Evangelical Disconnect

[garage sale GT]

Obviously a lot more than you if you think gas masks are adequate defence against them.

Well, you got me there. The army's modern NBC gear is more like a kind of suit.

 

[garage sale GT]

The point is that when you put a gun against someone's head... then using WMDs might make sense. Saddam knew he was doomed.

I say, how did he know he wasn't doomed in 1991 when his front line collapsed? Why didn't he gas us like he gassed the Kurds?

 

[garage sale GT]

Well it's nice to know that the man so gracious to answer theological questions for umpteen posts previously.... is finally stumped for an answer. Maybe you should ponder it a while... rather than putting your head back in the comfortable warm sand of unreality.

I don't mean to be personal, despite you calling my question "puerile'. But once you invoke religion as a rationale for everything you want to do... all of a sudden logic goes out the window. Only religion could have been used as a reason to cut off the heads of innocent reporters in Iraq... and only religion could have inspired people to fly planes into buildings killing thousands of innocent people... and only religion could have been used as a rationale for nearly wiping out the entire indigenous population of North America. The list can go on.

Actually, people get their heads cut off for politics or crime, too. Ever heard of King Louis XVI? Hostages are taken and killed for a variety of reasons.

I would say the fact that people wanted their land was "used as a rationale for nearly wiping out the entire indigenous population of North America".

 

[Crankyfeet]

I say, how did he know he wasn't doomed in 1991 when his front line collapsed? Why didn't he gas us like he gassed the Kurds?

I don't know why. Perhaps he knew through his intelligence sources that the US didn't intend to take Baghdad, or occupy the country.

How much of a hero to the Arab world would he have been if he nuked Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? Would the US have responded by nuking the whole of Iraq? Would Saddam have really cared if he thought he was going to die... or had committed suicide. Do we really know how a psychopathic, power hungry, dictator is going to act when we storm his palace and he has a red button on his desk that can wipe out a country only a couple of hundred miles away that the Arab world would hail him as a hero for doing?

They knew he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. However if they prefaced the attack on "We're worried he might be developing WMDs", they would never have got it past the American people or the UN. It was a big lie to justify what they wanted to do IMO.

 

[garage sale GT]

I don't know why. Perhaps he knew through his intelligence sources that the US didn't intend to take Baghdad, or occupy the country.

How much of a hero to the Arab world would he have been if he nuked Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? Would the US have responded by nuking the whole of Iraq? Would Saddam have really cared if he thought he was going to die... or had committed suicide. Do we really know how a psychopathic, power hungry, dictator is going to act when we storm the palace and he has a red button on his desk that can wipe out a country only a couple of hundred miles away that the Arab world would hail him as a hero for doing?

I guess we're dealing with one of the finest military minds on the message boards. Let me put it to you: Don't you think Israel might have nuked them?

 

[garage sale GT]

I don't know why. Perhaps he knew through his intelligence sources that the US didn't intend to take Baghdad, or occupy the country.

How much of a hero to the Arab world would he have been if he nuked Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? Would the US have responded by nuking the whole of Iraq? Would Saddam have really cared if he thought he was going to die... or had committed suicide. Do we really know how a psychopathic, power hungry, dictator is going to act when we storm his palace and he has a red button on his desk that can wipe out a country only a couple of hundred miles away that the Arab world would hail him as a hero for doing?

They knew he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. However if they prefaced the attack on "We're worried he might be developing WMDs", they would never have got it past the American people or the UN. It was a big lie to justify what they wanted to do IMO.

Actually, the UNMOVIC inspectors KNOW FOR A FACT they did have anthrax at the time of the inspectors' expulsion in 1998, and we didn't know where it went after that. In fact, we still don't know.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Actually, people get their heads cut off for politics or crime, too. Ever heard of King Louis XVI? Hostages are taken and killed for a variety of reasons.

I would say the fact that people wanted their land was "used as a rationale for nearly wiping out the entire indigenous population of North America".

But killing them (an unchristian act) was much easier once it was determined that they were Satan worshippers. How could the US be "God's country" bestowed upon the new settlers and pilgrims if the indigenous people were also God's children? That would be unchristian wouldn't it? To invade, usurp, kill, depossess, conquer.

You are right about politics and criminals. Religion though has the power, like politics, to inspire the masses to see the enemy as evil (ie something to do with Satan)... when really they are just different people with different cultures and perhaps different aspirations.

 

[Crankyfeet]

I guess we're dealing with one of the finest military minds on the message boards. Let me put it to you: Don't you think Israel might have nuked them?

That's the point, yes... and he would have still been a hero for wiping out Israel. Allah's hero. A dead hero... but isn't that what all the suicide bombers are seeking anyay? When he's going to die in any case... he would have been the greatest suicide bomber that ever lived in the Arab world. Even if Baghdad was wiped out in retalliation. And in any case... he may have just enjoyed seeing the US and Israel pay an almighty price for their bold stupidity. Can you predict how he is going to react when his head is in the guillotine?

 

[limerickman]

So, what invasion was Bro Deal referring to? Where else have we invaded, where hundreds of thousands have died?

Besides Afghanistan, a country which housed the terrorist organization which killed 3000 New Yorkers, of course. Tell me, what country was he referring to?

I don't know what region Brodeal was referring to.

BUT YOU MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT BRODEAL WAS REFERRING TO IRAQ.

 

[garage sale GT]

I don't know what region Brodeal was referring to.

BUT YOU MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT BRODEAL WAS REFERRING TO IRAQ.

No, I deduced that he was referring to Iraq.


Where else did you think we were invading?

 

[Crankyfeet]

I think it's called a logical deduction, though.

I thought Bro Deal said "invading other countrIES". I am having difficulty interpreting that as being a direct reference to just one country... Iraq.

 

[garage sale GT]

I thought Bro Deal said "invading other countrIES". I am having difficulty interpreting that as being a direct reference to just one country... Iraq.

When I said "deduction", that means you eliminate the other possibilities. It is pronounced de-duk-shun. This is kind of how it works:

Since he cited hundreds of thousands dead and the toll in Afghanistan is nowhere near that high, he didn't mean Afghanistan. Although death in war, especially civilian deaths, are always tragic, it shows he was talking about another country.

Since the taliban government supported and housed Al-quaeda, who attacked Manhattan killing 3000 US citizens, I did not believe anyone would claim our counterattack against Afghanistan constituted a war against islam.

Are you making the point that he could have meant some other country which we are not invading but which he erroneously thought we were invading? I suppose that would be a valid point on this thread.

 

[Crankyfeet]

When I said "deduction", that means you eliminate the other possibilities. It is pronounced de-duk-shun. This is kind of how it works:

Since he cited hundreds of thousands dead and the toll in Afghanistan is nowhere near that high, he didn't mean Afghanistan, although civilian deaths are always tragic in any numbers.

Since the taliban government supported and housed Al-quaeda, who attacked Manhattan killing 3000 US citizens, I did not believe anyone would claim our counterattack against Afghanistan constituted a war against islam.

Are you making the point that he could have meant some other country which we are not invading but which he erroneously thought we were invading? I suppose that would be a valid point on this thread.

I have to retract my earlier statement... Lim is right... You mentioned Iraq first. If Bro was specifically referring to Iraq... he wouldn't have used the plural "countries".

He may have had Iraq as part of his set of countries, but you directed the discussion to Iraq specifically.

 

[garage sale GT]

I have to retract my earlier statement... Lim is right... You mentioned Iraq first. If Bro was specifically referring to Iraq... he wouldn't have used the plural "countries".

He may have had Iraq as part of his set of countries, but you directed the discussion to Iraq specifically.

So you subscribe to the idea that he was referring to made-up invasions?

Or have we actually killed hundreds of thousands elsewhere?

And, was it wrong for us to go into Afghanistan to get the terrorist group who killed 3000 of our civilians? In other words, it is legitimate self-defense, not a war on Islam.

 

[garage sale GT]

Oh, boy. I am so embarrassed. You two are playing with me to see how long you can keep me answering your silly objections! Touche'.

That's an interesting angle. "you can't prove to me I'm wrong! I don't know enough!"

 

[Crankyfeet]

Oh, boy. I am so embarrassed. You two are playing with me to see how long you can keep me answering your silly objections! Touche'.

That's an interesting angle. "you can't prove to me I'm wrong! I don't know enough!"

Well, you've either been played like a preschooler, or you mentioned Iraq first as previously shown... you take your pick...

 

[garage sale GT]

Well, you've either been played like a preschooler, or you mentioned Iraq first as previously shown... you take your pick...

If you're serious, who else did he mean? Elbonia?

 

[Crankyfeet]

If you're serious, who else did he mean? Elbonia?

How many times does this have to be explained?

He was talking generally about ALL the countries that have been invaded, which most likely INCLUDES Iraq.

YOU CHOSE TO SPECIFICALLY TALK ABOUT IRAQ.


To use a hypothetical analogy... If I was to refer generally to all Christian religious denominations that have persecuted non-believers... and in the next post, you started talking about the Catholic Church specifically... I think it would be you who first mentioned Catholics, not me.

 

[garage sale GT]

How many times does this have to be explained?

He was talking generally about ALL the countries that have been invaded, which most likely INCLUDES Iraq.

YOU CHOSE TO SPECIFICALLY TALK ABOUT IRAQ.


To use a hypothetical analogy... If I was to refer generally to all Christian religious denominations that have persecuted non-believers... and in the next post, you started talking about the Catholic Church specifically... I think it would be you who first mentioned Catholics, not me.

All right then, please name ALL the countries which I can see being invaded on what he called "faux news", his name for the Fox news television network.

 

[garage sale GT]

Now you're mixing posts. The Faux news post quote was:


Where is the reference in this post to countries being invaded?

You really can't let this go can you?...

Nice duck. Now you are projecting your stubbornness on me.

As you may recall I didn't think he was talking about war but he set me straight in a later post.

Whether or not this has anything to do with Iraq or Elbonia has a lot to do with a discussion on whether Christians are decent members of society.