If you don’t have some thing pleasant to say, AK, at least try to refrain from your conceited and dishonest lecturing. As usual, you detract from the discussion by avoiding the subject of the comment lest you have to admit to your own pathetic shortcomings.

Instead, you whine petulantly about insignificant matters of taste. As a known arrogant creep, you’ve already been discovered to be a sexist bigot in previous topics. Now you want to pretend as to your disgusting pseudo-righteousness as though the skies were ever blue in your (S.Asian) home town.

Hiding behind a veil of supposed civility, attacking like a woman, then dishonestly departing, your very sad arrogance soon takes over -at least in your own mind. It is not logic and wisdom deep seeded in your soul, AK, but the venom of a hooded viper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXbQ4cnfOCA

Indeed, you would fit right into “Charlie Wilson’s War” as a committed supporter of goons like Zia ul Haq. No wonder BB was murdered with your kind prowling about. No doubt, you are trying to “save” Pakistan from the USA so that you can keep the women their in your accustomed subjugation, uhh.

“The U.S. was NOT founded on the Christian religion principles.....”

You are Wrong, It is an Undeniable fact that liberals hate to admit.

By Chris from the Right side of Maui, January 3: “I agree, the next time someone murders innocent Americans through beheading, flying planes into buildings or some other terrorism; we should embrace them and try to better understand their feelings and what we did to cause them to behave like that...”

I was obviously kidding. That was taken out of the, “The Liberals Guide to How to wage a politically correct war with terrorists”, book.

Then you will also realize that the native Hawaiians there would also like the same courtesy and respect shown to them, too, uhh, ChrisFTRSM.

Since you are so educated on the current state of Hawaiian affairs you must realize that they are given every respect and courtesy. There is segregated schools for them that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs set up for them; <THEY ASKED FOR THIS> And they have INCREDIBLY affordable housing available. We are not talking about project style apartments; We are talking about beautiful homes and lots.

Of course, though, war must be “a necessary evil” as it is the USA which has started most wars since 1945..... at least, the ones it has been engaged in.

“With great power comes great responsibility. We have a responsibility to protect ourselves, our interests and those of our allies.”

Judging by Scheer’s tone, he will be exhorting - or at least justifying - the USA moving on Pakistan (or moving in) any day now. Too bad that N.Korea is such an inconvenience.....

Scheer seems to me to be a fairly level headed liberal that is not so partisan and bent on carrying party flags that he can’t see the truth. Although I disagree with much of what he says, I do recognize that he is one of those rarest of liberals; One that can call it like it is and then make up his own mind.

The problem with most liberals is that they can not even see the truth, much less have an honest discussion about it.

“ Of course, though, war must be “a necessary evil” as it is the USA which has started most wars since 1945..... at least, the ones it has been engaged in.”

There used to be good Democrats around that saw that sometimes you must draw a line in the sand and be willing to go to war if the line was crossed. What if John F. Kennedy was not such a man? We would all be speaking Russian. I think that is the same type of democratic party that Reagan was a part of.

By Douglas Chalmers, January 3 at 8:23 am wrote [Typical mentality of a slug that breathes no air, requires no water and engorges itself on…. shit, uhh……. The U.S. was NOT founded on the Christian religion principles..... and no amount of sheep (or goats) slaughtered in vain religious sacrifices will make the slightest difference in yer stupid f&$#ing “holy land”!]

Douglas, I never thought; you are that arrogant a person. I am bit bemused to know your taste and choice of loudmouthed words from your egotistic vocabulary.

If you don’t have some thing pleasant to say; at least try to refrain from using your abusive language.
Please let Civility not depart away from this forum; because when civility departs then, very sadly the arrogance takes over.

Please also don’t forget that sky is not blue in United States only.

Thanks for your patience.
A Khokar
.......................
Love for all, Hatred for none

The chickenhawks have been out lately.  But the best way for the U.S. to stop terrorism is to quit perpetrating it.  Now, the chickens have come home to roost.

By A Khokar, January 3: “We all know that Oil supply from Middle East wells is our life line and it keeps our western economies rolling....”

Typical mentality of a slug that breathes no air, requires no water and engorges itself on shit, uhh.

When all the oil is sucked dry, the metals mines exhausted and the last tree chopped down, there will no longer be this slug crawling along its “lifeline” into the M.East.....

The U.S. was NOT founded on the Christian religion principles..... and no amount of sheep (or goats) slaughtered in vain religious sacrifices will make the slightest difference in yer stupid f&$#ing “holy land”!

Yeah I get your point.  What fascinates me is that others can’t see forced “Imperialism” in the cloak of religion.  Some serious therapy is needed if one can’t see these atrocities.  The same as manifest destiny was “O.K.” with the “self-righteous Christians” who said God says the Manifest Destiny is a “God Advocated” ideology that says “It is righteous” to kill all the native “savages” and expand westward. This is totally similar to the jews using “God’s chosen ones” and “we are victims” to manipulate others in believing it is “god’s will” to take Palestinian land and inact war on any country of their choosing.  The whole of belief in and gods or idols ever presented since man’s beginning is that you would have to be an uneducated brainwashed “tard” to fall for all of this shit that has been hoisted on us all and caused the starvation, suffering, and displacement of millions of human beings all over the globe.  F-ing insanity!!! Wake up nut jobs!!  It’s not too late!

The U.S. was NOT founded on the Christian religion principles.  You have apparently been washed too often in the “blood of the lamb” uh, I mean sheep.

lol...glad to know that some homosapien short term memory is still working.  Worried me there for a while....

Well now...it would seem that vanquishing the enemy would mean less money for the war-mongering elitist profiteers...and we all know that’s not going to happen.  How could anyone wish to “abolish” a sect of our species?  Damn the craziness of brainwashing.  Oh...uh...almost forgot...amen.

I think from now on ward when we talk about Middle East; the other countries in the area like Afghanistan, Pakistan and energy rich countries of Central Asia are ought to be considered as one common block especially from the point of view of American Adventurism ( as the victim of US exploitation); or say a Broader Middle East.

We all know that Oil supply from Middle East wells is our life line and it keeps our western economies rolling. US seems to be in hurry to fully bring the entire Middle Eastern oil producing enclaves in to their own folds; before this that the old adversary Russia; sooner wakes up and snatches away this opportunity from them.(Signs are very much there).

But US rather tackling the bigger monster- Russia first; choose to deal with a lesser devil…Iran by creating an anchorage of its own in Middle East(by occupying Iraq) to deal with the Russian future conquests. But Iran had its natural ambitions dictated by the lay of its land and century old traditions maketh it stand as lofty as it could be, as a big brother in the Persian Gulf; over looking and guarding the Arab peninsula. This centuries old status of Iran is very well seated in the local populace and culture; and is duly recognised in the Arab world. 

Many a conquerors and archaic invaders like US had been to the Arab land of Iraq before. They always carried out grand scale savage massacres of the natives to subjugate them. The infrastructures and seats of civilization and knowledge were raised to ground. Euphrates and Tigris rivers have been flowing filled with blood and dead bodies to their brims; but always these conquests were short lived and none of the invaders could subjugate the natives; except this that the invaders left their own grave yards behind. They were compelled to retreat; frustrated.

It is God’s design that on this planet earth; today we find the rich, flourishing and technologically advanced economies lying in the west where as their life line...feed (oil) stems from the East. This unique layout of interdependence, dictated by the nature demands that some fair and befitting system such as Barter Systems etc be put in place and be run with all the fairness of business.
America may find Iran on their right hand in negotiating all these aspects with a befitting logic and wisdom; because logic and wisdom is deep seeded in their souls and soil.

What ever our assessments say; this is but certain that we need a visionary; a Messiah to come up with some justifiable; a ‘Just system’ in the Middle East and win the hearts and minds of people. Invading the countries or installation of some agents with a bad intent like; Israel etc to bully around and thrusting the policy of extermination of innocent inhabitants dotting around these oil pits, plus terrifying them or make them starved by imposing sanctions; coercing and tying them into trades bondages; these may not be the solution. It may make the heads… bow but that does not mean that it will also bend the minds.

Points to ponder:

*Is not that right to say that Taliban are fighting the same war in Afghanistan as George Washington (a Great US Leader) was once fighting so vigorously, his ‘War of Freedom’ against British occupation while British had declared him Terrorist? 

or

*Nelson Mandela was awarded Nobel Peace prize for his continuous act of Terrorism against Apartheid Government of the time; who had awarded him 27 years of prison?

*When Taliban will be awarded with an honour like George Washington or His eminence Nelson Mandela?

-----------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for none

You do realize that in

By Chris from the Right side of Maui, January 3: “I agree, the next time someone murders innocent Americans through beheading, flying planes into buildings or some other terrorism; we should embrace them and try to better understand their feelings and what we did to cause them to behave like that...”

Then you will also realize that the native Hawaiians there would also like the same courtesy and respect shown to them, too, uhh, ChrisFTRSM.

For those who sweep their own doorsteps first, the task of ensuring that all the doorsteps in the street are clean is an easy one.....

Of course, though, war must be “a necessary evil” as it is the USA which has started most wars since 1945..... at least, the ones it has been engaged in.

Judging by Scheer’s tone, he will be exhorting - or at least justifying - the USA moving on Pakistan (or moving in) any day now. Too bad that N.Korea is such an inconvenience.....

I agree, the next time someone murders innocent Americans through beheading, flying planes into buildings or some other terrorism; we should embrace them and try to better understand their feelings and what we did to cause them to behave like that.

And when they shoot and kill our soldiers from Mosques we should try to be more sensitive to their sacred religious places of worship and wait for them to come out and surrender.

I mean seriously war is a necessary evil and if you engage in it you need to be prepared to win.

The author never mentioned genocide. Do you know any Germans? How about and Italians, Japanese, Koreans, or Vietnamese?

The other poster was correct and you my friend are lost in a liberal cloud of political correctness.

I wouldn’t be so harsh on poor Charlie. It just shows that sometimes a deeply flawed character can sometimes with a lot of luck accomplish something. The policies that he supported did hasten the end of the Soviet Union, and the end of the cold war. That minor accomplishment did more good, than the subsequent events have caused. Its too bad our media have to go along with the politically motivated effort to paint the war on terror as some sort of existential struggle. The reality is we traded an existential threat (not only to ourselves but the world), for some monir danger caused by politically/religiously motivated criminals. Now if only the US could treat such a threat in a proportional manner -not as an excuse to begin a new crusade!

As for Benazir & company. Yes, like all products of such a system she was deeply flawed. Still she seemed to represent the last best hope for Pakistan moving away from Mussaraf. The general seems to be an example of the corrupting influence of power. I think his influence was positive during his first few years in power. But the accumulation of frustrations, and the need to constantly defend such power from all challengers makes it inevitable that even benign dictators turn bad. (That doesn’t mean I think he started as a benign dictator, just one who was making more positive changes than negative.)

“Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon etc., etc…”

Source?

Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon etc., etc…

“On the other hand the U.S. has declared that it “reserves the right to act unilaterally in its own interest” and that “no option is off the table.””

What’s wrong with that? Like your country or not, we have done and continue to do a heck of a lot more good than bad. With great power comes great responsibility. We have a responsibility to protect ourselves, our interests and those of our allies.

“That’s ChristoFascism for you.”
Wrong Again. That is morally right. Like it or not this country was founded on Judao Christian principles and although we celebrate the diversity of all religions, it is those Christian Fundamentals that are the foundation of this, the greatest nation in the world.

“Meanwhile, the U.S. has destroyed Iraq...”
Liberated the oppressed…

“...as Israel has destroyed Palestine.”
Defended itself against terrorism.

“It is indeed unfair to lump Muslims with the U.S. and Israel.  Let’s be fair.”
Agreed

You hit the nail on the head! Absolutely right 100%. I couldn’t agree more.