tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post4623529322901442232..comments2024-02-14T01:23:04.849-05:00Comments on View From Above: 100 Days - 100 MistakesHawkeye®http://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-13286274507932915912009-05-27T07:24:33.400-04:002009-05-27T07:24:33.400-04:00Elroy,
It is like children sitting in the market ...<B>Elroy</B>,<br /><br />It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.' --Matthew 11:16b-17Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-60150127011934231782009-05-26T19:52:38.539-04:002009-05-26T19:52:38.539-04:00Oh, Hawkeye® – you can do better than that! I than...Oh, Hawkeye® – you can do better than that! I thank you for your cordiality and all but really, can you honestly not defend your ethos?<br /><br />If I build a house then I want it to be strong, to able stay standing in all kinds of weather – it looks like it will collapse come a mighty wind then it would be wise of me to review its design. <br /><br />Conservative politics remind me of the New Orleans levees – they looked strong but they were not built to withstand the full force of nature and similarly, when the economic hurricane arrived it was found that the levee walls built by FDR after the Great Depression had been demolished by the ideology of deregulation and tax cuts – there were no walls left, and so the world drowned.<br /><br />There. An analogy. Care to rebut? Conservatives, and I'm making a generalization here, always say that lib'ruls are not logical and be easily beaten in debate but they always wind up quitting. Why is that?<br /><br />C'mon, I know you can do it – strike a blow for the GOP and prove me wrong!<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />ElroyElroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-54865263267128798532009-05-26T09:23:38.119-04:002009-05-26T09:23:38.119-04:00Elroy,
Thank you for your comments.<B>Elroy</B>,<br />Thank you for your comments.Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-58895231225707680942009-05-25T22:20:31.962-04:002009-05-25T22:20:31.962-04:00‘Therefore, I refuse to play along because I am ti...‘Therefore, I refuse to play along because I am tired of being mocked... despite your opening words to the contrary. If you really appreciated my time, then you wouldn't spend so much of it mocking me.’<br /><br />I think you might be confusing ‘mockery’ with ‘criticism’. As I have said, you are not beyond mockery of me, your POTUS, the Democrats or anyone else you suspect of having ‘socialist’ ideas, but do I mind? NO! Bring your mockery! Mock away! If that’s what it takes…<br /><br />So again, I apologize for any offence, but I wonder if you are not maybe being a little over-sensitive? <br /><br />C’mon, let me have it! I can take it! Pretend you’re Ann Coulter…☺<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />ElroyElroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-43740252858680398512009-05-25T22:20:11.026-04:002009-05-25T22:20:11.026-04:00‘OK. You win.’ ‘Since I can never (repeat, NEVER) ...‘OK. You win.’ ‘Since I can never (repeat, NEVER) say a‘OK. You win.’ ‘Since I can never (repeat, NEVER) say anything that you will agree to, I find no need to continue the conversation.’<br /><br />Conversation is not a winning/losing proposition – it is an activity by which we stimulate our thought processes and get to question both our own assumptions, beliefs and prejudices and those of others, to defend positions we hold to be true and to concede them when they are defensible no more. <br /><br />Conversation is not finite, it is an ongoing intellectual challenge, a journey, an cerebral tennis match without end, and during this one I have learnt a lot about what both you and I believe. <br /><br />It’s not about agreeing – it’s about DISagreeing, as that conflict and tension is the crucible of ideas. What’s the point of debating people that agree with you? That’s not debate, that’s just self-congtuatory waffle, which is why you’ll never find me posting on lib’rul sites. <br /><br />However, I disagree (naturally!) that you never say anything that I will agree to, as we have come to an understanding on a least two points – that a full investigation into torture be held and that there is no hard evidence to connect OBL to 911. Excellent!<br /><br />These things take time, but I think it’s worth it. Politics is very important at it fundamentally dictates the quality of life and death if not life and death themselves, and so I am firmly of the opinion that anyone who holds a political opinion that they are prepared to trumpet to the world, like us, should be able to either defend those opinions or modify them accordingly, depending. As recently redeemed economist John Maynard Keynes once said ‘When the circumstances change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?<br /><br />‘You continue to mock me..’ <br /><br />I’m not mocking you, Hawkeye® – if I seem to have a flippant turn of phrase then I apologize, but I notice that you are not above a bit of mockery and taking the odd satirical swipe yourself. C’mon, man up! You sound like a lib’rul!<br /><br />‘…mock my beliefs…’ <br /><br />I repeat, I am not ‘mocking’ your beliefs – I am questioning them, yes, because I want to understand them. If this world is ever going to make sense to either side of the divide then I submit that we must have a fuller understanding of the other side’s views. Are your beliefs so fragile that they cannot bear some rigorous interrogation?<br /><br />‘…mock my country…’<br /><br />And I’m not mocking your country. America has touted itself as the lone superpower seeking, in PNAC’s words, ‘full-spectrum dominance’. It is not ‘mockery’ to point out that pursuing such a path comes with some cost, and it is not mockery to question whether such policies are going to contribute to the greater good. <br /><br />‘…mock my religion…’<br /><br />Not mocking it, just trying to understand how it fits into the WoT™ narrative and how it influences public policy in general. You might have noticed that, as an atheist, my theology is somewhat foggy, so I thank you for your insights.<br /><br />‘…mock my Constitution…’ <br /><br />I am not mocking that, either. I happen to think that your Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights are fine documents indeed – it’s a shame that governments find them so hard to live up to. Bush called it ‘A goddamn piece of paper’, and if that isn’t mocker then I don’t know what is. <br /><br />‘…mock my economics…’<br /><br />I contend that it is conservative economics that has led the world to its current parlous state. You don’t. Discuss. You mock my economics, and that’s fine – mock away. Must I be utterly reverential before you will reply? With respect (really!), don’t you think you are being little precious?<br /><br />‘…and mock anyone other than a liberal, socialist, or communist.’<br /><br />No, if warranted I’ll ‘mock’ them too – it just hasn’t come up yet.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-49533785809183468822009-05-25T13:50:50.697-04:002009-05-25T13:50:50.697-04:00Elroy,
OK. You win. Since I can never (repeat, NE...<B>Elroy</B>,<br /><br />OK. You win. Since I can never (repeat, <B>NEVER</B>) say anything that you will agree to, I find no need to continue the conversation.<br /><br />You continue to mock me, mock my beliefs, mock my country, mock my religion, mock my Constitution, mock my economics, and mock anyone other than a liberal, socialist, or communist. Therefore, I refuse to play along because I am tired of being mocked... despite your opening words to the contrary.<br /><br />If you really appreciated my time, then you wouldn't spend so much of it mocking me.Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-91079339415019064652009-05-23T01:35:37.207-04:002009-05-23T01:35:37.207-04:00For a start, it should not be possible for someone...For a start, it should not be possible for someone to have a full-time job yet not be able to afford rent – the existence of the working poor should be a mark of shame, not a badge of honour but again, it comes down to what you want for your country – do you want a USA of internal strife, crime, decay, and violence, or do you want one of prosperity, communities, security and happiness?<br /><br />‘If you said 'yes' to any of these questions, then tell me why you think that's fair?’ <br /><br />Because it’s everybody’s world, and what’s ‘fair’ for you isn’t ‘fair’ for someone else. Here, read this on being ‘fair’ and tell me what you think: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/03/will-hutton-fairness-unjust-society<br /><br />‘Look, it's a drag being poor.’ <br /><br />It’s not just a ‘drag’, it’s lethal.<br /><br />‘It's a drag having to struggle to make ends meet. I know. I was there.’ <br /><br />So was I. I know all about it too, that why I want to spare others the same misery. <br /><br />‘But I got ahead because I didn't buy a lot of stuff. I didn't buy the best stuff.’ <br /><br />Nor did I. And I worked bloody hard. And went hungry.<br /><br />‘I did a lot of my own home repairs with the help of friends and family.’ <br /><br />So you had an unpaid workforce at your disposal? How market distorting of you! And what are you doing consorting with…socialists?<br /><br />‘And all that time I did it on 90% of my income because I gave the rest (sometimes more) to charity.’ <br /><br />Good for you, I mean it, that’s very noble and I salute you. But let me ask you this: what’s the difference between paying a 10% poverty alleviation tax to the government and a 10% tithe to charity? Surely properly run government, with its organizational reach and economies of scale, could reach far more people?<br /><br />‘I'm not bragging, just making a point. So because I worked hard all my life, helped the poor and needy, and deprived myself and family…’<br /><br />Not that it’s any of my business, I’ll grant you, but when was it that you were poor? You managed to work your way out of poverty, and congratulations are due, but my point is that social mobility is not what it once was so I was just wondering how long ago it was that you were pulling at your bootstraps?<br /><br />‘…now I have to give away what little I've worked so hard for? Tell that to my wife and family.’<br /><br />Now who’s exaggerating? No one is saying that Obama stormtroopers are going to come through your door and take your belongings off to the USSA Possession Redistribution Center while gutting your bank balance – all he’s saying is that the 35% tax rate should rise to the Clinton admin level of 39% for anyone earning over $250,000. What’s wrong with that?<br /><br />I thought that’s what America is all about – doing what is best for the union, sacrificing one’s self for one’s country. Am I wrong? What would Lincoln do? What would Jefferson do? What would Jesus do?<br /><br />‘Cute.’<br /><br />Ain’t I? No, don’t answer that…<br /> <br />Cheers<br /><br />ElroyElroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-49150099450523414752009-05-23T01:33:57.089-04:002009-05-23T01:33:57.089-04:00So a lot! It costs you a bloody fortune for a star...So a lot! It costs you a bloody fortune for a start! $60 billion a year, and that’s just cash – it doesn’t include the billions more lost to lost productivity and economic activity.<br /><br />‘If they didn't commit a crime, they wouldn't be there.’<br /><br />Oh, you conservatives – such dreamers! The thing is that no other country comes close to the USA’s incarceration rate – in 2006, New Zealand had 186 persons imprisoned per 100,000 residents, England and Wales had 148, Australia had 126 prisoners and those damn socialists, the Norwegians, had…66. The USA? 738. <br /><br />The United States has 5% of the world's population and 23.6% of the world's prison population, a rate which is still worse than the bleakest estimation of that of totalitarian communist hell-hole, I mean shining example of the success of free market capitalism, China, and a rate which can lead to only one of three conclusions:<br /><br />1. Americans are, by far, the most evil people on the planet.<br /><br />2. The American penal code is, by far, the most draconian on the planet. <br /><br />3. Most of them are innocent.<br /><br />Which do you pick? Personally I’m a mix of 2 and 3. 80% of the prison population is there for petty non-violent crimes, and 25% for drug crime, some doing life for marijuana possession. <br /><br />Meanwhile, there are many, many people who merely got caught up in the system. If you don’t know how the justice system works then you wouldn’t know that there are many, many innocent people behind bars, so I suggest you do a little research. <br /><br />On the other hand, the US murder rate is four times that of Western Europe, so maybe there’s a bit of 1 as well!<br /><br />On the other hand, you’d rather like America’s private prison system – they are state subsidised slave labour camps! No unions there, buddy!<br /><br />‘I don't know. Did it?’ <br /><br />Oh, Hawkeye – is there no end to what you don’t know?<br /><br />‘So what? Why is that my problem?’ <br /><br />You really don’t know? Here, let me help you out. Inequality of wealth leads to a host of societal problems like a loss of economic activity, as people with no money cannot spend it, unless they borrow it (see above), in which case they are worse off.<br /><br />Homelessness is another; how many people living in boxes are you willing to tolerate? When does Mathew 25 kick in? And innovation is stifled as education goes down the gurgler and the population becomes more stupid, and as it becomes hungrier it is willing to take bigger risks to feed itself, meaning bigger jails etc etc. Do you see where this is heading? <br /><br />Poor people also mean a smaller tax base, which means a further crumbling of infrastructure, housing stock and all the rest, sickness, death, urban decay, and a descent into a third world hell. The rich, meanwhile, who refuse to pay more taxes, spend the money instead on houses outside of the US and on fortifying the ones inside the US, with the net effect turning the US into a no man’s land with islands of prisons dotted here and there – Supermaxes for the poor and gated communities for the rich. Is that the land of the free you really want to live in? <br /><br />‘There will always be poor people, and there will always be rich people. Is it the job of the top 50% of earners to support the lowest 50% of earners? Well we do it right now. Is it the job of the top 25% of earners to support the lowest 50%, but not the ones between the lowest 50% and the top 25%? Well they do it right now. Is it the job of the top 5% of earners to support the lowest 50% of earners, but not the ones between the lowest 50% and the top 5%? Well they do it right now.’<br /><br />No, Hawkeye, they don’t ‘do it right now’ – if they ‘did it right now’, you wouldn’t have the problems that you do. I’m not denying that there will always be some people better off than others, but there has to be a line drawn as to how better off – if the Wal*Mart family are 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th on Wikipedia’s List Of Americans By Net Worth while many of their employees cannot afford health insurance, well, I’d say that’s too far.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-70511764316450593272009-05-23T01:28:55.377-04:002009-05-23T01:28:55.377-04:00It’s a lot more complicated than that. It is a fun...It’s a lot more complicated than that. It is a function of capitalism that the richer you are the lower your interest rates, which means that being poor is very expensive. Credit card companies charge 30% + interest rates and payday lenders up to 500%, which is why were handing out like baseball cards to stray dogs – they never want these loans repaid. <br /><br />If I lend you $100 at 7% interest, there’s a chance you might pay it back, which is good ‘cause I need the $100. If however, I lend you $100 at 30%, or 500%, I will do a lot better if you merely TRY to pay me back – you’ll never do it, but I’ll make out like a bandit while you try.<br /><br />The thing is, an increasing number of people are in trouble because they NEED stuff. Credit cards are used now to pay basic bills, to buy groceries – the USA’s second biggest credit card transactor is McDonalds – and so credit cards have become the safety net that the government has failed to provide along with a failure to regulate the private safety net, resulting in what used to be called usury and which represents a second round of taxation. <br /><br />(Question, Bible fans – how come ‘all can rail against homosexuality when it is only hinted at in the Bible yet usury, specifically and constantly prohibited by the Good Book and present in every civilisation since ancient Babylon until 1979, was still being defended by Republicans senators this week?)<br /><br />(For more: http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2009/01/09/credit_credits_a_tax_on_ldquobeing_poorrdquo )<br /><br />‘And you can thank the UAW for that.’<br /><br />Oh really? Care to make the case? <br /><br />Actually, the link below points out that most of the available capital has gone into, yup, the loan industry.<br /><br />‘When banks get 25 percent to 30 percent on credit cards and 500 or more percent on payday loans, capital flees from honest pursuits like auto manufacturing. Now, I’ve just come back from Grand Rapids this weekend, and going through Detroit, they’re in a dire situation…’ <br /><br />‘…we set up all the returns in this economy in favor of financial firms and really disinvested from industry. And even worse, we began to turn industry into a banking itself. General Motors, General Electric began to operate banks, because that’s where they made the big profit, in the loans to consumers, uncapped interest. It’s a very destructive situation.’<br /><br />http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/24/thomas_geoghegan_on_infinite_debt_how<br /><br />‘And you can thank Michigan's excessive tax burden for that.’ <br /><br />Michigan’s tax regime is down to the AUW? Really? Please, tell me more!<br /><br />But you don’t think that’s its got anything to do with, um, GM, Chrysler and Ford making stupid cars, do you? I mean, Volkwagen, for instance, did just fine, very well in fact, and there’s no tax burden like a European one!<br /><br />‘Why is it that only the states with the lowest tax rates don't seem to have serious budget problems?’<br /><br />Not knowing what those states are, I couldn’t say. Care to expound?<br /><br />‘No. It's because they couldn't compete with cheaper steel mills overseas. You know, the places where they don't have unions? In countries where the government subsidizes industry?’<br /><br />Do you know what kind of a state subsidises private industry and bans unions? That’s right – a ‘Fascist’ state! Go read up on your Mussolini.<br /><br />Oh yeah – did I also mention that the Volkswagen plants are fully unionised and that the workers get $75 ph?<br /><br />‘I don't know.’ <br /><br />I always amazed at how much conservatives don’t know. That’s one of the reasons I like to talk to them – I feel that if they really DID know what was going on, they might change their minds. <br /><br />‘So what?’Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-9313783672047463682009-05-23T01:26:17.657-04:002009-05-23T01:26:17.657-04:00‘The way you used that statement before was defini...‘The way you used that statement before was definitely a non sequitur.’ <br /><br />No it wasn’t I was merely illustrating a point.<br /><br />‘Now, it is simply an overly broad generalization. Admit it.’<br /><br />What, pray, is the purpose of a business if not to accumulate capital?<br /><br />‘The single largest employer in the US is small business. My brother is a "business man" and he didn't amass any fortunes. He had to close his store after 20 years of struggling to make ends meet.’<br />The fact that your brother failed to amass a fortune doesn’t mean he wasn’t trying. I’m sure he would loved to have seen his store blossom and grow but, market forces being what they are, that was sadly not to be. However, the result does not indicate the intent.<br /><br />‘There are thousands more like him. SOME business people like to amass fortunes. Some are merely happy to get by.’<br /><br />No, some business people SUCCEED in amassing fortunes. I’m sure that many are merely happy to get by – indeed, in the current economic climate I’m sure there are many who are grateful to merely get by – but rare is the business person who says ‘No, no, I’m quite happy as I am…no more business for me!’<br /><br />Having said that, I have a relative who runs a small business and has more work than they can handle with no wish to expand, but this all raises the question of why are conservatives, who hold small businesses in such high esteem, so hell-bent on their destruction? <br /><br />The past 30 years has seen the rise and rise of the corporation resulting near monopolies that crush all before it. Due to series of suspect court decisions, corporations gained ‘personhood’ status and thus started their rise to power, giving us the titans that run government today. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/<br /><br />Wal*Mart for instance, a business that has, some would say, managed to amass no small fortune itself, makes it its business to crush smaller ones – mom and pop (and brother) stores are regularly squished by Wal*Mart and the others. <br /><br />Why is it so? Why have successive conservative governments and, admittedly, liberal ones that also drank Friedman’s Kool-aid, enacted so much legislation directed at empowering multinational corporations which are totalitarian entities identical to the fascist/communist regimes conservatives purport to despise?<br /><br />What represents more freedom? A mall full of franchises and chan stores? Or a Main Street full of independently owned and run shops? Where will you find the most choice? In the homogenous mall store? Or the one where the owner gets to decide what is stocked and how much it is sold for? That’s the irony of the Thatcher/Reagan revolution ¬¬– in order to ‘save’ us from totalitarianism it delivered one far, far worse. <br /><br />‘Links?’<br /><br />I gave you a link! Keep up!<br /><br />‘Anyway, that's why Obama wants them to go out and borrow more money to fuel consumer spending, eh?’ <br /><br />If spending ground to a halt then so would the economy – if you want another Great Depression, stop spending – but he wants y’all to save too, which leads us to what JM Keynes called the Paradox of Thrift which states that ‘if everyone saves more money during times of recession, then aggregate demand will fall and will in turn lower total savings in the population because of the decrease in consumption and economic growth.’ It’s one of those good-for-one, bad-for-all scenarios – read the rest here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift<br />Very interesting.<br /><br />Anyhoo, that’s how the world now goes around, thanks to neo-conservative ideology – we have been encouraged, nay, commanded, to consume out of all proportion but, as the actual job of making the stuff we consume was outsourced to where western workers can’t compete with the lower wages, we had no money. Solution? Lend it to us! Lots of it!<br /><br />‘A lot of people get into trouble because they want stuff. They can't afford it, but they want it. So they borrow money to buy it. They borrow beyond their means. Then they get into trouble. Not all, but a lot.’Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-67457938941120167962009-05-23T01:22:26.755-04:002009-05-23T01:22:26.755-04:00‘Actually you are wrong. Jesus is supposed to arri...‘Actually you are wrong. Jesus is supposed to arrive at a time of "peace" in the world. 1Thessalonians 5:3 says, "When people say, 'There is peace and security, then sudden destruction will come upon them as travail comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape. The Bible teaches that Christians and Jews will be persecuted by another great religion. Some will manage to escape to safety, but many will fall by the sword. A "false Christ" (that is, "the Antichrist") will claim to be God, cause Christians and Jews to go into hiding, and when he no longer has any opposition, a false peace will ensue -- but for less than 3½ years. Jesus will return to rescue His people and bring "sudden destruction" on the Antichrist and his followers.’<br /><br />Sounds like Bush is guilty of False Entrapment. He believes this would happen, so he MADE it happen so he could say ‘Look! It happened!’ – I’m figuring that Islam is the other ‘great religion’, that the ‘false peace’ will be between Israel and Palestine and that Obama is the anti-Christ. About right? – but don’t the Jews have to become Christians to be saved?<br /><br />But hang on! Didn’t you just say that the Bible is all metaphor, allusion and allegory? Then how can you take the Rapture literally? <br /><br />‘Hardly. He may have believed that he was part of a plan, <br /><br />See? He believed he was part of a plan! God’s plan! The Rapture!<br /><br />‘…but events were cast upon him that changed him forever.’ <br /><br />Indeed. But who activated those events?<br /><br />‘His greatest fear was another attack.’<br /><br />It probably was, because an attack would show him and his policy to be useless. So why didn’t anyone do it? Because every air traveller had to dispose of their toothpaste? Because of two wars raging across the ME? Or because…<br /><br />‘No it is not. For more information about Biblical prophecy, you can go to another web site I have been working on HERE ( http://jjprzy.envy.nu/testimonium/ ) . It's not done yet, but there is enough there to get started. Read and learn.’<br /><br />Boy, that’s a lot of book learnin’! Well done! But what happened to metaphor, allusion and allegory?<br /><br />‘You are correct. I ain't perfect, but I'm really trying. (:D)’<br /><br />As am I. See? Who said we can’t get along?<br /><br />‘Links? References?’<br /><br />For sure, Rocky!<br /><br />http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3453<br /><br />‘If the moral equivalencies you have suggested were to be analyzed by almost any rational news organization including CNN, NPR or the BBC, I think you would find that they would agree with me.’ <br /><br />I respectfully disagree. I don’t care what CNNN or NPR might or might not say, I’m debating with you. I have demonstrated that your premise that my moral relativisms are ‘false’ are, indeed, false, so I’m waiting for you, not CNNN or NPR, to rebut, although I guess that what is ‘false’ and what is ‘valid’ is, ultimately, subjective.<br /><br />‘(By the way, Keith Olbermann is not among those I would call "rational".)’<br /><br />See? Opinion. M opinion is that Hannity and Beck are clinically and certifiably, if not criminaly, insane, but there you go.<br /><br />‘Hmmm. I could've sworn I responded to that somewhere. Maybe in the comments on another article? I don't know, maybe I just dreamed it.’<br /> <br />I’m going with the latter – conservatives do, in my experience tend to live a dream world.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-68967485131570724412009-05-23T01:14:48.940-04:002009-05-23T01:14:48.940-04:00Why? What evidence have they seen to the contrary?...Why? What evidence have they seen to the contrary? Here’s what they see: An evangelical Christian president who thinks he is part of biblical prophecy and who regards his war as a crusade, surrounded by an evangelical Christian cabinet commanding an evangelical Christian army bearing bombs and bibles while singing evangelical Christian missionary songs! <br /><br />It doesn’t matter, really, whether they are right or wrong – perception is reality!<br /><br /> If the Taliban came to NJ, took you away at night for a spot of EI and gave your kids English translations of the Koran as part of the Holy War, you’d be upset, right?<br /><br />In the end this is all about empathy, about understanding what others are going through from their point of view. I would have thought that Christianity is all about emathy, but there you go…my reading of Christianity must be wrong.<br /><br />‘Well for one thing, it was not "indiscriminate". Laser-guided bombs, precision-guided munitions aimed at military targets is not indiscriminate.’<br /><br />Weapons accuracy is measured by "Circle of Equal Probability" (CEP), which is the radius of a circle that half your shots will land in. Most GPS-guided weapons are described as having a CEP of ~10 meters, so 50% of the bombs will strike within 10m of the target and apparently, because guided weapons don't seem to follow normal distributions like unguided weapons would, the rest will strike within another 10m. <br /> <br />Given that a 2,000lb bomb creates a crater 15m wide and will kill anyone within 350m, I contend that lobbing these devices into densely populated urban environments will cause indiscriminate death. <br /><br />The above scenario is text book – what is supposed to happen. Factor in the weather, technological malfunction and good ol’ human error and the chances of an accurate ‘hit’ are further diminished. The concept of the ‘Smart bomb’ that will surgically take out denoted targets and no more is a Utopian dream that is, for innocent civilians of the ME, a Dystopian nightmare. <br /><br />‘Second, Saddam and the people of Baghdad had plenty of warning.’<br /><br />And? Where were they supposed to go? Take buses to the desert and wait until Shock & Awe® was over?<br /><br />‘Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum.’ <br /><br />Which Saddam tried to meet. Alas…<br /><br />‘American military tactics were well-known since the 1991 Gulf War. Aerial bombardment would come first, followed by a ground invasion later.’ <br /><br />Here we have a city of 6 million people – again, I ask, where were they supposed to go? How? <br /><br />‘The news media was aware of what was going to happen. They announced it to the whole world. They had their cameras all set up and ready to get live video of ‘Shock and Awe®’. <br /><br />The news media was aware because they either had no idea of Saddam’s desperate attempts to negotiate or that they knew he would be rebuffed. The news media knew that this war would go ahead because GWB wanted it to – this much is clear, as proven by the Downing Street memos and other rock hard evidence. <br /><br />The citizens of Baghdad were sitting ducks – the had nowhere to go and no way of stopping the onslaught. <br /><br />‘Hamas and Hezbollah don't warn people when they are going to fire rockets at civilians... they just do it.’<br /><br />Hamas and Hezzbollah do not use ‘precision’ guided missiles, white phosphorous and 120,000 ground troops, tanks, drones, aircraft carriers, F111s etc. <br /><br />Hamas and Hezzbollah does not have the world’s biggest and most expensive military machine; it does not indulge in Shock & Awe® – and Hamas and Hezzbollah were not, in 2003, the target either in Iraq or Afghanistan. H&H are prevalent in Palestine and Lebanon – if they are in either Iraq or Afghanistan then that is a result of the action taken by the US.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-76839108873141914012009-05-23T01:12:16.800-04:002009-05-23T01:12:16.800-04:00‘And we will all stand before the "Judgment" somed...‘And we will all stand before the "Judgment" someday too.’<br /><br />If you say so – I have nothing to fear.<br /><br />‘Being "chief of the US military chaplains", he was speaking to other chaplains again using a metaphor. Ministers like to do that. They use allusions and allegories all the time. Jesus did it himself quite frequently with his use of parables.’ <br /><br />What? Hang on! I thought the Bible was the literal and inerrant word of God! You sound like an Anglican! <br /><br />So the Bible IS metaphor, allusion and allegory! Have you told the others?<br /><br />‘While I cannot claim to know specifically what he meant, I would suggest that to "hunt people for Jesus" means to "look for people who need solace and support on behalf of Jesus" He is telling his chaplains not sit in a chapel somewhere and pray all day. He wants them to go out and talk to the soldiers. See what they are thinking and feeling. Look for people who need help, just as Jesus walked among the masses "healing their sick". I don't think it is a suggestion to go out and proseletyze with "overwhelming force". As chaplains they are "Special Ops" people, because their mission is very "special" indeed.’<br /><br />Do we sing Kumbuya now? Or later? Look, that’s all very lovely but he told it to the soldiers – the chaplains were armed with Bibles translated into Pashto and Dari!<br /><br />There is no doubt that they were intent on busting General Rule Number One to everyone except…you! The Army expressly forbids "proselytising of any religion, faith or practice", and they knew it. Off to the brig, mayhaps? Court-martials all round?<br /><br />‘Christians do outreach. It is in their nature and heritage. They are called by Christ to do outreach.’<br />Sure, but not by the Army.<br /><br />‘They are called to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and yes, evangelize too’<br />Looking at the Republican Party you could have fooled me, but maybe Christians should just concentrate on the first three.<br /><br />‘But aggressive proselytization is frowned upon. I would daresay in the military moreso than elsewhere. As you said, they were endorsed by the DOD for over 25 years.’<br /><br />So there is a disconnect – it is frowned upon, yet very and undeniably present. What gives?<br /><br />‘Great! Being Christ-like is a good thing, isn't it? Or do you have something against putting others first, being kind and considerate, helping others in need.’<br />No, absolutely not, that’s; why I think Jesus was an anarchist, or at least a socialist – he was all about helping others, which is also why I think the term ‘Christian conservative’ is something of an oxymoron.<br /><br />I know, have met, seen and/or read about many Christians who do act Christ-like, who do all that you say but don’t constantly try to convert all and sundry, but if feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, putting others first, being kind and considerate and helping others in need is a Christian’s priority then why do so many support a government that did none of the above?<br /><br />I’m sure you are conversant with Matthew 25, the Parable of the Sheep and Goats – ‘…whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me’, yes? Well, it seems to me that this is where the Bush government were at – they did not for the least of these.<br /><br />I know you guys are all big on private charity etc, but here’s the thing – it is inefficient, it cannot do for the least of these. To really help the maximum amount of the least of these, efforts need to be co-ordinated and only the economies of scale available to governments can truly achieve results – anything less is just tinkering at the edges.<br /><br />Right now, in America, 3.5 million children go hungry, 43 million people have no health care and so many are millions are homeless, and their numbers are growing so fast, that no one is really sure how many there are – these problems are not going to be solved by private charity. <br /><br />‘Yes I do.’<br /><br />Thought you might.<br /><br />‘They might conclude that, but they would be wrong.’Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-82512636948674558062009-05-23T01:08:49.595-04:002009-05-23T01:08:49.595-04:00That would be it then, but thanks for proving my p...That would be it then, but thanks for proving my point! He has a Biblical perspective! Exactly! He views the war through a Biblical prism! And if the Bible is true, then…<br /><br />‘It is easy for a man in a position of such power to believe that he is somehow playing a role in prophetic fulfillment.’ <br /><br />Yes! Now you’re really getting it! He reads the Bible, he believes the Bible, and he thinks he’s playing a role in prophetic fulfilment! Can you understand why an atheist like myself would be concerned? That the ME is burning because of superstition? <br /><br />And can you know understand why the Muslims are somewhat bothered by it? This is like Iran invading the USA! You’d be upset! Well…so are they!<br /><br />‘I don't think that necessarily means prophecy was "driving him" <br /><br />You don’t? Boy, I do! <br /><br />‘…the way it does Ahmadinejad.’ <br /><br />Who said Ahmadinejad was driven by prophesy? Really? What prophesy, exactly?<br /><br />Let me get this straight – the guy who isn’t driven by prophecy has launched two wars in the ME because, and I quote, ‘This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins’ while the guy that IS driven by prophesy has launched…a rocket. I get it now, <br /><br />‘Bush prayed too (as do millions of people world wide). If you believe in prayer, then you certainly must assume that you are in communication with God.’ <br /><br />OK, so…<br /><br />‘President Obama is no different. He says he prays every day.’ <br /><br />So does my mother-in-law. <br /><br />‘And Obama certainly believes he is a ‘man of destiny’<br /><br />To paraphrase, Obama never referred to himself as a ‘man of destiny’ others have made that charge.<br /><br />I assume that you are not a Christian…’<br /><br />Assumption correct!<br /><br />‘…because you appear to be very unaware of Christian "lingo". I agree completely with Boykin, because he is speaking as Christian and not as a general. He refers to Ephesians 6:12 where it says, "For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (ie, Satan and his wicked angels).’<br /><br />So who is Satan? Look, its all water off a duck’s back to me, but to a Muslim, well, you can surely see that either of those statements is somewhat immflamatory?<br /><br />‘As for a "Christian army", he is not referring to the US military, but to a metaphor. Have you not heard of the old hymn, 'Onward Christian soldiers'?’<br /><br />Metaphor, huh? You ought to use the concept more often, ie, when reading the Bible. But I disagree – he is a military man speaking in a military context. Couldn’t be plainer to me, but ain’t it a funny thing that when the Bible speaks in metaphors Christians say it’s the literal truth, but when a Christian speaks the literal truth apparently it’s a metaphor? Ah well…<br /><br />But yes, I remember ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’ – famously sung by missionaries, if I’m not mistaken. No wonder the Muslims have got the irrits!<br /><br />‘This guy is a chaplain. He is a Christian first and a soldier second. His job in the military is to provide religious comfort to soldiers (specifically of the Christian faith). These soldiers face fear and death every day. The role of the chaplain is to support people on the battlefield in their faith.’<br /><br />Exactly. His job is NOT to proselytise the enemy. It says so! In the manual!<br /><br />‘Being a "witness" for Jesus means setting a good example, acting Christ-like, showing others that God has made a difference in our life.’ <br /><br />If you ask me, if he were acting ‘Christ-like’ he would not be there at all – he’s be with the anti-war protesters, but what would I know?<br /><br />‘And, if called upon, as a "witness" we are to give "testimony" about what Jesus means to us.’<br /><br />Is there a right or wrong answer? What I get asked to give testimony about what Jesus means to me? <br /><br />‘Sounds kind of like a courtroom doesn't it?’ <br /><br />No – in a courtroom we hear evidence for AND against the proposition.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-74155261010205249682009-05-23T01:05:29.340-04:002009-05-23T01:05:29.340-04:00‘Great! I thought we were living in a post-Christi...‘Great! I thought we were living in a post-Christian America.’ <br /><br />See! You like it! So even though you deny it is a Christian Army you condone attempts to make it one, so I can only assume that it is merely not yet Christian enough.<br /><br />‘That's what Obama says.’ <br /><br />He does? He’s dreaming.<br /><br />‘Perhaps the Christian influence will result in more "acts of agression" like the US military response to the 2004 Indonesian Tsunami. Ya think?’<br /><br />Hmm. I think you’ll find that everyone pitched in to help there, regardless of religion. Still, it did result in a real estate bonanza for multinational hotel chains!<br /><br />‘I don't know, but if so, then maybe it's because they appreciate the wit and sarcastic humor of Ann Coulter.’ <br /><br />Such a statement demonstrates the conservative misunderstanding of the terms ‘wit’ and sarcasm’. I know comedy well, buster, and she just ain’t funny. I wish she were, I ‘d laugh despite myself, like I do with J.P O’Rourke, but….<br /><br />‘If you read Ann Coulter on a regular basis, then you would know that she wasn't serious.’<br /><br />Now, what was it you said? ‘I am stupefied that you could say such a thing. That is NOT a rational statement!’<br /><br />I won’t have it. Nope. This ‘Oh but I’m just an entertainer!’ line is hogwash, malarkey. Carlin, Hicks, Stewart, Colbert, Maher, Moore and Franken, now, they really ARE entertainers, and they make their point too, but here’s the difference – they’re funny! Do any of them make you laugh, despite yourself? <br /><br />I wish I could find a good right-wing comedian but, alas, it’s tricky. I’m more than happy to have a good laugh at my side if it’s funny, really, but Coulter isn’t funny – she’s mean and vindictive. And wrong. And she doesn’t footnote.<br /><br />But maybe I’m wrong – send me a link to what you consider a can’t-miss Coulter rib-splitter and see if I can raise a smirk.<br /><br />‘Crikey! Do you believe that stuff?’ <br /><br />Evidently. <br /><br />‘First of all, Bush never referred to himself as a Dominionist, others have made that charge.’ <br /><br />Why? What’s the matter? Is there something wrong with being a Dominionist? <br /><br />Still, this gal makes a pretty good case:<br /><br />http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm#_edn1<br /><br />If the suit fits...<br /><br />‘He may have surrounded himself with evangelical Christians because they are people he felt comfortable with, but that does not mean he was trying to impose a Christian government.’<br /><br />And if it looks like a duck…<br /><br />Gee, I’m sorry, but if there is an evangelical Christian POTUS with an evangelical Christian cabinet, because evangelical Christians are the only people he feels ‘comfortable’ with, then it is not unreasonable for an atheist like me to wonder if a more than a little God isn’t going to guide the agenda.<br /><br />I don’t think Obama is a socialist, or that he has surrounded himelf with socialists, but you do and so perception is reality. Obama is a socialist. At least I have offered a reasonably argued case – you?<br /><br />‘Second, he only made the "crusade" comment once in an off-hand way and was rebuffed for using it. He was reminded that the "Crusades" are a sore spot for Muslims and never used the term again.’ <br /><br />He stopped using it in public – so what? He obviously thinks of it in those terms.<br /><br />‘Third, he supposedly told the Palestinian foreign minister (not Chirac) that he was on "a mission from God". And that has never been proven.’ <br /><br />Oops! My bad! He told Chirac in 2003 that "This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins".<br /><br />How’s your French? ( http://www.rue89.com/2007/09/17/un-petit-scoop-sur-bush-chirac-dieu-gog-et-magog?source=cmailer ) <br /><br />‘Fourth, he supposedly made reference to a Biblical prophecy in the presence of Chirac. So what? For a man who read the Bible from cover to cover each year of his administration, he was bound to have a Biblical perspective.’Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-44622486799336091702009-05-23T01:03:19.378-04:002009-05-23T01:03:19.378-04:00Nonsense. All I am saying is that the experience o...Nonsense. All I am saying is that the experience of WW2 radicalised many Jews and sent them to both a more fundamentalist reading of their religion and a more violent approach to defending it and their homeland, and the Iraq and Afghan Wars have done the same to Muslims. This is not a contentious statement, or an opinion, it’s just what happened.<br /><br />‘I posit that your moral equivalencies are "false" because your comparisons assume identical motives, which is patently absurd.’<br /><br />I wasn’t assuming identical motives, I was merely reflecting on te effects of war on religious, ethnic and cultural groups.<br /><br />‘While I disagree, this topic is too big to discuss here.’<br /><br />Fair enough. When and where then? I say ‘Swords!’<br /><br />‘Well. You got me there. I was not aware of such incidents. I will have to learn more about them. At first glance, I can't condone such tactics. I don't know enough at this point to comment.’<br /><br />Never heard of the Stern Gang or Irgun? Oh. But thanks for your honesty (BTW – bonus points for guessing whose daddy was in the Irgun!). <br /><br />The harsh facts of the matter are that Zionism has a terrorist legacy – indeed, the irony is that Likud’s closet has some rather grisly fascist/Nazi skeletons rattling around in it.<br /><br />I don’t know if you can get through to this article (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/04/14/zionists-and-nazis-connected-discuss/ ) but here’s some quotes from it if you can’t.<br /><br />‘‘For left Zionists, Jabotinsky, the founder of revisionism was a “Jewish Hitler” for organising Zionist youth militias (complete with Roman style salute). In the war against the British mandate and Arabs, terrorist tactics so split the provisional Israeli cabinet that one minister said:<br /><br />‘‘I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here… Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken.’<br /><br />By the 1960s, Menachim Begin had replaced Jabotinsky as a bete noire, with David Ben-Gurion noting: ‘Begin is clearly a Hitler type, [who would] rule as Hitler ruled Germany.’<br /><br />‘When that gentleman invaded Lebanon in 1982, Yeshaya Leibowitz, editor of the Encyclopedia Hebraica called the IDF “Judeo-Nazis”. Shlomo Gazit, military commander and strategic theorist remarked that the insignia of IDF soldiers in the territories reminded him of the Iron Cross…’<br /><br />So when I criticize Zionism I am thinking more of the hard-right Zionists, of whom Likud are the descendents. There are Zionists, and there are Zionists…<br /><br />‘I think that is an overly broad statement. In Israel, national military service is mandatory for all Israeli citizens over the age of 18 (including women). It would be hard to believe then that everyone who serves is a "religious extremist". During the 1967 war, Moshe Dyan could have captured the Temple Mount and demolished the mosques if he was truly a "religious extremist". Instead, he turned it over to the Muslims and forbade Israelis to even visit the site.’<br /><br />Fair enough – however, Moche Dyan was 40 years ago and things have changed. Various incarnations of the right have been in power since 1977, and it is they who tell the IDF what to do. Not every member of the IDF is a radical – Yaweh help the poor sucker that refuses the draft – but still, the IDF are used by a right wing government as a tool of oppression.<br /><br />‘Wow. Now you have really gone over the edge.’ <br /><br />Yeah, I thought you might say that. Making omlettes? Break some eggs!<br /><br />‘I am stupefied that you could say such a thing. That is NOT a rational statement. I am beginning to think you really are a Muslim apologist.’<br /><br />No, I’m just trying to be objective. Objectively, I can see how many Muslims would think that the US Army is s return of the Crusades and that they are Christian terrorists. There’s no value judgement there – I’m just saying that I understand their point.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-37311996597686551892009-05-23T00:55:11.342-04:002009-05-23T00:55:11.342-04:00And God love the Kurds, because no one else ever d...And God love the Kurds, because no one else ever did until George – The Turks and Winston Churchill actively encouraged gassing them!<br /><br />‘He was shooting missiles at Coalition aircraft in the "no-fly" zones almost daily.’ <br /><br />When was that, exactly? Because coalition aircraft were doing bombing raids in the ‘no-fly’ zones ‘almost daily.’ What would you have done?<br /><br />‘He played lots of games with the UNSCOM inspectors. He wouldn't let UNSCOM into certain buildings for hours on end while trucks would load up stuff and leave the facility.’<br /><br />He eventually kicked out UNSCOM. He played games with Hans Blix and the IAEA after 13 or 14 UN resolutions had been passed. There was no telling what the guy might do next. And as we found out later, he ordered Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html ) to hide centrifuge parts and plans in his back yard... parts and plans for uranium-enrichment equipment.’<br /><br />Mmm. Obeidi, huh?<br /><br />‘When asked about Saddam’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Obeidi does not tell CIA Agent Joe T. what he wants to hear. Instead, he tells him that Saddam abandoned the program in 1991 as the Iraqi government had claimed in its December 7 declaration to the UN.’ <br /><br />‘He adds that if the program had been restarted, he would have known about it. He also says that the tube shipment confiscated by the CIA in July 2001 was completely unrelated to nuclear weapons. Those tubes—with a diameter of 81mm—could not have been used in the gas centrifuge designed by Obeidi, which specified tubes with a 145mm diameter. <br /><br />“The physics of a centrifuge would not permit a simple substitution of aluminum tubes for the maraging steel and carbon fiber designs used by Obeidi,” the Washington Post will later report. <br /><br />Obeidi and his family will later move to a CIA safe house in Kuwait. At the end of the summer, he will receive permission to move to an East Coast suburb on the basis of Public Law 110 , which allows “those who help the United States by providing valuable intelligence information” to resettle in the US.’<br /><br />So he did OK out of it, huh?<br /><br />The thing is, Hawkeye, that none of the above is justification for the obliteration of Iraq that occurred. None of it. A diplomatic solution should have, and could have, be achieved, but the USA wasn’t interested.<br /><br />Here, this guy lays it out pretty well:<br /><br />http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/11/11/dreamers-and-idiots/<br /><br />‘Get real! Their aim was NOT to slaughter civilians en masse. If you believe that, then you are very deluded... or on drugs.’ <br /><br />If you don’t think that dropping bombs on densely populated urban environments is going to slaughter civilians en masse then I respectfully suggest that it is you who is deluded or on drugs.<br /><br />‘Their goal was regime change, finding WMDs, eliminating a potential terrorist threat -- not wholesale slaughter.’ <br /><br />Regime change was one of the later excuses, after the others had been eliminated. Iraq was never a terrorist threat to anyone – George & Co made it up to scare you, and it worked. There were no WMDs anywhere. I remember watching our PM – John Howard, Bush’s ‘Man Of Steel®’ – on the TV on the eve of war, and he was asked if the CoW™ would go to war if there was no threat of WMD and said no, regime change alone was not enough reason.<br /><br />‘If wholesale slaughter was their goal, there are plenty of weapons that could have been used to get the job done a lot more efficiently than using precision guided munitions.’<br /><br />Guided missiles do not discriminate – they kill whoever is in the way. And if wholesale slaughter was not their goal, what do yo call Fallujah? <br /><br />But are you suggesting that the US should have just dropped a nuke on them? Wow! Gutsy call!<br /><br />‘Sorry, but I don't see the difference.’ <br /><br />Really? Oh. I’m surprised.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-17432419307174915762009-05-23T00:52:23.115-04:002009-05-23T00:52:23.115-04:00‘Sure. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler or Mao.’
...‘Sure. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler or Mao.’ <br /><br />Sure. No problem.<br /><br />‘President Bush was just as bad as President Clinton in some respects.’ <br /><br />Clinton was the best Republican president the Democrats ever elected, but does you comment mean that Clinton was too far to the right? Or that Bush was too far to the left?<br /><br />‘Obama is just as bad as Bush in some respects.’ <br /><br />I agree, but I’m sure we don’t agree in exactly what respects – what did you have in mind?<br /><br />‘But Bush does not equal Hitler or Stalin…sorry’<br /><br />Bush had some traits that could be construed as fascist – would you like me to make the case? Or maybe you’d like to read this: http://www.edwardjayne.com/iraq/31similarities.pdf<br /><br />Or this: http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/0691135665<br /><br />‘The war in Afghanistan was started after 9/11 because the al-Qaeda training camps were in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda was being protected by the Taliban. Al-Qaeda perpetrated 9/11, the US embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the 1993 WTC bombing. Rooting out al-Qaeda keeps Americans safe.’<br /><br />So? If Al-Qaeda did all these things, arrest them. Put them on trial. Be true to your alleged convictions and stick to the rule of law. As I said, the Taliban were happy to hand over OBL if and when they saw the evidence, yet…<br /><br />Al-Qaeda training camps were in Pakistan too, but all the UA did to Pakistan is give them money. They move between the borders because, to them, the borders are meaningless – they are arbitrary lines in the sand. Blowing up ‘training camps’ has got to be the single most inefficient way of shutting down OBL et al, yet that’s what the US went for. Why?<br /><br />‘As for Iraq. There was a widespread belief that Saddam had WMDs. Yes, it was "widespread".’ <br /><br /><br />No it wasn’t. I never believed it. Nor did Scott Ritter or Hans Blix,, and they were there.<br /><br />‘All the western intelligence agencies believed it, and not just a few Democrats too.’ <br /><br />If I lie to you, and you act on my lie, who is culpable? Me for lying? Or you for committing an act based on that lie?<br /><br />‘After 9/11 there was widespread fear that WMDs in Iraq could fall into the hands of terrorists.’ <br /><br />Fear spread by Bushco. They suggested that it could happen and then, hey presto, came up with the solution.<br /><br />‘Bad intelligence? Perhaps.’ <br /><br />Worse. Manipulated intelligence. Never herd of Douglas Fieth and the Office of Special Plans?<br /><br />‘Saddam was clearly a madman and a butcher.’<br /><br />But he was YOUR madman and butcher. <br /><br />‘He used WMDs on the Kurds.’<br /> <br />Chemical weapons supplied by…yes, you guessed it….y’all. And who gave him the co-ordinates? Um…<br /><br />And wasn’t he involved in a war with Iran at the time? A war backed by….Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-36512723893301431132009-05-23T00:51:50.544-04:002009-05-23T00:51:50.544-04:00‘OK. Let's do that. Let's have a real in-depth inv...‘OK. Let's do that. Let's have a real in-depth investigation. Let's release the memos that Cheney says shows that EITs worked. Let's get to the bottom of this thing.’ <br /><br />Yes, let’s. Absolutely.<br /><br />‘If EITs work and are justified, then everyone who says otherwise will have to shut up.’ <br /><br />Conservatives are a funny bunch – they have now convinced themselves that torture is ‘justified’, just like the Vietcong, Stalin, and the Spanish Inquisition before them. Torture, whether effective or not, is never, ever, ever, justified.<br /><br />‘If they don't work, then everybody who knew about them and approved of them, tacitly or otherwise, should also be indicted...’<br /><br />Even if they DID work. I agree.<br /><br />‘Nancy Pelosi for example.’ <br /><br />Ah, Nancy. Newt Gingrich et al have gone predictably nuclear over this, but there are one or two important factors to remember. For a start, the CIA said that they had legal opinions that stated it was OK but, more importantly, they said that waterboarding was a technique that they COULD use, not WOULD use, and that if the WERE going to use it that they would notify congress. <br /><br />I saw Sean Hannity ridicule Pelosi over this distinction but that’s probably because he doesn’t understand it – to fans of semantics such as ourselves, however, the distinction is clear, that so far nothing had happened and that, if and when the CIA consulted congress over their intention to waterboard, this would be a more legitimate time to raise objections. <br /><br />Furthermore, the briefing was secret – no notes to be taken, no consultation with legal experts or members of her own staffs, so who was she supposed to raise the matter with? Finally, Bob Graham’s personal notes, books that are held in such high regard that they are kept at the University of Florida Library of Florida History, show that at least one of the briefings never happened, a fact that the CIA now concur with.<br /><br />http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363 <br /><br />‘By releasing the "torture" memos, Obama laid the groundwork for prosecuting anyone who authorized, supported or used EITs, but unlike a courtroom, he's not allowing the accused to defend themselves. Kind of Stalinist, eh?’<br /><br />No, what would be Stalinist would be for Obama, as POTUS, to override the Justice department. The FF instituted three sperate arms of government, legislative, executive and judicial, for a reason – to stop such behavior. Just because you became used to such abuses of process during the Bush admin doesn’t mean it was constitutional.<br /><br />‘A counter argument which has been made by unnamed sources who are unwilling to identify themselves. Let's get them into court to testify so they can be cross-examined, OK?’<br /><br />OK.<br /><br />‘No.’<br /><br />Good.<br /><br />‘OK. Let's go for it. Full disclosure. No holds barred. No unnamed sources. No partisan politics. Let the chips fall where they may.’<br /><br />Bring it on.<br /><br />‘C'mon. Who is the Commander-in-Chief? Is it someone in the CIA? Obama can declassify anything he wants to. Obama didn't have any qualms about releasing the "torture" memos, despite the protests of Bush, Cheney and the CIA. Why should he listen to the CIA now? Why should he respect Bush and Cheney in one regard, but not in another. It's pure hypocrisy. It's a double-standard. You can't have it both ways.’<br /><br />Again, the Judical arm functions independently of the executive, or is supposed to at any rate. For Obama to release files that are the focus of a lawsuit would be illegal and a contempt of court. Sorry, but that’s the law, as signed by President George W. Bush. Who’s got the double standard now?Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-21288939683813537552009-05-23T00:50:46.382-04:002009-05-23T00:50:46.382-04:00Hawkeye – first I’d like to thank you for respondi...Hawkeye – first I’d like to thank you for responding so comprehensively and promptly. It is very rare that one gets the opportunity to discuss these matters with someone across the political divide with such civility and in such depth, so I genuinely and sincerely pay tribute to your patience and tolerance.<br /><br />‘If interpret you correctly, you are disputing the statements I made. Of course I was quoting GWB, Cheney, Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet, former CIA director Robert Gates, and Wikipedia. Those are the statements you are ultimately disputing.’<br /><br />Yes, I suppose I am. <br /><br />‘But of course, you don't believe those guys.’ <br /><br />Is there any objective reason that I should? They might be powerful figures of authority, but I argue that this makes them even less trustworthy – they have a vested interest in the status quo and a burning motivation to preserve it.<br /><br />‘You prefer to trust in stories from 'Vanity Fair' that quote "a former senior C.I.A. official", and "a former Pentagon analyst", and "numerous C.I.A. and F.B.I. officials", and "a retired senior officer" -- all of whom wish to rename nameless of course. If these people are so knowledgable, they ought to be willing to put their careers and reputation on the line.’ <br /><br />I am interested that there is an alternative scenario. Vanity Fair may sound like frippery, but it does have a long and distinguished history of respectable journalism and I’d be surprised if they would jeopardise this reputation by printing errant nonsense. Furthermore, quoting sources anonymously is perfectly acceptable – if it were not, Watergate would never have been tumbled (Talking of which, it was Vanity Fair that eventually revealed the identity of Deep Throat).<br /><br />I might venture that the climate for agency whistleblowers is not what one might term ‘friendly’ – witness the treatment metered out to Sibel Edmonds, a fate sure to chill the heart of men and women used to living a life of obsessive secrecy. <br /><br />‘Until then, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.’<br /><br />Does nothing about those claims bother you? Is your standard of proof that everybody goes on the record fully identified, regardless of what that might mean for them? If so then no one will ever fing much at all, including anyone that wants to drop the Obama administration in it. <br /><br />‘OK, so let me get this straight. The CIA said to themselves one day, "If we torture captured terrorists, we know we won't get any useful information from them. Let's just do it to for propaganda purposes." What propaganda value could the CIA have derived from torturing KSM? As a deterrent to other would-be terrorists? Please enlighten me.’<br /><br />The deterrent factor is part of it, but maybe I was unclear. The CIA needed certain information and so tortured KSM et al until he admitted to whatever the CIA wanted to hear, and this ‘admission’ was then used for propaganda purposes. <br /><br />Waterboarding and other techniques are known to be very effective in electing false information that serves the purposes of the torturing party, as outlined in the report I quoted.Elroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12703177116524934125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-527934784320155112009-05-20T20:44:13.610-04:002009-05-20T20:44:13.610-04:00That’s not an implication, that’s exactly what I s...<B>That’s not an implication, that’s exactly what I said. Business people like to amass fortunes.</B> The way you used that statement before was definitely a non sequitur. Now, it is simply an overly broad generalization. Admit it.<br /><br />The single largest employer in the US is small business. My brother is a "business man" and he didn't amass any fortunes. He had to close his store after 20 years of struggling to make ends meet. There are thousands more like him. <B>SOME</B> business people like to amass fortunes. Some are merely happy to get by.<br /><br /><B>76% of middle-class households do not have enough net assets to meet ¾ of basic expenses for even three months – only 15% shy of the 90% threshold!</B> Links? Anyway, that's why Obama wants them to go out and borrow more money to fuel consumer spending, eh? A lot of people get into trouble because they want stuff. They can't afford it, but they want it. So they borrow money to buy it. They borrow beyond their means. Then they get into trouble. Not all, but a lot.<br /><br /><B>Seen Detroit lately?</B> Yes. And you can thank the UAW for that. And you can thank Michigan's excessive tax burden for that. Why is it that only the states with the lowest tax rates don't seem to have serious budget problems?<br /><br /><B>Are the steel mills of Pennsylvania silent only because of a public holiday?</B> No. It's because they couldn't compete with cheaper steel mills overseas. You know, the places where they don't have unions? In countries where the government subsidizes industry?<br /><br /><B>Are there not really 2 million people warehoused in the US prison system?</B> I don't know. So what? If they didn't commit a crime, they wouldn't be there.<br /><br /><B>Did the gap between rich and poor not grow?</B> I don't know. Did it? So what? Why is that my problem? There will always be poor people, and there will always be rich people. Is it the job of the top 50% of earners to support the lowest 50% of earners? Well we do it right now. Is it the job of the top 25% of earners to support the lowest 50%, but not the ones between the lowest 50% and the top 25%? Well they do it right now. Is it the job of the top 5% of earners to support the lowest 50% of earners, but not the ones between the lowest 50% and the top 5%? Well they do it right now.<br /><br />If you said 'yes' to any of these questions, then tell me why you think that's fair? Look, it's a drag being poor. It's a drag having to struggle to make ends meet. I know. I was there. But I got ahead because I didn't buy a lot of stuff. I didn't buy the best stuff. I did a lot of my own home repairs with the help of friends and family. And all that time I did it on 90% of my income because I gave the rest (sometimes more) to charity. I'm not bragging, just making a point. So because I worked hard all my life, helped the poor and needy, and deprived myself and family, now I have to give away what little I've worked so hard for? Tell that to my wife and family.<br /><br /><B>‘Now start working on your other deficiencies.’ The ones that don’t exist? OK...done.</B> Cute.<br /><br />CheersHawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-46592944965878726632009-05-20T20:25:47.736-04:002009-05-20T20:25:47.736-04:00fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers? ...<B>fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers? Plot the destruction of innocent civilians? Yup, they sure do. What was ‘Shock and Awe®’ if not that?</B> Well for one thing, it was not "indiscriminate". Laser-guided bombs, precision-guided munitions aimed at military targets is not indiscriminate. Second, Saddam and the people of Baghdad had plenty of warning. Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum. American military tactics were well-known since the 1991 Gulf War. Aerial bombardment would come first, followed by a ground invasion later. The news media was aware of what was going to happen. They announced it to the whole world. They had their cameras all set up and ready to get live video of ‘Shock and Awe®’. Hamas and Hezbollah don't warn people when they are going to fire rockets at civilians... they just do it.<br /><br /><B>Jesus is supposed to arrive during a time of great chaos in the world!</B> Actually you are wrong. Jesus is supposed to arrive at a time of "peace" in the world. 1Thessalonians 5:3 says, "When people say, 'There is peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them as travail comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape." The Bible teaches that Christians and Jews will be persecuted by another great religion. Some will manage to escape to safety, but many will fall by the sword. A "false Christ" (that is, "the Antichrist") will claim to be God, cause Christians and Jews to go into hiding, and when he no longer has any opposition, a false peace will ensue -- but for less than 3½ years. Jesus will return to rescue His people and bring "sudden destruction" on the Antichrist and his followers.<br /><br /><B>Jesus fanatics such as George Bush believe it is their duty to exacerbate world chaos in order to speed his return.</B> Hardly. He may have believed that he was part of a plan, but events were cast upon him that changed him forever. His greatest fear was another attack.<br /><br /><B>‘Interesting concept, eh?... peace through chaos and death.’ Indeed it is – isn’t it called The Rapture?</B> No it is not. For more information about Biblical prophecy, you can go to another web site I have been working on <A HREF="http://jjprzy.envy.nu/testimonium/" REL="nofollow"><B>HERE</B></A>. It's not done yet, but there is enough there to get started. Read and learn.<br /><br /><B>PS You have your moments too, y’know.</B> You are correct. I ain't perfect, but I'm really trying. (:D)<br /><br /><B>‘Are you assuming that the case of David Hicks can be applied to OBL's driver, KSM, or AZ?’ No, I’m saying that he was supposed to be the ‘worst of the worst’ and he wasn’t. That’s all.</B> Who said he was the 'worst of the worst'?<br /><br /><B>The gory textbooks they used were written and printed by the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies from the $51 million in grants given to them by the U.S. Agency for International Development.</B> Links? References?<br /><br /><B>‘I've already pointed out a number of false moral equivalencies.’ No, you’ve pointed put what you CONSIDER to be ‘false moral equivalencies’ but what I consider to be valid moral relativisms, and rebutted your rebuttals. Your move.</B> If the moral equivalencies you have suggested were to be analyzed by almost any rational news organization including CNN, NPR or the BBC, I think you would find that they would agree with me. (By the way, Keith Olbermann is not among those I would call "rational".)<br /><br /><B>No you didn’t – with respect, you said no such thing. I posted the quote once along with some corroborating opinions and, up until now, you’ve ignored them all.</B> Hmmm. I could've sworn I responded to that somewhere. Maybe in the comments on another article? I don't know, maybe I just dreamed it.Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-10613806967989682262009-05-20T20:20:43.281-04:002009-05-20T20:20:43.281-04:00And then we have the recent evidence of Lieutenant...<B>And then we have the recent evidence of Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief of the US military chaplains in Afghanistan, telling soldiers that as followers of Jesus Christ, they all have a responsibility "to be witnesses for him. The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus.</B> This guy is a chaplain. He is a Christian first and a soldier second. His job in the military is to provide religious comfort to soldiers (specifically of the Christian faith). These soldiers face fear and death every day. The role of the chaplain is to support people on the battlefield in their faith.<br /><br />Being a "witness" for Jesus means setting a good example, acting Christ-like, showing others that God has made a difference in our life. And, if called upon, as a "witness" we are to give "testimony" about what Jesus means to us. Sounds kind of like a courtroom doesn't it? And we will all stand before the "Judgment" someday too.<br /><br />Being "chief of the US military chaplains", he was speaking to other chaplains again using a metaphor. Ministers like to do that. They use allusions and allegories all the time. Jesus did it himself quite frequently with his use of parables. While I cannot claim to know specifically what he meant, I would suggest that to "hunt people for Jesus" means to "look for people who need solace and support on behalf of Jesus". He is telling his chaplains not sit in a chapel somewhere and pray all day. He wants them to go out and talk to the soldiers. See what they are thinking and feeling. Look for people who need help, just as Jesus walked among the masses "healing their sick". I don't think it is a suggestion to go out and proseletyze with "overwhelming force". As chaplains they are "Special Ops" people, because their mission is very "special" indeed.<br /><br /><B>the Christian Embassy, a Pentagon outreach ministry.</B> Christians do outreach. It is in their nature and heritage. They are called by Christ to do outreach. They are called to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and yes, evangelize too. But aggressive proselytization is frowned upon. I would daresay in the military moreso than elsewhere. As you said, they were endorsed by the DOD for over 25 years.<br /><br /><B>Army Secretary Pete Geren, the former acting secretary of the Air Force, also appeared in the video praising the Christian Embassy and says it ‘has been a rock that I can rely on, been an organization that helped me in my walk with Christ</B>. Great! Being Christ-like is a good thing, isn't it? Or do you have something against putting others first, being kind and considerate, helping others in need.<br /><br /><B>You, as a Christian, might think this is all quite a good idea</B>. Yes I do.<br /><br /><B>when the ex-CIC was a committed Christian, several of his Generals are committed Christians, his private army was run by a committed Christian, military training schools are being run by committed Christians and the head US Army Chaplain actively encourages evangelizing, handing out Bibles and so forth, an outsider might not unreasonably conclude that the US runs a Christian Army and Muslims might not unreasonably regard the WoT™ as a rerun of the crusades.</B> They might conclude that, but they would be wrong.Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-2347945359997338622009-05-20T20:11:42.527-04:002009-05-20T20:11:42.527-04:00if they weren’t feeling persecuted and oppressed b...<B>if they weren’t feeling persecuted and oppressed before they are now – with the Zionists attacking Palestine and the USA attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, if one were a Muslim one might be feeling a little victimized.</B> Hmmm, "Zionists" eh? Careful now. You're letting your anti-Semitism show. And frankly, there are "victims" on both sides. I'm feeling "a little victimized" myself.<br /><br /><B>They are not fighting it with us; we are fighting it with them.</B> See my comments above. If they are fighting, then we are both "at war", plain and simple. (That is, unless we decide to "sit it out" while they continue fighting.) Wars are a 2-way street. It's not like they were defending their homeland on 9/11. That was an "offensive" act, not a "defensive" act. Don't try to make them out like they are noble. There was nothing noble about 9/11. There is nothing noble about killing thousands of innocent civilians.<br /><br /><B>The whole thing was unnecessary and avoidable.</B> Now I <I>KNOW</I> you are deluded... or on drugs... or an Islamic extremist apologist.<br /><br /><B>And there was a similar story in Iraq – Saddam Hussein was trying desperately to negotiate a settlement as the US troops massed on his border but he was, like the Taliban, ignored.</B> Yeah sure. Like he was so noble too. Invading Iran. Invading Kuwait. Mass graves. Gassing the Kurds. Slaughtering the Shia. Too noble for words. My heart goes out for him.<br /><br /><B>9/11, even if was pulled off by OBL, KSM or the tooth fairy, was not an act of war; it was an act of terrorism, a job for Interpol and not the Pentagon.</B> Shooting somebody on the street is a job for Interpol. Hijacking an airplane is a job for Interpol. Killing thousands of innocents is "war". The US treated terrorism like a police matter from 1972 until 2001, and what did it get us? ...9/11. Now with the potential for terrorism using WMDs, the stakes are much higher. We cannot wait until an American or European city is smoldering in ruins to start looking for finger prints. By then, it's too late.<br /><br /><B>‘Another example of your false moral equivalencies.’ No, a matter of historical record.</B> Comparing the actions of two alternate persons or groups is not merely a recitation of the historical record, it is the establishment of a moral equivalence. You may disagree that it is a "false" moral equivalence, but it is a moral equivalence nonetheless. I posit that your moral equivalencies are "false" because your comparisons assume identical motives, which is patently absurd. <br /><br /><B>‘The Jews established a homeland in Palestine and sought to live in freedom...’ A freedom that required the denial of the Palestinians’ freedom.</B> While I disagree, this topic is too big to discuss here.<br /><br /><B>‘When attacked by Muslims...’ Who were defending their private property.</B> Again, I disagree, but too complicated to address here.<br /><br /><B>‘To which acts of Jewish "terrorism" are you referring?’ The bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 is the most famous (91 dead) but there are plenty of others.</B> Well. You got me there. I was not aware of such incidents. I will have to learn more about them. At first glance, I can't condone such tactics. I don't know enough at this point to comment.<br /><br /><B>The Israeli Defense Force is, as I pointed out, a terror organization of religious extremists that is legitimized by the state and visits destruction on a civilian population in order to impose its political will and intimidate the citizens.</B> I think that is an overly broad statement. In Israel, national military service is mandatory for all Israeli citizens over the age of 18 (including women). It would be hard to believe then that everyone who serves is a "religious extremist". During the 1967 war, Moshe Dyan could have captured the Temple Mount and demolished the mosques if he was truly a "religious extremist". Instead, he turned it over to the Muslims and forbade Israelis to even visit the site.Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12075358.post-66421715037694754602009-05-20T20:06:08.811-04:002009-05-20T20:06:08.811-04:00Is there any ‘moral equivalency’ you might conside...<B>Is there any ‘moral equivalency’ you might consider valid?</B> Sure. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler or Mao. President Bush was just as bad as President Clinton in some respects. Obama is just as bad as Bush in some respects. But Bush does not equal Hitler or Stalin... sorry.<br /><br /><B>How does starting two wars keep Americans safe? How? What is the logic?</B> The war in Afghanistan was started after 9/11 because the al-Qaeda training camps were in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda was being protected by the Taliban. Al-Qaeda perpetrated 9/11, the US embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the 1993 WTC bombing. Rooting out al-Qaeda keeps Americans safe.<br /><br />As for Iraq. There was a widespread belief that Saddam had WMDs. Yes, it was "widespread". All the western intelligence agencies believed it, and not just a few Democrats too. After 9/11 there was widespread fear that WMDs in Iraq could fall into the hands of terrorists. Bad intelligence? Perhaps. But that's the story. Saddam was clearly a madman and a butcher. He used WMDs on the Kurds. He was shooting missiles at Coalition aircraft in the "no-fly" zones almost daily. He played lots of games with the UNSCOM inspectors. He wouldn't let UNSCOM into certain buildings for hours on end while trucks would load up stuff and leave the facility. He eventually kicked out UNSCOM. He played games with Hans Blix and the IAEA after 13 or 14 UN resolutions had been passed. There was no telling what the guy might do next. And as we found out later, he ordered Iraqi scientist <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html" REL="nofollow">Mahdi Obeidi</A> to hide centrifuge parts and plans in his back yard... parts and plans for uranium-enrichment equipment.<br /><br /><B>Huh? That’s exactly what they did! [Bush-Cheney] perpetrated plots for the sole purpose of killing thousands of innocent civilians, except it was tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.</B> Get real! Their aim was <B>NOT</B> to slaughter civilians en masse. If you believe that, then you are very deluded... or on drugs. Their goal was regime change, finding WMDs, eliminating a potential terrorist threat -- not wholesale slaughter. If wholesale slaughter was their goal, there are plenty of weapons that could have been used to get the job done a lot more efficiently than using precision guided munitions.<br /><br /><B>No, they believe another culture and religion is at war with them. Big difference.</B> Sorry, but I don't see the difference. If they believe others ar "at war" with them, they have only two options: retaliate or don't retaliate, you know... "fight or flight". If they choose to retaliate and fight, then they are by definition, "at war" with us, regardless of the agressor, real or imagined. Perhaps not all have chosen to fight, but some have. Those who have chosen to fight, are "at war" with us "infidels".<br /><br />Perhaps some of us believe that "another culture and religion" is at war with us. Did you ever think about that? Acts of terrorism by Islamic radicals goes back quite a way: 1972 Olympics: 12 dead, 1973 Saudi Arabian embassy, 1973 Pan Am Flight 110: 30 dead, 1974 Kiryat Shmona massacre: 18 dead, 1974 Ma'alot massacre: 26 dead, 1974 TWA Flight 841: 88 dead, 1975 Savoy Operation: 11 dead, 1976 Lebanon kidnappings: 2 dead, 1977 Washington DC (3) buildings taken over: 1 dead, 1978 Israeli orange poisonings, 1979 Iran hostage crisis, 1980 Belgian grenade attack: 1 dead, 1981 Vienna synagogue attack: 2 dead, 1981 Anwar Sadat assassinated, 1981 Belgian synagogue attack: 3 dead.<br /><br />Of course I could go on, but I think you get the point. Where is your sense of moral equivalence now? Excuse me, "valid moral relativism"?Hawkeye®https://www.blogger.com/profile/15719046062819366641noreply@blogger.com