Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: The Big Lie
metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Wed 04/13/11 10:02 AM
Global warming - The earth has regular cycles of warm and cold periods. I believe the cycle is something like 5,000 or 50,000 years. Can't remember the exact timing. but I do know that if you look at the cycle we are "past due" for a warming cycle. I haven't seen any evidence that has proven we are solely responsible for global warming and the earth's normal cycle has no bearing on it. I personally believe it is the height of arrogance to believe we as people can have such a significant impact on the weather. Can't remember where I heard this. I think it was back in the early 90s. A study was done on the pollution from the start of the industrial age up to the present. They found the total amount of CO2 produced in that time frame was less than one volcanic eruption. If I remember correctly, volcanoes erupt on a fairly regular basis. But that is totally ignored by people that claim we as a society are solely responsible. Your facts on global warming couldn't be more wrong. You should do just a little research at real science sites. The USGS has data on the amount of CO2 produced by man vs produced by volcanoes and what you have written is one of the most widely spread internet hoaxes. For you to provide such erroneous information and include the statement "I haven't seen any evidence ..." would imply that you have actually studied the problem at least a little which you obviously have not.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 04/13/11 10:41 AM
Speaking of "Curveball" BERLIN— The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so. According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said. Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm. "This was not substantial evidence," said a senior German intelligence official. "We made clear we could not verify the things he said." The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. "He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy," said a BND official who supervised the case. "He is not a completely normal person," agreed a BND analyst. Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate prewar U.S. accusations that Baghdad had biological weapons, a commission appointed by Bush reported this year. The commission did not interview Curveball, who still insists his story was true, or the German officials who handled his case. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,1753730.story?coll=la-home-headlines Further reading The White House, for example, ignored evidence gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors shortly before the war that disproved Curveball's account. Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraq's biological weapons before the war even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed in two years. At the Central Intelligence Agency, officials embraced Curveball's account even though they could not confirm it or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability before the war, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion. not that I usually do the insider information thing, because its so hard to prove and so cliche, but we have a family friend who was actually 'on the inside' who was telling us before we went that the administration was basically IGNORING anything that came in refuting the claim about WMD's and were pretty inanimate that they only collect information that would support a decision to go to war,,,, so i totally believe this,,although noone alive would ever step up to prove it,,,

mylifetoday Joined Sat 01/08/11 Posts: 1943	Wed 04/13/11 10:51 AM
Well, here is the chart that Gore used in his slide show. (I couldn't get it of the page to upload and post) It goes back 650,000 years.http://www.flickr.com/photos/80992994@N00/380193705/ The normal warming and cooling cycle is clear. Assuming that the chart is not a fake, it really can't be argued that the CO2 levels have broken out of normal channels of volatility. The only real question is whether temperatures will follow along. Maybe not. It is possible that scientist do not understand the connection between greenhouse gas levels and global temperatures. Don't forget, I did NOT say we had zero impact. I just can't see in any way that we are solely responsible. I believe our impact is measurable but insignificant. But for arguments sake let's say we are solely responsible. The most extreme versions of Green legislation I have heard of will significantly reduce the future increase of greenhouse gases. Reduce the Increase! By their own accounting, we cannot even eliminate future increases in pollution let alone reduce the current levels being produced now. And this is passing bills that will cost trillions of dollars to implement and severely impact manufacturing. So, even if we are responsible, what can we do short of going back to living like we are in the 19th century? No - cars, planes, trains, ships (excluding sail and nuclear now), no gas powered farm equipment, (can we feed the current population without them?), no trucks to haul goods across the country, no gas powered generators for cities that use them, no gas heating for homes etc etc. And even if we do all these things and completely eliminate all pollution in the entire world, that still doesn't mean the temperatures will drop because there is a very real possibility we are in a global warming period. (btw - think it is funny because in the 80s I remember hearing speculation on news programs that we were entering a new ice age) That doesn't mean I am opposed to the Green movement. I just think it is laughable anyone seriously believes they make a difference by using it. Kind of like Al Gore's company where you can buy carbon credits. What, by investing in a Green company, somehow that means the gas burned in the jet you just flew did not actually produce any greenhouse gases?

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Wed 04/13/11 10:54 AM Edited by artlo on Wed 04/13/11 10:57 AM
Well Heres' what the USGS has to say about volcano-generate CO2 vs man-caused CO2 Is the rumor about volcanoes and greenhouse gases true? Not even close. Dear EarthTalk: Could it really be true that a single large volcanic eruption launches more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the amount generated by all of humanity over history? -- Steve Schlemmer, London, England This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.Human Emissions Also Dwarf Volcanoes in Carbon Dioxide Production Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. “If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes—one for each eruption,” says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news portal Grist.org. “Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.” Do Volcano Eruptions Cause Global Cooling? Furthermore, some scientists believe that spectacular volcanic eruptions, like that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming, as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflect some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth’s atmosphere. SO2, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the stratosphere, can linger there for as long as seven years and can exercise a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place. Scientists tracking the effects of the major 1991 eruption of the Philippines’ Mt. Pinatubo found that the overall effect of the blast was to cool the surface of the Earth globally by some 0.5 degrees Celsius a year later, even though rising human greenhouse gas emissions and an El Nino event (a warm water current which periodically flows along the coast of Ecuador and Peru in South America) caused some surface warming during the 1991-1993 study period. Volcanoes May Melt Antarctic Ice Caps from Below In an interesting twist on the issue, British researchers last year published an article in the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature showing how volcanic activity may be contributing to the melting of ice caps in Antarctica—but not because of any emissions, natural or man-made, per se. Instead, scientists Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey believe that volcanoes underneath Antarctica may be melting the continent’s ice sheets from below, just as warming air temperatures from human-induced emissions erode them from above. http://environment.about.com/od/greenhouseeffect/a/volcano-gas.htm It's very difficult to reconcile your statement about the USGS with what we can all see that the USGS actually says. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 04/13/11 11:00 AM Edited by msharmony on Wed 04/13/11 11:02 AM
Global warming - The earth has regular cycles of warm and cold periods. I believe the cycle is something like 5,000 or 50,000 years. Can't remember the exact timing. but I do know that if you look at the cycle we are "past due" for a warming cycle. I haven't seen any evidence that has proven we are solely responsible for global warming and the earth's normal cycle has no bearing on it. I personally believe it is the height of arrogance to believe we as people can have such a significant impact on the weather. Can't remember where I heard this. I think it was back in the early 90s. A study was done on the pollution from the start of the industrial age up to the present. They found the total amount of CO2 produced in that time frame was less than one volcanic eruption. If I remember correctly, volcanoes erupt on a fairly regular basis. But that is totally ignored by people that claim we as a society are solely responsible. As for weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and HAD used them a few times. Not only did he have them he demonstrated he had no compunction in using them. That is a fact. Just because we couldn't find any after we invaded does not now disprove the fact that he had them and did use them. To think he abandoned his program is foolish. Can someone tell me how hard it would be to hide a warehouse full of weapons in a country the size of California that is mostly sand? What would stop him from having them take a drive 100 miles out of the city and pick some random spot to dig a hole and bury them in the sand? Do you really think he would leave them in warehouses that we could find when that was one of the stated purposes for the invasion for months before we actually invaded? http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp I think we needed to invade anyway for humanitarian reasons. But the best reason to invade was in a speech Bush gave on 9/12/01. He said something like any country that harbors or aides terrorists will be considered an enemy of the U.S. We will fight these nations. Saddam Hussein was the only leader in the world that openly defied this statement. He dared dared Bush to invade. HE also 'dared' BUSH to debate him, but that didnt happen. Taking a dare isnt really a significant enough reason for me for a president to go to war,,,, there are so many things wrong with that, in my opinion the first is the notion that we should assume (to the point of sending our boys to war) that he has these 'wmd's' because he had used them before what he used were CHEMICAL weapons produces by CHEMICALS WE SENT HIM along with other countries,, it should be pretty simple to determine what was sent and if it was accounted for and those types of weapons require pretty close contact(as in Iraq-Iran) to pose a threat,,,,and when they were used it had been TEN YEARS previous to this 'war' in strikes that OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES assisted in ...so war against anyone supporting terrorists would be kind of hypocritical considering that we did just that and have done just that on many occasions,,,, the fact that no wmds were found or have been found in any 'significantly dangerous' quantity by now, is pretty conclusive in my opinion that the reports that they were INDEED there, were erroneous ( I think it would be easier to hide one man than all those supposed weapons and we did manage to FIND SADDAM so his capacity for 'hiding', in my opinion, was just not that FAR EVOLVED) honestly, invading Iraq was in play before Bush ever took office, but the powers couldnt find a significant enough reason to give the citizens until Osama dropped 9/11 in their laps,,,,,

mylifetoday Joined Sat 01/08/11 Posts: 1943	Wed 04/13/11 11:16 AM
Global warming - The earth has regular cycles of warm and cold periods. I believe the cycle is something like 5,000 or 50,000 years. Can't remember the exact timing. but I do know that if you look at the cycle we are "past due" for a warming cycle. I haven't seen any evidence that has proven we are solely responsible for global warming and the earth's normal cycle has no bearing on it. I personally believe it is the height of arrogance to believe we as people can have such a significant impact on the weather. Can't remember where I heard this. I think it was back in the early 90s. A study was done on the pollution from the start of the industrial age up to the present. They found the total amount of CO2 produced in that time frame was less than one volcanic eruption. If I remember correctly, volcanoes erupt on a fairly regular basis. But that is totally ignored by people that claim we as a society are solely responsible. Your facts on global warming couldn't be more wrong. You should do just a little research at real science sites. The USGS has data on the amount of CO2 produced by man vs produced by volcanoes and what you have written is one of the most widely spread internet hoaxes. For you to provide such erroneous information and include the statement "I haven't seen any evidence ..." would imply that you have actually studied the problem at least a little which you obviously have not. Ok, nevermind. You're right I'm wrong. We are solely responsible for global warming and it is a dire condition proportional to a global killing meteor. At least that is what the Discovery channel claimed. Yes they were doing a show on global disasters. They talked about a global killing meteor and calderas and global warming and a couple other points. The end of the show they summarized it all and the big punch line was Global Warming. The way it was presented, they made it look to be a more dire situation than an event that would kill all life on earth. Can someone tell me how water levels rising 20 feet and having people relocate is such a terrible calamity that I need to panic about it?

mylifetoday Joined Sat 01/08/11 Posts: 1943	Wed 04/13/11 11:36 AM
Why is everyone so opposed to the war in Iraq? Because they didn't like George Bush???? Before Bush took office there was debate about intervening anyway for the sake of the Kurds. Now Bush is in office and people claim after the fact that he lied about it, people that had access to the same information he did... What about the humanitarian need to intervene here? The mass murder of thousands of people because they didn't like his rule is not sufficient reason to invade? Guess we should have let Hitler have his run as well. How many people does a leader of a country need to kill for political reasons before it is no longer acceptable for him to do that? A million? Hundred Thousand? Ten thousand? One thousand? One hundred? ten? one? How many innocent lives will we say is acceptable to be extinguished for the pleasure of the leader? "They aren't my people. I am not one being persecuted and killed because of my beliefs, why should I care?" He still killed his people WITHOUT using WMDs. I think it is truly sad that we debate about WMDs and whether or not Bush lied when there was a much greater need that most people would say was a worthy reason to fight. That is totally ignored in most of these debates.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 04/13/11 11:46 AM Edited by msharmony on Wed 04/13/11 11:47 AM
Why is everyone so opposed to the war in Iraq? Because they didn't like George Bush???? Before Bush took office there was debate about intervening anyway for the sake of the Kurds. Now Bush is in office and people claim after the fact that he lied about it, people that had access to the same information he did... What about the humanitarian need to intervene here? The mass murder of thousands of people because they didn't like his rule is not sufficient reason to invade? Guess we should have let Hitler have his run as well. How many people does a leader of a country need to kill for political reasons before it is no longer acceptable for him to do that? A million? Hundred Thousand? Ten thousand? One thousand? One hundred? ten? one? How many innocent lives will we say is acceptable to be extinguished for the pleasure of the leader? "They aren't my people. I am not one being persecuted and killed because of my beliefs, why should I care?" He still killed his people WITHOUT using WMDs. I think it is truly sad that we debate about WMDs and whether or not Bush lied when there was a much greater need that most people would say was a worthy reason to fight. That is totally ignored in most of these debates. I will not speak for anyone but myself. The issue for me lies in the deception. IF the reason was humanitarian, why not put that reason out there. It certainly existed BEFORE 9/11 so if there was sufficient evidence to support 'humanitarian' reasons(which I dont necessarily agree with either), why not put that out there for the public to decide upon instead of ringing the drums of war on false premises. ITs kind of like, with criminals. The police are so sure joe vicious killed one person one particular way,, but because they arent SURE they can get a conviction , they find ten more people killed similarly and force him to 'admit' to those too. and we were more concerned with the thousands whose deaths this man had ordered YEARS Before, than we were with the THREE THOUSAND of our own who died at the hands of Afghanis,, to the point that we spent THREE WHOLE DAYS in AFghanistan but YEARS in Iraq it just makes no sense to me,,,,stinks of deception and alterior/personal motives stacking the hand is not a move someone with integrity does when it comes to the lives of our armed forces,,,,,,just my opinion

mylifetoday Joined Sat 01/08/11 Posts: 1943	Wed 04/13/11 12:49 PM
Why is everyone so opposed to the war in Iraq? Because they didn't like George Bush???? Before Bush took office there was debate about intervening anyway for the sake of the Kurds. Now Bush is in office and people claim after the fact that he lied about it, people that had access to the same information he did... What about the humanitarian need to intervene here? The mass murder of thousands of people because they didn't like his rule is not sufficient reason to invade? Guess we should have let Hitler have his run as well. How many people does a leader of a country need to kill for political reasons before it is no longer acceptable for him to do that? A million? Hundred Thousand? Ten thousand? One thousand? One hundred? ten? one? How many innocent lives will we say is acceptable to be extinguished for the pleasure of the leader? "They aren't my people. I am not one being persecuted and killed because of my beliefs, why should I care?" He still killed his people WITHOUT using WMDs. I think it is truly sad that we debate about WMDs and whether or not Bush lied when there was a much greater need that most people would say was a worthy reason to fight. That is totally ignored in most of these debates. I will not speak for anyone but myself. The issue for me lies in the deception. IF the reason was humanitarian, why not put that reason out there. It certainly existed BEFORE 9/11 so if there was sufficient evidence to support 'humanitarian' reasons(which I dont necessarily agree with either), why not put that out there for the public to decide upon instead of ringing the drums of war on false premises. ITs kind of like, with criminals. The police are so sure joe vicious killed one person one particular way,, but because they arent SURE they can get a conviction , they find ten more people killed similarly and force him to 'admit' to those too. and we were more concerned with the thousands whose deaths this man had ordered YEARS Before, than we were with the THREE THOUSAND of our own who died at the hands of Afghanis,, to the point that we spent THREE WHOLE DAYS in AFghanistan but YEARS in Iraq it just makes no sense to me,,,,stinks of deception and alterior/personal motives stacking the hand is not a move someone with integrity does when it comes to the lives of our armed forces,,,,,,just my opinion I was in the Army up until August 2001. I seriously thought about reenlisting after 9/11, but the main reason I got out was because my son was 3 years old then and I had only been home for about one year at that point (not all in a row) If I was in at the time of the war, I would have volunteered if my unit wasn't deployed. Freedom isn't free and never will be. Someone needs to defend it. Is freedom a human right or just something nice to have? I think everyone is entitled to their freedom. Actually, everyone is free to do whatever they want. There are just some places where you can live on this earth where you can be sentenced to death for making a statement out loud that you believe. Then there are other places where you can be killed simply because you are living in the wrong place. I guess you answered my question. You are opposed to the war because of what was said after or prior by the people that were arguing in favor of it. If you think back on it, there was a small minority that were opposed to the war prior to it. It was only after it was done that everyone got up in arms about it. I guess the reality of people dying in the war made some question what they were supporting. Some people had a problem with the disproportionate casualties as well. Roughly 4,700 Americans and 65,000 Iraqi insurgents and soldiers. I don't understand why people have problems that we have trained our soldiers well to fight well. They are not out on a mission to slaughter and they don't have blood lust as so many claim. they are just following their training. Should we stop and wait until it is a fair fight? When I thought about going to fight in Iraq, the main reason I didn't want to was because, I didn't want to be a target. What I mean is, during the actually fighting of the war it is clear who your enemy is and what you need to do. After the war comes the occupation. Someone has to stand at a gate in a country where there are thousands that want to kill you because of your uniform. The fighting in Iraq after the "war" was over was an effort to remove our troops from the country. They knew there was no way they would force the American troops out of Iraq by force of arms. But they knew if they could raise US public protests high enough that we would withdraw. Anyone remember Vietnam? That is what they did there as well. Only difference being, they succeed. The more protests done in the US the more the insurgents fought in Iraq. It was not a coincidence. Our enemies know us better than we know ourselves. They are probably the most skilled people on earth with propaganda. They live their whole lives in it. Ironically, there would have been fewer deaths on both sides if our news wouldn't have talked about our casualties as a bad thing that we should be ashamed of. btw - we are still in Iraq AND Afghanistan. We have been in Afghanistan since October of 2001. As far as the humanitarian reasons to go to war, that was made public and talked about at the time. The press ran with the WMD story and that is all anyone remembers. Got to the point that those that were talking about going to war dropped the humanitarian portion because no one was talking about it. Please don't forget, there were a lot of Democrats that were saying the same thing that had access to the same information George Bush had. Later, after no WMDs were found they all turned and pointed the finger at Bush saying - He made me do it. They had their own voice and they had their own vote. Why didn't they question it before saying we should invade? That is the better question than asking why Bush lied when that also has been proven to be false like the OPs claims of so many GOP statements have been proven false. Congress voted to go to war. The President CANNOT declare war. It is not in the Presidents authority to declare war. He can ask congress to do it. But he cannot declare it. So far in my lifetime, the only period in which our country seemed to be in agreement and pulling in the same direction was from 9/11/01 - about 3/1/03. Shortly after the declaration of war. Then out came the sabers again and party politics as usual. I say, lets do away with all political parties tomorrow and vote for the merits of the person running not on their political ties and allegiance. I think the voting in congress would be much different if the people voting weren't concerned with what their political party would think of their vote. Why are so many bills voted just for one side or the other? Why is it they are always talking about getting these few to "cross the aisle?" That statement alone says a lot about the division in the political parties. Cross the aisle... Why don't they have to worry about someone in their own party objecting to the bill being presented and voting against it? That means that there is less freedom in thought in congress than there is in almost any other situation. That is not good for our country...

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 04/13/11 01:02 PM
unnecessary casualties from bad planning and rush to judgment is a bad thing, in my opinion but yes, as much as I truly believe Iraq war was bushs baby from the time he came into office and as much as I believe he was a HUGE Support and catalyst for how the 'facts' were handled, it is the government in its totality that is responsible for our successes and failures, and not any ONE person

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Wed 04/13/11 01:03 PM
I say, lets do away with all political parties tomorrow and vote for the merits of the person running not on their political ties and allegiance. I think the voting in congress would be much different if the people voting weren't concerned with what their political party would think of their vote. Why are so many bills voted just for one side or the other? Why is it they are always talking about getting these few to "cross the aisle?" That statement alone says a lot about the division in the political parties. Cross the aisle... Why don't they have to worry about someone in their own party objecting to the bill being presented and voting against it? That means that there is less freedom in thought in congress than there is in almost any other situation. That is not good for our country... An intelligent statement.

mylifetoday Joined Sat 01/08/11 Posts: 1943	Wed 04/13/11 02:08 PM
unnecessary casualties from bad planning and rush to judgment is a bad thing, in my opinion but yes, as much as I truly believe Iraq war was bushs baby from the time he came into office and as much as I believe he was a HUGE Support and catalyst for how the 'facts' were handled, it is the government in its totality that is responsible for our successes and failures, and not any ONE person I agree with you. But the only part that could be called bad planning here would be in the decision to go to war. The war effort was actually handled very well and the leaders allowed the commanders on the ground to do what they needed to do to end it quickly. Actually, I was thinking that was part of the problem we had in Iraq was just how quickly the war did end. We didn't have that kind of rebellion after WWII. Well, part of it anyway was because the enemy acknowledged defeat. Our current enemies still haven't acknowledged defeat and never will. I am probably going to open a whole can of worms here but ... the war we are fighting will never end because we are fighting a religion. Islam has essentially declared war on the United States a long time ago. Until we acknowledge that we are fighting this religion, we will never truly understand our enemy. Everyone tries to get around it by saying terrorist or radical Muslim. The Radical Muslim title implies they are taking their faith to an extreme that is not called for in their faith. The reality is, they are carrying out what the leader of their faith has done and told them to do. When we say terrorist or radical Muslim we can dismiss them as a minority that don't really have any idea of what they really want. That is very far from the truth of the situation. Hiding from the truth does not make it go away. Islam is similar to all religions in that they want to convert everyone. The difference is, they do not tolerate other religions. They convert at the tip of a sword. convert or die. That is what the suicide bombers are doing in theory. But they really don't give anyone a chance to convert. The only sure way to go to Heaven is to die in a Jihad. Don't take my word for it. Go study Islam what they believe and are taught. I did trying to answer the question - Why does it seem to be most suicide bombers are Muslim? My conclusion was, Islam is a custom designed religion to create suicide bombers. Has to do with their view on death, Heaven and Hell, the afterlife and how and when you get to either place. Plus the directive from Mohamed to convert at the tip of a sword ... Why do you think they can convince a teenager to strap explosives to themselves to go kill themselves? Obviously there is no glory they will receive in this life. At least they won't be able to experience it. What would it take you to convince your child to go blow themselves up where they will take others with them? Why would you even want to tell your kid that is a good idea? And yet, this is accepted and praised in Muslim territories.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 04/13/11 02:14 PM Edited by msharmony on Wed 04/13/11 02:21 PM
much like all republicans (or democrats)dont believe the exact same things down to each significant detail neither do those of islamic, christian, or any other faith terrorism is another word for "you are not advanced enough to be 'winning' " tolerance and violence are personal things that no religious or political doctrine FORCES upon anyone and indeed EXTREMISTS choose just which parts of their religion or politics to bring to manifestation and how to do so as well we are not the world police, and though I am supportive of helping when we are ASKED and able to help others, I dont agree with taking preemptive measures to decide who is worthy of help and who is not and I feel it slightly defeatist and hypocritical to try to 'cure' another person, nation, community or whatever I also find it extremely suspect that most of those HUMANITARIAN efforts seem to manifest on our part in areas that are rich in oil, while other atrocious humanitarian offenses are occurring all over the globe in less resourceful areas,,,,and we are content to send money and stay out of it,,, of illnesses we havent yet cured ourself of when we no longer support those who have killed innocents, we can take high road against those we deem to be supporting 'terrorists',, but that day will probably not come in our lifetimes,,, to get biblical, we dont really have the resources to take the twigs out of every other nations eye when our own eyes are still blurry from the thorns we have yet to remove

heavenlyboy34 Joined Fri 07/04/08 Posts: 17348	Wed 04/13/11 02:26 PM
in regards to the OP, lies and gross exaggerations are an inherent part of politics-regardless of party. If they bother you, just stay out of electoral politics, like I do.

mylifetoday Joined Sat 01/08/11 Posts: 1943	Wed 04/13/11 03:17 PM
much like all republicans (or democrats)dont believe the exact same things down to each significant detail neither do those of islamic, christian, or any other faith terrorism is another word for "you are not advanced enough to be 'winning' " tolerance and violence are personal things that no religious or political doctrine FORCES upon anyone and indeed EXTREMISTS choose just which parts of their religion or politics to bring to manifestation and how to do so as well we are not the world police, and though I am supportive of helping when we are ASKED and able to help others, I dont agree with taking preemptive measures to decide who is worthy of help and who is not and I feel it slightly defeatist and hypocritical to try to 'cure' another person, nation, community or whatever I also find it extremely suspect that most of those HUMANITARIAN efforts seem to manifest on our part in areas that are rich in oil, while other atrocious humanitarian offenses are occurring all over the globe in less resourceful areas,,,,and we are content to send money and stay out of it,,, of illnesses we havent yet cured ourself of when we no longer support those who have killed innocents, we can take high road against those we deem to be supporting 'terrorists',, but that day will probably not come in our lifetimes,,, to get biblical, we dont really have the resources to take the twigs out of every other nations eye when our own eyes are still blurry from the thorns we have yet to remove I agree with a lot of what you said here but your statement, "tolerance and violence are personal things that no religious or political doctrine FORCES upon anyone and indeed EXTREMISTS choose just which parts of their religion or politics to bring to manifestation and how to do so as well," is just wrong when it comes to Islam. Wish that were not the case. We would be in a much more peaceful world if what you said was true. Why is there ALWAYS violence in the middle east? If they aren't fighting Israel, they are fighting each other. But you are absolutely correct. We as a nation have a rather questionable history in what is humanitarian and what isn't. And in supporting those that we later accuse of war crimes. Saddam Hussein anyone???

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 04/13/11 03:22 PM Edited by msharmony on Wed 04/13/11 03:23 PM
much like all republicans (or democrats)dont believe the exact same things down to each significant detail neither do those of islamic, christian, or any other faith terrorism is another word for "you are not advanced enough to be 'winning' " tolerance and violence are personal things that no religious or political doctrine FORCES upon anyone and indeed EXTREMISTS choose just which parts of their religion or politics to bring to manifestation and how to do so as well we are not the world police, and though I am supportive of helping when we are ASKED and able to help others, I dont agree with taking preemptive measures to decide who is worthy of help and who is not and I feel it slightly defeatist and hypocritical to try to 'cure' another person, nation, community or whatever I also find it extremely suspect that most of those HUMANITARIAN efforts seem to manifest on our part in areas that are rich in oil, while other atrocious humanitarian offenses are occurring all over the globe in less resourceful areas,,,,and we are content to send money and stay out of it,,, of illnesses we havent yet cured ourself of when we no longer support those who have killed innocents, we can take high road against those we deem to be supporting 'terrorists',, but that day will probably not come in our lifetimes,,, to get biblical, we dont really have the resources to take the twigs out of every other nations eye when our own eyes are still blurry from the thorns we have yet to remove I agree with a lot of what you said here but your statement, "tolerance and violence are personal things that no religious or political doctrine FORCES upon anyone and indeed EXTREMISTS choose just which parts of their religion or politics to bring to manifestation and how to do so as well," is just wrong when it comes to Islam. Wish that were not the case. We would be in a much more peaceful world if what you said was true. Why is there ALWAYS violence in the middle east? If they aren't fighting Israel, they are fighting each other. But you are absolutely correct. We as a nation have a rather questionable history in what is humanitarian and what isn't. And in supporting those that we later accuse of war crimes. Saddam Hussein anyone??? there is always violence in every country, because they are occupied by humans,, who have the ability and capacity to become violent when feeling either 'threatened' or 'entitled' I am very much a pacifict who tries to temper my anti violence beliefs with realism and I think when we dig deep enough all people have their 'reasons' for killing and MOST of those reasons usually center around a feeling that something they value or someone they value is being threatened,,,,,its really a human thing(in my opinion) much more than it is religious or political. Religion and politics are only one of a long line of complex institutions which claim a broad range of issues and causes people are willing to defend,, even until the death

mylifetoday Joined Sat 01/08/11 Posts: 1943	Wed 04/13/11 03:37 PM
I agree with a lot of what you said here but your statement, "tolerance and violence are personal things that no religious or political doctrine FORCES upon anyone and indeed EXTREMISTS choose just which parts of their religion or politics to bring to manifestation and how to do so as well," is just wrong when it comes to Islam. Wish that were not the case. We would be in a much more peaceful world if what you said was true. Why is there ALWAYS violence in the middle east? If they aren't fighting Israel, they are fighting each other. But you are absolutely correct. We as a nation have a rather questionable history in what is humanitarian and what isn't. And in supporting those that we later accuse of war crimes. Saddam Hussein anyone??? there is always violence in every country, because they are occupied by humans,, who have the ability and capacity to become violent when feeling either 'threatened' or 'entitled' I am very much a pacifict who tries to temper my anti violence beliefs with realism and I think when we dig deep enough all people have their 'reasons' for killing and MOST of those reasons usually center around a feeling that something they value or someone they value is being threatened,,,,,its really a human thing(in my opinion) much more than it is religious or political. Religion and politics are only one of a long line of complex institutions which claim a broad range of issues and causes people are willing to defend,, even until the death Like I said, I wish you were correct. Although I guess you could say you are correct. A lot of the reason for them to fight is - the ONLY sure way to Heaven is to die in a Jihad. So, they fight for fear of loosing Heaven. They would actually prefer to die in the battle they are fighting. But they must fight bravely or their death is cursed. They can't go into battle and deliberately get killed at the hands of the enemy and go to Heaven. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Wed 04/13/11 04:36 PM
I did ask. Thank you. I cant't argue those points. Poison gas is a WMD. It just doesn't cause mushroom clouds. And it's true that Bush never said that it would come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Only that it mightcome in the form of a mushroom cloud.People can be forgiven for their suspicion given the eagerness of the President to have that war as he explained in his 1999 Mickey Herscowitz interview. It's true that Obama raised some excise and sin-taxes. People can be forgiven for thinking purely in terms of Federal Income tax, which Obama has lowered and which is at it's lowest level since Harry Truman. However, the increases in much of those other taxes cannot be laid at Obama's feet. Governments tax people at all levels. State, municipal, county, regional. Obama doesn't control these entities, although one could argue that these effects are made necessary by Congress' failure to adequatel tax the personal incomes of wealthy people. At the same time, it is also true that overall taxes as a % of GDP are down to 24% from Bush's ending figure of 28%.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014747384_taxworld12.html I believe in Global warming. You don't. I think the evidence is impressive, You don't. I think that this giant conspiracy theory of fraud by the environmentist community is preposterous. You are a true believer in it. I don't believe man has the ability to influence climate in a way that has been deemed "settled" science by the environmentalists. During the Sturtian/Marinoan ice age there were continental glaciers around the equator. No man made influences then.. All natural.. I would call that a pretty drastic change in climate..

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 04/13/11 04:50 PM
I agree with a lot of what you said here but your statement, "tolerance and violence are personal things that no religious or political doctrine FORCES upon anyone and indeed EXTREMISTS choose just which parts of their religion or politics to bring to manifestation and how to do so as well," is just wrong when it comes to Islam. Wish that were not the case. We would be in a much more peaceful world if what you said was true. Why is there ALWAYS violence in the middle east? If they aren't fighting Israel, they are fighting each other. But you are absolutely correct. We as a nation have a rather questionable history in what is humanitarian and what isn't. And in supporting those that we later accuse of war crimes. Saddam Hussein anyone??? there is always violence in every country, because they are occupied by humans,, who have the ability and capacity to become violent when feeling either 'threatened' or 'entitled' I am very much a pacifict who tries to temper my anti violence beliefs with realism and I think when we dig deep enough all people have their 'reasons' for killing and MOST of those reasons usually center around a feeling that something they value or someone they value is being threatened,,,,,its really a human thing(in my opinion) much more than it is religious or political. Religion and politics are only one of a long line of complex institutions which claim a broad range of issues and causes people are willing to defend,, even until the death Like I said, I wish you were correct. Although I guess you could say you are correct. A lot of the reason for them to fight is - the ONLY sure way to Heaven is to die in a Jihad. So, they fight for fear of loosing Heaven. They would actually prefer to die in the battle they are fighting. But they must fight bravely or their death is cursed. They can't go into battle and deliberately get killed at the hands of the enemy and go to Heaven. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm what is mentioned is one persons interpretation of what is written, imagine how many interpretations must exist between billions of individuals? for just about any verse that can be quoted in the quran/bible which can be interpreted to 'support' or 'condone' violence and death and killing, there can be others which can be interpreted to directly 'condemn' or 'command' against it with biblical writings, people pick and choose which phrases to illuminate and imitate in their lives leviticus 26:7 7 You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you.

mylifetoday Joined Sat 01/08/11 Posts: 1943	Wed 04/13/11 05:58 PM
I agree with a lot of what you said here but your statement, "tolerance and violence are personal things that no religious or political doctrine FORCES upon anyone and indeed EXTREMISTS choose just which parts of their religion or politics to bring to manifestation and how to do so as well," is just wrong when it comes to Islam. Wish that were not the case. We would be in a much more peaceful world if what you said was true. Why is there ALWAYS violence in the middle east? If they aren't fighting Israel, they are fighting each other. But you are absolutely correct. We as a nation have a rather questionable history in what is humanitarian and what isn't. And in supporting those that we later accuse of war crimes. Saddam Hussein anyone??? there is always violence in every country, because they are occupied by humans,, who have the ability and capacity to become violent when feeling either 'threatened' or 'entitled' I am very much a pacifict who tries to temper my anti violence beliefs with realism and I think when we dig deep enough all people have their 'reasons' for killing and MOST of those reasons usually center around a feeling that something they value or someone they value is being threatened,,,,,its really a human thing(in my opinion) much more than it is religious or political. Religion and politics are only one of a long line of complex institutions which claim a broad range of issues and causes people are willing to defend,, even until the death Like I said, I wish you were correct. Although I guess you could say you are correct. A lot of the reason for them to fight is - the ONLY sure way to Heaven is to die in a Jihad. So, they fight for fear of loosing Heaven. They would actually prefer to die in the battle they are fighting. But they must fight bravely or their death is cursed. They can't go into battle and deliberately get killed at the hands of the enemy and go to Heaven. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm what is mentioned is one persons interpretation of what is written, imagine how many interpretations must exist between billions of individuals? for just about any verse that can be quoted in the quran/bible which can be interpreted to 'support' or 'condone' violence and death and killing, there can be others which can be interpreted to directly 'condemn' or 'command' against it with biblical writings, people pick and choose which phrases to illuminate and imitate in their lives leviticus 26:7 7 You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. I didn't look all that hard to find that website. There was a Muslim Cleric I heard on the news around 2004 or so that said, "This is our religion, why are we denying it?" Just heard it one time and it was quickly removed from any news reports. Like I said. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Read up on Mohamed himself. What he did, preached and told his followers to do. The leader of the faith not only told his followers to do this, he lead armies that did that. His glorious return to Mecca was a bloodbath where you either converted on the spot or were killed. He lead that army. There was no one spared. Literally everyone in the city was either a new convert to Islam or they were dead. This is factual information. You can find it anywhere you want to look for it. I told this to a few people now and what I find fascinating are the people that don't want to believe this will tell me things like you are and can't believe it to be true and for some reason, never bother to check for themselves. They just continue with the belief that it is a religion therefore what I am saying cannot be true. Their faith has little in common with most others. It is a really different approach to faith.