I have wrote the same message in my other thread, but I wanted it to be in the forefront, not entangled in a monstrous thread.



Surreal phenomenon of war pimping in this thread is a clear demonstration of 'cognitive dissonance'. But, what does that mean? I admit -with a sense of humble discomfort- that it means the lack of agreement between reality and a person's understanding of it. In other words, it describes one's inability, or even downright unwillingness, to grasp the truth.

For Sonny, Myk, and the like, in the war of opinions over Iraq, facts don't matter. It is of little to no use wasting brain power, typing endless keystrokes or utilizing basic principles of morality and common sense to enlighten those who insist on believing that killing the thousands of Iraqis and destroying their country has had a justification. When logic is abandoned voluntarily and en masse, and replaced with 'cognitive dissonance', then the persuasive power of reason and critical thinking evaporates.

Kevin R and the anti-war folks, the inevitable question is what the rest of us should do upon finding ourselves in a situation where we can not make a difference and where there is no way the other side will listen to us and go along with us.

I fear my answer to this question is somewhat plain: if you consider the advancement of peace and social justice to be simply a rhetorical pursuit, an entertaining political diversion whose actual outcome will have minimum impact upon your life and immediate environment, then you are doing fine if you just shut up. Don't waste your breath. Don't fight that battle. You're going to lose anyway.

If, on the other hand, you consider the widespread attainment of peace and social justice to be fundamental to your personal and moral stability, as well as to the prosperity of your loved ones and your community, nation and world, then try to look forward to your only valuable sources of enjoyment: the daily recurrence of small and large acts of courage and commitment, through which you will show the 'cognitive dissonance' crowd that when you talk about justice, solidarity, compassion and peace, you really mean it.

'cognitive dissonance'- A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.

-Dictionary.com

To quote your quote, "'cognitive dissonance'- A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat."

I have a different view:

'cognitive dissonance'- A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, and the actions of others, especially where they deliberately act against you, this being AGAINST the Christian principles of belief."

Conflict would NOT arise if people really studied the Christian example in detail.

The Christian Master is pictured as the Single Child of a loving Mother who realised that His own Father was God.

That people should have had SO many children is what leades people into conflict. But if people had only one child and looked after him or her VERY carefully, as one might imagine that a GOOD SHEPHERD would look after one of His flock, there would be NO conflict.

As it is there are SEVERAL "beliefs" all competeing with each other to overbreed/outbreed other people.

Just how it is possible to have "separate" beliefs in ONE God is totally beyond me.

In FACT this is IMPOSSIBLE.

MAC

You should just make one thread since your answers to everything are the same.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Be grateful, Myk. At least with his philosophy, yours will be the last religion that gets executed into extinction for having so many damn kids. Neighbor is Mormon, she's got 4 kids, she said "my husband said we can stop when we get to six, because thats what the church says is the right number".

I'm thinking "yeah, but those church leaders don't have to have the kids. Tell them to shit a watermelon once every year for 6 years and see if they think it's good doctrine!"

So you noticed the coincidence .......

If two people have two children then their two children will replace them when they die.

If two other people have six chidren then they will replace their parents three times over, OR, replace two other couples.

What happens if the parents never die?

Are you a believer?

>So you noticed the coincidence .......
>
>If two people have two children then their two children will
>replace them when they die.

True, but functionally and scientifically impossible in any society.

>
>If two other people have six chidren then they will replace
>their parents three times over, OR, replace two other
>couples.

same as above.


>What happens if the parents never die?

Then we would all be saying "I'm going to the Temple!" instead of "I'm going to church"

>Are you a believer?

I believe a lot of things, but only things I know.

It is only those who find things "impossible" who do not ... know.

And yet if you should know then you would realise that all things are possible.

"For when you have eliminated the "impossible" then whatever remains, no matter how incredible it may seem to you, MUST be the Truth."

And the TRUTH shall set you Free.

That's Sherlock Holmes, a fictional character, who also stated "What the deuce is it to me?" when he was informed that the earth revolved around the sun.

And if The Truth should be less strange than fiction, what then?

That the Earth revolved around the Sun was known to the Egyptians many thousands of years before.

But it is all blown away when a child dies before a parent, then it is a logical fallacy.



Ed W.

Well, we can look at that as a statistical anomaly, one that will be set into equilibrium when a couple dies before producing any children.

Assuming that balance is what Chattan wants to achieve, our society would have to evolve towards a "Pro-Life but only two!" set of values, men and women would be prevented from having anything more (or less) than a certain amount of children by a goverment institution that does nothing but analyze statistical population data (please, don't let the Census Bureau be in charge!). Mandatory registration would of course be required by this agency. Then you have to consider what the consequences will be. If a woman becomes pregnant with her 3rd child, another family would no doubt have their "limit" dropped to 1 child.

I don't mean to sound like a dyed-in-the-wool arch-liberal, but that just sounds a tad bit too Orwellian to me.

Neither Orwellian nor Utopian just mathematical ... logic.

Pure reasoning.

English Poet William Blake, probably put it best-

Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read'st black where I read white.

It all has to do with interpretation. No one can agree on how to interpret the Bible. That's why we have over 3,000 versions of the Bible, and so many seperate Christian identities.


Many people in far off lands that were long untouched by the teachings of Islam, or Christianity, basically came to their own religious beliefs, often involving more than one god, and usually *"earth centered" at that. Does that make *them heathens? Hardly! In fact, many prospered, lived and died quite well for centuries without knowing *anything about the *major religions that so many seem to push their ideologies in your face. It's people pushing *their ideologies on others that often causes many wars to begin with!

You can't teach the world to fly with "Blue Angel" prescision, let alone make them stay in their own flight path! Not gonna happen!

Hey, I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony too, but I think I'll just have a f#@kin' Coke and a smile instead, because it's easier!

Then you must take the easy way ... out. If that is your choice.

You failed to even address anything else I said that I was actually serious about. Instead you focus on the one thing that you knew you could attack because you lack a sense of humor and you are logically bankrupt. You can take your linear biblical interpretations, and your commyland family planning and take a long frickin' hike, because my bride and I will have as many or few children as we want, TYVM!

You are full of my friend...

And you, sir, are full of unhappiness.
Just my opinion, from reading your posts.
But it's there...

Then you haven't even 'begun' to read my posts. Doesn't look like i'm the one preaching gloom & doom on a global scale, like some half crazed prophet playing with a calculator.

If anything, I'm complex, but not unhappy. So you've obviously missed the mark there, but, that's okay Sigmund, I'll forgive you. Better luck next time. If someone spouts some bullshit that they can't really back up, and they try to back it up with even *more inane drivel why not call them on it? Since you can't seem to specifically show me just how unhappy I am, why not STFU?

The Original Trinity of Creation.

Atum, Shu, Tefnut.

Atum = atom

Shu = Male

Tefnut = Female

The Shu-Tefnut, Male-Female bond also represents two atoms (See: Atum) joined inseparably. This marriage "molecule" cannot exist without its partner.

We already know the danger of splitting the atom. What happens when people contrive to split the marriage "molecule".

What God hath joined together let NOT man break asunder.

Following your interest in such things.

Both read the Bible day and night,
but thou readest black, where I read white.

It all has to do with interpretation. No one can agree on how to interpret the Bible. That's why we have over 3,000 versions of the Bible, and so many seperate Christian identities.

Just to extract this portion ..."

"No one can agree on how to interpret the Bible."

What is to interpret? The first ten words say all that there is to say. "In the beginning GOD Created the Heaven and the Earth."

This simple truth is EQUALLY true for ALL people.

But if everyone takes the notion that they can all have as many children as they like and all of them operate a separate agenda based in sectarian "beliefs", when there CAN only be ONE, given that everyone says that they believe in ONE GOD then this is a recipe for eventual disaster.

In 1750 the global population stood at 1.5 billion, today it stands at 6.0 billion, a fourfold increase.

Mathematics based in logic alone will tell anyone that if four people can live for 25 years, then one person can live for 100 years.

Having too many children is depleting the Earth of its precious resources. As having more than one child exacerbates this situation then having 10, 20, 30, 40 children or more leads to there being an impossible situation as it becomes increasingly difficult to provide for them.

Christ, having fed the 5000, is now faced with the daunting prospect of feeding 5,000,000,000.

Putting more people onto the planet than the planet can logically support is folly.

                The logistics have to be VERY CAREFULLY thought out.

That the population increase follows an exponential upward curve is not condusive to living in peace and harmony, but leads, inevitably toward conflict.

That anyone should have more children than society can cope with leads to intolerable suffering where tens, even hundreds, of millions languish in poverty or starve to death, when they are not killing each other and blowing each other to pieces.

No man, or woman, is an island to his or her self and to be so is selfish ... beyond belief.

The citizens of ALL countries have the RIGHT to do as society permits them to do according to the constitution, and Government of the People, by the People, for the People.

As none may place themselves above another it is for ALL people to do the same and should everyone be able to defend themselves then there would be NO attacks made on others.

A logical, intelligent & civilised society has no place for emotive and violent people, for violence HAS to be controlled, as do the people.

THIS is what governments are for, for without the rule of LAW, there is only lawlessness.

If the LAW should say that it IS beneficial to ALL members of Global society to only be ALLOWED to have one child and that all should protect that child, as good Shepherds should, then they may count themselves as being TRULY CHRISTIAN.

If they do NOT do so then, evidently, they are false.

So, beware false gods, my friend. As it is written, so shall it come to pass unless man becomes ... truly ... wise.

For it is the TRUTH that shall set you free. Something that lies will ... never ... do.

I seems that the GOOD Shepherd died ... some time ago.

Bullies always pick on Small guys. Also, they always love just about any kind of war, no matter how lethal, as long as they or their kids do NOT have to fight in any of them.

My natural predisposition is to cheer any time American forces go into combat. On the other hand, I hate a damned bully, even if it's the United States. I hate it that the politicians in Washington keep using our forces to bomb little countries because those politicians are annoyed with the little country's leader.

How about a fair fight once in a while? How about bombing a country more of our size?

President Bush wants to be macho, so why doesn't he bomb North Korea? Now, North Korea is still a little country compared with us, but it has a million-man army and 4.7 million-man reserve force, not to mention more than 10,000 surface-to-air missiles and potential to deploy a ‘weaponized’ nuclear capacity.

People here hav tried to struggle to produce some credible excuse for the unjustified, and always pull their favorite rabbit out of a hat … Iraqis terrorized by ruthless dictator.

What does the plight of Iraqis have to do with me and other Americans'? Nothing. I thought that the American military was defending Americans not foreigners. I honestly don't care about the plight of foreigners enough to demand from our troops to go and "liberate" them, just as much as I don't want Uncle Sam to take my income and redistribute to the poor through welfare programs, while giving really rich a break.

Our Army is a defender of our freedom ... when it is threatened. Saddam was NOT a threat to us.

What I wish is that Americans would wake up from their television trance and realize that our government -- the people we elect -- have been acting like crypto-fascists in recent years, bombing and starving people in small countries simply because the politicians are frustrated or need a headline to distract attention from their personal failures or other serious problems, like economy and unemployment.

We ought to be the good guys, and we aren't. We are meddling in other people's countries, bullying them, killing them, breaking international laws right and left, acting as hypocrite and being an all-around jerk of a nation.

The fault lies with the civilian leadership, not with the military, and ultimately with us because we elect the civilian leadership. For a self-governing people, we have done a terrible job in recent years.

There are two total fools in this thread, you can take comfort in the fact that you are only one of them

Shelly

>There are two total fools in this thread, you can take
>comfort in the fact that you are only one of them
>


Try posting some info on the debate and your reasons why my point of view is such lunacy instead of calling people fools.

You are far too much of an ass for me to waste any time on.

Shelly

>You are far too much of an ass for me to waste any time on.


Looks like you run out of cogent facts to continue the debate.

To simply assert that Saddam is evil and could be a threat without demonstrating a compelling and present danger is to indulge in paranoia and make a mockery of due process. Let's look at the example of the LAPD's rampart division where police officiers planted incrimnating evidence on suspects. Sure many of the suspects were gang bangers and probably did something bad, even if it wasn't the particular crime question. However even if someone is a violent "gangbanger" it doesn't justify commiting a crime in order put him away, once we violate due process for one person we will inevitably begin violating due process for everyone else. Eventually if we break the rules often enough they mean nothing. Yes Saddam probably did cheat but if we cheat too(especially in a very unconvincing) then fewer and fewer people will follow the rules and the only rule of thumb becomes how much freedom of action does your power give you? Might does NOT make right.

>There are two total fools in this thread, you can take
>comfort in the fact that you are only one of them.

Now, according to your logic, there will be three. This person feels as strongly about his beliefs as you do yours. In fact, you protest and scorn this type of opinion so vehemently that I begin to wonder if maybe you HAVE sat down and thought about this particular view, and wonder if there IS some merit to it. Of course, what I have just suggested to you will undoubtably provoke an endless diatribe of verbal put-downs designed to put me in my place - unless you ignore this post completely. Again, most of us are well aware of your feelings on this matter. Maybe, just maybe, the next time someone has an opinion different from yours, you could sit down and compose a thoughtful, factual account of the reasons you have come to these conlusions - without reducing yourself to grade school one-liners.

Oh no, I have great respect for anyone who presents an intelligent argument on any side of an issue. But that does not include mindless cut and paste jobs of every cliché and slander that can be found on lunatic fringe internet sites, and strung together without any logic or original thought. You'll note that he jumps around between unconnected subjects, sometimes within the same paragraph. El Pus is an obvious troll, whose only interest here is to stir up as much turmoil as he can. That was obvious from his first post on this forum. I could just remove his posts, but I believe in freedom of speech, so I prefer to just humiliate him, he will leave soon enough on his own like all trolls, and infest some other site. We get five or six like him a year. This is not fertile ground for trolls, we don't welcome them with open arms.

Shelly

Cut and Paste.

"Oh no, I have great respect for anyone who presents an intelligent argument on any side of an issue. But that does not include mindless cut and paste jobs of every cliché and slander that can be found on lunatic fringe internet sites, and strung together without any logic or original thought. You'll note that he jumps around between unconnected subjects, sometimes within the same paragraph. El Pus is an obvious troll, whose only interest here is to stir up as much turmoil as he can. That was obvious from his first post on this forum. I could just remove his posts, but I believe in freedom of speech, so I prefer to just humiliate him, he will leave soon enough on his own like all trolls, and infest some other site. We get five or six like him a year. This is not fertile ground for trolls, we don't welcome them with open arms."

My mind was elsewhere.

Hello Jenn, I have been to Milwaukee, many years ago to pick up Manitowoc cranes as part of our cargo.

You will be pleased to know that there are several of these cranes at the bottom of the Atlantic. So we had to get some more! (Rough weather and deck cargo.)

Now I have another reason to like your town! You!

A "Wise Man" once said to me, "If you are so clever, why are you not rich?"

An Angel appeared and asked the "Wise Man", "If you are so clever why are you not immortal?"

Even wisdom is relative.

MAC

"The fault lies with the civilian leadership, not with the military, and ultimately with us because we elect the civilian leadership. For a self-governing people, we have done a terrible job in recent years."

NOW I agree with you, both civilian "leaders" and church "leaders" have done a pathetic "job" of totally misguiding the entire planetary population.

As it stands they have NEVER worked out the logistics as to how a CIVILISED people being ONE human race could live in peace and harmony together according to GOD (Ptah). They have only ever thought about looking after themselves.

If people would accept a TRUE Christian perspective on the bringing up of good children, "Christian children all should be, mild, obedient good as He, and She."

THEN, and ONLY then would they accept Christianity as the true doctrine.

Where people shun this doctrine is because they cannot see the benefits that it would bring to everyone.

The Christian Master did say upon His cross, "Father (Ptah) forgive them, they know NOT what they do."

And this was said 2004 years ago .......

As a CIVILISED people mankind should NOT be bombing anyone. Again true Homo Sapiens (Wise Man) should have worked out the necessary logistics to make this possible.

AGAIN it is the EXAMPLE of The Christian Master which is the MOST important one here.

Again I agree with all that you say, except for North Korea. The Internatioanl Diplomatic Corps is duty bound to bring North korea into PEACE talks with ALL the other regions of this planet so that we may ALL live in peace.

My own Father went to stop the war in Korea in 1954 in the upholding of the Charter of the United Nations.

NOTE: The Charter of the United Nations, ALL of them and NOT just the United States.

Since the Clinton Administration the United States together with its Military allies EVERYWHERE are NOW becoming instrumental in re-establishing the peace that was lost due to civilian mal-administration and liberal laissez-faire policies which have NEVER worked throughout the entire history of mankind.

"My own Father went to stop the war in Korea in 1954 in the upholding of the Charter of the United Nations."

Your Dad was a little late to stop the war, the fighting stopped on Jul 27 1953 when the Armistice was signed!!

I speak from first hand knowledge, Korean Veteran - Jun 1952 - Dec 1953.

No, it was me who is a little late. I had forgotten that that was when he came back. He left for Korea in 1953, when I was five, and returned when I was six. There is no date on either of the medals so I made a mistake there.

Thank you for reminding me.

How much war have you seen?

Too much .......

The best way not to go to war is to stay at home.

>The best way not to go to war is to stay at home.

Actually, that is just the best way to get a war at your home.

The best way not to have a war is to live in peace.

Mankind can ONLY do that if it follows the Example of The Christian Master and does not have more than a single child.

In time the population would reduce to the point where war became unnecessary.

I am certain that the Three Wise Men would agree.

Who is this Christian Master dude? I know you can't possibly be referring to Jesus, so who is it?

And I still don't get the stuff about the 3 wise men, what does that have to do with only having one child, and what does crucifixion have to do with with WMD's? And as far as this one child bunk goes, you said that CIVILIZED (your all caps) people wouldn't have more than one child. Does that mean that people who have more than one child are not civilized, or that they just don't agree with your attempt at literal interpretation of every single parable in the bible? What about people that have no children? If a mother dies in childbirth, is it OK for the father to remarry and have another child with someone else? I don't recall the bible answering these specific questions, so it would seem that implementing such an idea might piss your god off. Judging by Revelation, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes!

What ever happened to "be fruitful and multiply"? The earth will take care of itself, it doesn't need any god to control population. A simple case of Plague, HIV, and Ebola spread through the air will take care of that small problem.

"Who is this Christian Master dude? I know you can't possibly be referring to Jesus, so who is it?

And I still don't get the stuff about the 3 wise men, what does that have to do with only having one child, and what does crucifixion have to do with with WMD's? And as far as this one child bunk goes, you said that CIVILIZED (your all caps) people wouldn't have more than one child. Does that mean that people who have more than one child are not civilized, or that they just don't agree with your attempt at literal interpretation of every single parable in the bible? What about people that have no children? If a mother dies in childbirth, is it OK for the father to remarry and have another child with someone else? I don't recall the bible answering these specific questions, so it would seem that implementing such an idea might piss your god off. Judging by Revelation, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes!

What ever happened to "be fruitful and multiply"? The earth will take care of itself, it doesn't need any god to control population. A simple case of Plague, HIV, and Ebola spread through the air will take care of that small problem."

______________________________________________________________________

"A simple case of Plague, HIV, and Ebola spread through the air will take care of that small problem."

So if someone were to give YOU plague, HIV and Ebola you would be pleased, would you?
______________________________________________________________________

Upon the Cross Christ said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do."

You are forever speaking about death and killing. God speaks of Eternal life.

You still don't know what you are doing! This is supposed to be a Heaven within Heaven (Creation) Heaven ON Earth! Not a hell within Heaven, or hell on Earth.

Christ (The Christian Master) Jesus, Jésu, J'ai su means "I have known" a Son of God. J'avais (su) J'avais, sounds like Yahweh, means "I have known", in the past historical tense.

(NOTE: As language evolved from Old Egyptian Coptic into modern French being the most developed form of Coptic.)

When you think of God you should think of ALL-MIGHTY and of RA & RE not of some ghost-like being.

A GOD Who Created the Sun and the Universe, not a ghost.

An INDESTRUCIBLE GOD Eternal, Whose abilities and power are Infinite.

How many children do you think are necessary to populate the Earth and run it as a Heaven, or do you think that Heaven is somewhere else?

It is BECAUSE people have had too many children that MANY of them are fighting with each other.

Civilised believers in GOD do NOT fight with and kill each other, as God has COMMANDED that, "Thou shalt NOT kill."

That is, dying is one thing, killing is taboo. Living Eternally is only by the Grace of God and nobody else.

What a bunch of crap.

Why do you say that, Bob?

Christ, or a Son of God, walked on the Waters of Creation, solidified into this planet.

These "waters" refer to the Sea of Energy from which all things were Created, which is known as the Nun or Noun (Pronounced Noon).

All of this IS known, so what is the problem?

What is the problem?
Generally someone who can't speak about any topics so they preach their beliefs as fact to throw the topic off of subjects they can't talk about onto one that anyone can make anything up about and be as right as anyone else.

Religion, the stuff that wars are made of.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

What do YOU understand by Holy War?

I understand that it is about a large number of lunatics fighting over a hole, or two, in the "hole(y) land."

PATHETIC

Close, you should've stopped at "I understand that it is about a large number of lunatics". What they are fighting about is their interpretation of religion, not land.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Sorry Myk, I simply cannot understand what there is to "interpret" when it comes to stating a ... fact.

"In the Beginning God Created the Heaven and the Earth" might as well be "This is a brick."

As only a fool and a knave, to quote Voltaire, would make a religion to do with a brick, the same is true of "religion" itself.

The FACT that this Earth we all live upon is part of Creation is inescapable.

I do not hold with religion at all for I "believe" that God Created the Earth.

It must be the easiest thing possible to "believe" in a fact.

I also "believe" that 2+2 = 4 , simply because it IS so.

So I "believe" that God Created the Earth ... because it IS so.

If He had not Created the Earth then we would not be here.

It is that simple.

It all reminds me of the anti-war song, "And it is 1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for, oh Lordy we don't really know, etc."

Apparently the "religious" are fighting a holey war over a hole.

I simply cannot understand what there is to "interpret""

Of course you can't, nobody can. That's why religion is the stuff that wars are made of.

I know for a "fact" that the Goddess is everything and needed no creation. I also know plenty about both religions, and I know that only one of us is even close to understanding their own religion's roots let alone the religions of others.

And I know that if you were here in person, spouting your religous BS, in a crowd of mixed religions, as a fact. If you tried to steer every topic you take part in to your religion, as you do here.
I know there would be violence. I may egg you into taking the first swing, or I may take the first swing. But make no mistake, it would be your religious fanaticism that caused it.

Religous talk itself isn't the problem, the problem is fanatics such as yourself who can't see anything outside of their own "facts" and have a need to push their "facts on everyone else.
Your beliefs are "fact", Bin Lauden's beliefs are "fact" but neither of you will admit to the real cause of war because that would mean admitting that you are followers of false "facts".

""And it is 1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for, oh Lordy we don't really know, etc.""

The correct version goes more like this...

"And it is 1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn." by Country Joe & the Fish. "I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag."

But what the hell, you change religion around to suit your needs so why not songs too.

I'm sure if you were raised up to follow the Brick and were told enough stories about the Brick to convince you it was "fact" that you'd be bringing the brick into every topic just like you do with your present "fact".

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

"I know for a "fact" that the Goddess is everything and needed no creation. I also know plenty about both religions, and I know that only one of us is even close to understanding their own religion's roots let alone the religions of others."

The "root" of BELIEF is BELIEF in GOD.

God has NO Religion.

Neither do I. I do not even need a religion as I already believe without ANYONE "trying" to convince me.

You either believe or not. I do. There is utterly NO point in converting from one "religion" to another if all of them BELIEVE in the SAME GOD

I simply do understand the True Nature of Creation, and therefore of He Who Created it. The Creator ... GOD

You CANNOT change from one god to another god and then say that you belive in ONE GOD ALL-MIGHTY

Either you believe in ONE GOD ALL-MIGHTY or you "believe" in "something else".

Obviously if you "believe" in something else, then you do NOT believe in GOD

You simply CANNOT have two Supreme Beings.

LOGIC

Who gives a crap about your ONE GOD ALL-MIGHTY.
I'll see your ONE GOD ALL-MIGHTY and raise you to a FULL HOUSE OF MANY GODS.

My Gods can kick your God's ass any day of the week. I bet even half of the Goddesses could kick your God's ass.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Best idea I have heard so far.

MAC

And an excellent recipe for living in peace.

You "kick each others ass" whilst God watches you doing so.

Isn't that what already happens?

A better idea is the Gods fight it out while humans watch.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Why not just live in peace?

Why not just flap our arms and fly to the Sun?

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Great idea. In the MEANTIME why not LIVE IN PEACE!

Myk,

It’s becoming crystal clear to me that in both, Kosovo and Iraq, the government’s war strategy seems to have been threefold:

1.In order to whip up public support for war, tell lies so outrageous that most people will believe that no one would have dared to make them up.

2.When the conflict is over, dismiss questions about the continued lack of evidence as ‘irrelevant’ and stress alternative ‘benefits’ from the military action, e.g., ‘liberation’ of the people.

3. Much later on, when the truth is finally revealed, rely on the fact that most people have lost interest and are now concentrating on the threat posed by the next new Hitler (Kim Jong, Asad Jr., Charles Taylor, etc.).

IMHO, in the case of Iraq, we are entering phase 3. Otherwise, how to explain the following developments:

http://www.liberalslant.com/jl080703.htm

Quote

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects for the war in Iraq, admitted for the first time that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 terrorist attacks, contradicting public statements made by senior White House and Pentagon officials whose attempt to link Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda was cited by the Bush administration as one of the main reasons for launching a preemptive strike in March against Iraq.

In an interview with conservative radio personality Laura Ingraham, Wolfowitz was asked when he first came to believe that Iraq was behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

“I’m not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it,” Wolfowitz said in the interview, aired Friday, a transcript of which can be found here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------



http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SEN308A.html



Quote

---------------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Pistole, deputy assistant director of the FBI's counter-terrorism division, told the Senate governmental affairs committee on Thursday afternoon <31 July, 2003>, that investigators had "traced the origin of the funding of the 9/11 attacks back to financial accounts in Pakistan."

He said high-ranking and well-known Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan "played a major role in moving the money forward, eventually into the hands of the hijackers located in the United States."

Mr. Pistole did not specify in his testimony how those accounts in Pakistan were funded.

The FBI has estimated that the 9/11 attacks cost between $175,000-250,000. That money, which paid for flight training, travel and other expenses, flowed to the hijackers through associates in Germany and the United Arab Emirates.

Al-Qaeda associates reported to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who managed much of the planning for the attacks from Pakistan, the FBI said. Mr. Pistole did not discuss reports that some support for the Sept 11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Just like Leopold to take one line out of context and run away at the mouth with it. Is it any wonder he's the leftist's lapdog?

I'd think if you were able to have any objectivism at all, you'd know that you don't get fair reporting at a place called Liberal Slant.

I don't recall ever hearing that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I recall hearing they had ties to Al-Qaeda, which a group was found there. I recall hearing they were working on making chemical weapons, which that ability was found. I recall hearing that they were storing chemical weapons in violation of the cease fire, which those chemicals were found. I recall hearing that he tortured people, which he did. I recall hearing that he supported terrorism, which came from his own mouth.
The only thing that hasn't been found is stockpiles of chemical weapons, but it's a very big desert, and if it took this long to find 30+ jets buried in the sand, it could take a very long time to find stockpiles of chemicals.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

"Much later on, when the truth is finally revealed, rely on the fact that most people have lost interest and are now concentrating on the threat posed by the next new Hitler (Kim Jong, Asad Jr., Charles Taylor, etc.)."

Had anyone followed the example of The Christian Master in only having a single child then there would be NO need of any "new dictator".

But then not all people follow this example as attentively as they might otherwise.

Christian Children ALL should be, Mild, Obedient, Good as He.

If anyone ever crucified a woman then there would be a real uproar!