Evangelical Disconnect

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

The head of the christo-fascism himself, George "Dubya" Bush, described his wars as a crusade. That loon and his end of the world nutters think they are fighting an axis of evil. They have even given the evil doers a cute name, so they can pretend they are fighting a modern day equivalent of Hitler. It's easier than looking in the mirror and seeing they are the nazis of the modern world.He used the word "crusade". That settles it, I guess. :rolleyes: Seems you're not very sparing with the hatred, reason or no reason. What will you blame on fundamentalists next?

Of course, any Christian worth his salt would condemn the actions of George
"Born-again" Bush, in respect of Iraq.
Bush is a hyporcrite.

The leaders of the Methodist Church in the USA, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have all condemned the Iraq and Bush's part in that war.Was it because they feel he went to war in order to persecute Muslims, though? I don't think so. The point is that the Iraq war is not entirely germane to the subject at hand, not whether religious leaders like it.

The head of the christo-fascism himself, George "Dubya" Bush, described his wars as a crusade. That loon and his end of the world nutters think they are fighting an axis of evil. They have even given the evil doers a cute name, so they can pretend they are fighting a modern day equivalent of Hitler. It's easier than looking in the mirror and seeing they are the nazis of the modern world.Hmmm......totalitarian dictator.....police state....lets his people starve so he could acquire/develop nuclear weapons....NOPE! no evil there at all.

No comparison to Hitler either!

They are just invading other countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people. That is so much better.How many senators from the left like Hillary voted to approve the war?

In light of that, how do you justify your claim that it's all a fundamentalist conspiracy?

We haven't even lost the war yet and already you're looking for scapegoats. Next you'll be holding a putsch in a beer hall.

Must be easier than looking in the mirror.

Hmmm......totalitarian dictator.....police state....lets his people starve so he could acquire/develop nuclear weapons....NOPE! no evil there at all.

No comparison to Hitler either!Com'on, you know that the invasion of Iraq was not for the noble cause of "liberation of Iraqi people". If so, then there are several other countries which should have been invaded by now. But I agree with you that the issue is more political than religious.

The point is that the Iraq war is not entirely germane to the subject at hand, not whether religious leaders like it.

So why did you feel the need to introduce the Iraq War in to the discussion.
Here's what you posted only two days ago Who would have thought you were referring to the Iraq war, instead of the noise some are making about ilsamo-fascism.









Was it because they feel he went to war in order to persecute Muslims, though? I don't think so. .

And you're entitled to think whatever you choose.

My point was that the Christian moral authorities like John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, the Methodist Bishops of the USA and Dr Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury - all Christian leaders - have unequivocally condemned George "Born Again" Bush on Iraq.

For someone who claims to be Christian, I would have assumed that you
also condemn Bush?

Com'on, you know that the invasion of Iraq was not for the noble cause of "liberation of Iraqi people". If so, then there are several other countries which should have been invaded by now. But I agree with you that the issue is more political than religious.I was referring to North Korea, not Iraq.

Bro Deal said Bush and his supporters think they "...are fighting an axis of evil. They have even given the evil doers a cute name, so they can pretend they are fighting a modern day equivalent of Hitler."

I merely wanted to point out that the term "axis of evil" is not about Islam, and it is not about made-up, imaginary evil.

So why did you feel the need to introduce the Iraq War in to the discussion.
Here's what you posted only two days ago










And you're entitled to think whatever you choose.

My point was that the Christian moral authorities like John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, the Methodist Bishops of the USA and Dr Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury - all Christian leaders - have unequivocally condemned George "Born Again" Bush on Iraq.

For someone who claims to be Christian, I would have assumed that you
also condemn Bush?:confused: You lost me there, guy. Are you toying with me by pretending not to understand?

When I called bro deal to task for criticizing what he calls "Bush's crusade against Islam", hadn't he already introduced the war?

I was unaware that you people do not know Iraq was a secularized, tolerant society (strictly religiously speaking of course) and had large populations of Christians and Zoroastrians who were allowed to practice openly.

So, even when I commented on Bro Deal's remark, I wasn't talking about the war. You may have felt I was talking about the war, but you were wrong.

I merely wanted to point out that the term "axis of evil" is not about Islam, and it is not about made-up, imaginary evil.The good and evil of history are decided by who wins the war and gets to write the report... ;)

The good and evil of history are decided by who wins the war and gets to write the report... ;)Kim Jong Il says thank you but there has not yet been a war over his nuclear program.;)

But then the islamo-fascists would win. :rolleyes: It's much better to bankrupt the country fighting an eternal war against an imaginary villian.

George Orwell was a prophet.Guess what? Saddam was not an islamo-fascist, just a brutal dictator in his own special, highly secular way. You might be blurring two different issues together there.

:confused: You lost me there, guy. Are you toying with me by pretending not to understand?

When I called bro deal to task for criticizing what he calls "Bush's crusade against Islam", hadn't he already introduced the war?


You're being, specious.
Bro deal did not refer to Iraq.
He made a general cooment about Islam.

You made a specific comment about Iraq two days ago.






I was unaware that you people do not know Iraq was a secularized, tolerant society (strictly religiously speaking of course) and had large populations of Christians and Zoroastrians who were allowed to practice openly.


No one here made any comments about Iraq being secularised/sectarian.

Incidentally I agree that Iraq was a secularised country, as you say.
Which makes it all the more confusing as to why George Bush, would invade a secularised country on the basis that it contained Islamic fascists (Bush's words not mine).

However I refer to the point again.
You claim to be a christian.
Therefore as a christian - do you support the condemnation of the Bush made by John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, the Methodist Bishops of the USA and Dr Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury.
You being a christian and all that?

as in the invasion and continued occupation and assualt on iraq.
"in order for good people to perpetrate killing, religion must be invoked"
(paraphrased, quote)

as for "should have been invaded" as you state here, think about it, is not any act of war an attack against the people ultimately?

should not a nation and it's peoples be allowed the freedom to develop of their own organic processes?

for if not, on who's behalf would the invaders really be fighting for?

look at it this way, the country in which you live, if an invading force were to attack and occupy would you support this?

perhaps be you would be expected to throw roses and wave their flag, allow your economy to be confiscated, your currency to be voided, replaced by one which states "in god we trust", worship their deity structure in support of the invasion and it's paradigm?

if this is not right for one nation why is it for another you may ask...rationalizing comes into play here.

oh yeah, "our way" is in the right, at least in the light of our belief system and world view, which includes religious practice such as church and state affiliation.

in this example, there may well be convictions your country needs freedom of one kind, and this then should be imposed in the name of all that is holy in some sense of sociological belief system. do not count out the allmighty dollar as being intrinsic to this equation.

under objective scrutiny, the true mentality of the us becomes obvious in these matters.

Com'on, you know that the invasion of Iraq was not for the noble cause of "liberation of Iraqi people". If so, then there are several other countries which should have been invaded by now. But I agree with you that the issue is more political than religious.

concerning your mention here of the subject of secularism, this is debatable, as saddam spent lavishly on the construction of mosques, esp. in the latter years.



Guess what? Saddam was not an islamo-fascist, just a brutal dictator in his own special, highly secular way. You might be blurring two different issues together there.

You're being, specious.
Bro deal did not refer to Iraq.
He made a general cooment about Islam.

You made a specific comment about Iraq two days ago.I invite all readers of this thread to look for themselves.

I invite all readers of this thread to look for themselves.

and I invite you to tell us whether or not you support the condemnation of Bush by Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Being the good christian that you are.

concerning your mention here of the subject of secularism, this is debatable, as saddam spent lavishly on the construction of mosques, esp. in the latter years.A socialist, arab-nationalist dictator builds his people some state funded public works projects which they want and appreciate. So much for your debatable objection.

I have put forth the argument in several posts that Saddam's regime was far more secular than other nations which we have not invaded, in answer to the absurd claim that the US attacked Iraq for being Islamist. I do not claim it was entirely secular or atheistic.

and I invite you to tell us whether or not you support the condemnation of Bush by Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Being the good christian that you are.Only if you tell me where I brought up the war. :)

Only if you tell me where I brought up the war. :)There may be some confusion because Bro Deal seems to have deleted the message that you quoted when you first mentioned the war.

IMHO The US attacked Iraq because:

1. They have wanted to ever since Saddam was able to gloat after the 1991 Iraq war that the US hadn't defeated him... and for his screwing around with the sanctions and weapons inspections.

2. Ever since Saddam tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush

3. Saddam and his nuclear aspirations were the chief threat to Israel (not the US). BTW - they knew he never had WMDs. They didn't want him to develop them though. How stupid would it have been to invade a country that had WMDs and back a leader into a guillotine while the leader could press a button and blow up the whole of Israel within 10 minutes of launching the missiles. And what better way to ensure that you get the war/invasion you want than to condition not attacking on your enemy giving up something that you know they don't have.

4. After the Twin Tower attacks in New York.... and the subsequent difficulties in finding Osama Bin Laden and fighting a diffused Al Qaida network... Iraq was a country they knew how to fight... had plans for fighting... had a definite victory milestone... and a leader they wanted deposed.

5. They listened too much to opportunistic Iraq exiles like Chalabi

6. Bush wanted a "Mission Accomplished" moment.

7. The US (neocons) wanted a democratic foothold in the center of the Arab world (one in which they held large influence over and retained military bases in) to act as a beacon for democracy in the Middle East, and a large military base to exert "US" diplomacy.

8. OIL

9. More OIL

10. Bush isn't super smart... but he had worked out that all great US Presidents in history presided over victorious wars. So he just had to find one.

11. The Christian right within the Republican Party were fighting a holy war. And if they didn't think they were, then they would have phrased it as defending against an Islamic holy war.

12. Corporate interests. The war industry is a multi-billion dollar industry in the US. They need wars for ongoing business growth. President Eisenhower warned against this... and he was a military general.