I think the liberals believe that their "good intentions" will save them from the wrath of the Islamo-savages.

Boy have they got another thing coming.

Uh, there are folks in this great country who feel that sexually active gay men should be executed.

The Bible says as much anyway and being that we are a "Christian" nation I see where it comes from:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Jimmy Swaggart said he would kill a homosexual for so little as a glance from him.

Well, you see we have similar extremists here.

Mark, it is not so much "terrorism" that is the danger but extremism that really threatens civilization. The "terrorist" is now merely a Bush created boogey man to scare us into voting for what is obviously the most dangerous and incompentent administration this nation has or will ever see.

Wade

You know you're in trouble when you start believing your own straw-man arguments about the other side. I know lots of people against the War in Iraq. Every one of them thinks terrorism is something that needs to be destroyed. Opposition to the Iraq War is not the same as opposition to all war, or even the War on Terror. The reason a majority of the country is now against the Iraq War isn't because they think terrorism isn't a real threat, its precisely because they know how dangerous terrorism is, and how much the Iraq War has increased that danger, that they call for a change of course.

Stop this s**t with the straw man arguments. We've heard all this crap before about how Democrats don't get it, want to reason with terrorists, blah blah blah. It hasn't worked in months, and its laughably untrue. You degrade your own argument with stupid talking points like these.

By the way: why are you citing radical Islam's hatred of gays as a reason for the War on Terror? Have you not listened to the rhetoric from your fellow travelers Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell? Have you forgotten Falwell/ Robertson stating that the US deserved 9/11 because of its tolerance of gays, feminists, and abortion? Frankly, its frightening how similar the extreme Religious Right is to the Islamic extremist.

One final point, who is this 'We' who is fighting? I'm not fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, I know you and Matt aren't, and frankly I've never seen anyone on this blog who is or has. I hope your not equating warblogging with actual combat, like the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

Islam is dangerous.

BTW, say hello to dhimmitude and Shari'a in America-Chicago Teen Sentenced to "Sensitivity Training" from CAIR

LGF, "Eighteen year-old David Huffman says he 'tapped' a Muslim woman on the head, nearly dislodging her headscarf, as a 'prank'. He was charged with battery, and pleaded guilty."

"But instead of fining or sentencing him to jail, the judge ordered him to undergo 'sensitivity training' from the foremost radical Islamic front group in the United States, at the notorious Bridgeview Mosque:"

Chicago Tribune: David Huffman told police it was just a prank gone wrong: On April 22, at a McDonald’s in Tinley Park, he tapped a Muslim woman on the head, nearly pulling off her headscarf. The woman, a young mother with her children, didn’t see it as harmless. She was scared and embarrassed; her faith had been attacked. She told police, and they called it battery.

But in a surprising twist, a Cook County circuit judge did not fine or jail Huffman, who pleaded guilty. He was instead ordered to undergo sensitivity training at the downtown Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization.

****CAIR has ties to Hamas terrorists. What the hell was this judge thinking?!?

Muslim Non-Victims: LGF, "This is going to come as a shock to anyone who’s been taken in by CAIR’s deceptive, incessant victimhood routine, but crimes against Jews still outnumber crimes against Muslims by a ratio of seven to one":

"American Jews top hate-crime targets"

WorldNetDaily: WASHINGTON – Who hates whom in America?

If the latest FBI hate-crime statistics are any indication, of the 1,314 verified offenses motivated by religious bias, 68.5 percent were anti-Jewish.

Only 11.1 percent were anti-Islamic, despite claims of rampant anti-Muslim bigotry in the U.S. by groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Across the board, hate crimes in the U.S. dropped last year by 6 percent, according to the 2005 FBI report release last week, although violence against people based on their race accounted more than half of the reported incidents.

Psyc, you got it---I am fascinated by the apparent belief of the radical Left that the terrorists only hate conservatives, and that THEY, evidently by virtue of hating Bush even more than the terrorists do, will somehow get a pass when/if terrorists strike their communities.

And what is so funny is that it is the "values" promulgated by the most far left of the left that offend the fundamentalists the most. Sure, religious Christians are infidels and must be killed, but it is the bare-breasted, sex/drugs/rock and roll, homosexual, libertine Left that drive them totally nuts. It is Hollywood's vision of America that poisons so many minds against our country.

And BTW, any judge who sentences any American to be disciplined or even just "educated" by any terrorist-supporting America-hating group such as CAIR ought to be kicked off the bench so fast his Liberal little pinhead would take a week to stop spinning.

"I am fascinated by the apparent belief of the radical Left that the terrorists only hate conservatives,"

I'm fascinated by the amount of BS spouted by certain conservatives on this site.

Look, the left know the score. They just think Iraq was a dumb strategic decision that's been poorly executed. You all can try and twist that into being unpatriotic, not taking terrorism seriously or actually aiding and abetting terrorism, but in the end, you'll just look dishonest and foolish doing so. So keep it up. You'll have a rude awakening in 2 weeks.

Shipley, you must like being verbally abused.

Tom:
I think the BS is coming from all sides. I'll fully believe you don't want terrorists to kill you or others (you probably wouldn't mind them killing Bush though by some of the blatant BS you've said about him).

But just as liberals seem to draw conclusions let's recap how we could arrive at liberals "being unpatriotic, not taking terrorism seriously or actually aiding and abetting terrorism."

I will use "You" and "Your" to mean liberals, not necessarily specifically you.

First; you oppose wiretapping of international conversations. Currently, the US Postal Service has the right to read your mail if it's going overseas so doesn't this naturally seem to make sense if you have someone who repeatedly contacts someone via phone in say, Iran or Syria and the person their contacting is a suspected terrorist?

I know... you'll blab about FISA but understand that the FISA law doesn't EVEN apply to this topic.

So... First, we see you not wanting us to know what Terrorists are planning.

You oppose tracking of international transfers of money amongst terrorist groups.

So...Second, we see you not wanting us to track terrorists' financial resources.

You oppose the Patriot Act. Yes, it's a bad idea that government agencies can talk to one another. You also misunderstand that this is for people who AREN'T US citizens when it's in relation to the Bill of Rights.

So...Third, it appears from your stance that you'd rather extend US Constitutional Rights to people who aren't Americans who just happen to want to kill as many innocent people as they can.

You've said again and again on this site and on other blogs that Bush is worse than Hitler or that Saddam should have been left in power instead of trying to bring Democracy to them.

So, Fourth, how can anyone take you seriously when making the Bush-Hitler comparison or that Iraq is worse now than when Saddam was in charge. Maybe ask that of the families who no longer have to fear Saddam's son killing their sons because they didn't win soccer games or Saddams sons raping their daughters at their weddings or Saddam sending nerve gas to his own people killing hundreds of thousands.

I could go on and on with examples of the opposition Democrats and liberals have about everything. So you can see if we draw conclusions what is really behind Democrats' behavior. Either you are really against terrorists and what they stand for or wish they had as much constitutional rights (even though they wish to destroy the country that it's founded on) or you hate Bush SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much that you'll oppose commonsense solutions and stop making suggestions to improve legislation then actually get something done.

Now Tom, can't you see how logic would dictate that with all the opposition y'all have shared and the rather illogical it is to say you're for getting terrorists when you're basically saying you want the terrorists to have access to EVERY right Americans have while leaving the Federal Government with its hands tied, it's ears plugged and it's eyes covered. (What a runon)

Personally Tom, I don't claim you personally wish the terrorists to win or that several thousand score more innocent lives lost; yet it just seems to me that the side of the debate you've joined just can't hunt on this issue.

Tom,

For the sake of argument, let's grant that you are the most patriotic person the world has ever seen. Compared to you, George Washington was lukewarm in his support for the United States, ok? The question still remains: what will you do?

There is a war on, and we have to fight it because there will be a winner and a loser in this fight - and if you in any way, shape or form enjoy your life here in the United States, you'd better be working for American victory.

Next point: We're in Iraq. Call it the most bone-headed mistake in all of human history, if you like - but that doesn't change the fact that we're there, and we MUST win. Winning means a viable, democratic Iraq able to defend itself against foreign and domestic enemies and allied with the United States against Islamo-fascist terrorism. Regardless of how long or costly the fight is, we must prevail in Iraq - because if we don't, you'll have a worse war on your hands: likely one being fought in American cities as emboldered terrorists take the fight directly to us.

So, what will you do? Say its all Bush's fault and insist we scuttle Iraq? Hope for impeachment hearings? Or will you do the patriotic thing and demand not post-mortems on what has happened, but clear and concise plans for absolute victory?

The choice is yours - and by the fruit shall the tree be known.

I'm fascinated by the amount of BS spouted by certain conservatives on this site.

C'mon, Tom, you're not a conservative, and it's vain to be fascinated by yourself.

Shipley, you must like being verbally abused.

Almost as much as you enjoy the physical abuse that axass and CO lay on you, Canuckgay...

"...and by the fruit shall the tree be known..." Amen, brother.

- 100,000 - 650,000 innocent Iraqis dead
- 1,500,000 Iraqi refugees
- 30,000 Iraqis with no homes
- Select disclosure of intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq
- 3,000 dead in New Orleanes
- Unfulfilled promises of funds for the reconstruction of NO
- 3,000 dead on 9/11
- Record opium crop in US-controlled Afganistan
- OBL on the loose
- Cronyism (remember Michael Brown?)
- Corporate corruption
- War profiteering
- Lax enforcement of labor laws (remember the Sago mines?)
- Falling real wages and skyrocketing corporate profits and CEO pay
- Enormous deficits
- Outsourcing
- Excusing corporate employment of illegal aliens
- Politics of division
- Indefinte detainment of suspects
- Votes for sale (Bob Nay)
- Coverup (Pat Tilman, Mark Foley)
- Torture

Keefer/1H8L1BS, why did you change your screen name?

Wait a minute, keefer, did you get banned? Is that what happened?

I was starting to get lonely for my old friend. It's good to know you've been here all along!

Anyway, concerning the topic at hand, Mark says,

-"say that the United States deliberately and with malice aforethought carried out policies with the intention of creating terrorists. Say that we did this because we're enthralled to Big Oil, Haliburton or what have you - subscribe 100% to the most lurid theories about American perfidy - it doesn't matter."

I sort of agree with this, but I would add that it doesn't matter as long as fighting the war on terror doesn't cause us to replay our mistakes.

The U.S. helped arm Saddam Hussein in the name of fighting terrorism, which took the primary incarnation of Iran during that time. Someone, please reassure me that our current goverment is not doing the same thing in this War on Terror.

-"you'd better get on board with fighting this war to absolute victory regardless of how long it takes and how much it costs."

I'm not sure what you mean by cost. There's always a lot of hyperbole involved in these discussions, from both sides, and I'm pretty sure that you doen't really think that the utility of the War on Terror overwhelms all arguments over cost and sacrifice. Besides, the most costly part of the War on Terror (i think) is the War in Iraq, which the Bush administration originally pitched to us (and itself) by saying that it would be quick, cheap, and easy. They would have had a real hard time convincing anyone that getting Saddam was worthy of years of war and trillions of dollars.

Let's suppose that the war in Iraq (just Iraq) really does end up costing over a trillion dollars. Will anyone here really argue that it will be "worth it"? Can you really argue that the money would not be better spent on other campaigns, perhaps on a stronger fight in Afghanistan?

Mark -

"There is a war on, and we have to fight it because there will be a winner and a loser in this fight>"

Nothing good will ever emerge from the horror we have unleashed in Iraq. There will be no winners. Only losers, my friend, only losers.

It is almost unbearable to comtemplate the suffering. What has my country done?

This is so typical. The leftists get challenged to suggest what they'd actually do, then they put up a list of every negative thing they believe Bush is responsible for, apparently including flying four planes on 9/11 and miraculously surviving every single one. Where does that 650,000 number come from, anyway, the DNC? "Give me liberty or give me death" isn't even in the left's vocabulary. They continue to take shots at any conservative as not being in the armed forces despite those who are; well, if you think only the armed forces get to comment on Iraq, how about we limit the right to vote to those who are and/or have served? Conservatives could live with the outcome, but liberals couldn't.

And the leftists are blind, they don't see that every time we advocate these policies of fighting terrorists, we join the enemies of Al Queda club for which everyone who's seen highlander knows the consequence if we lose. They don't see the courage in standing up to "an idea," as though we're fighting an idea. We're not fighting the idea any more than a gun is what kills a person, we're fighting people who hold ideas and guns. And it seems to me that we can fight an idea by controlling the schools and what they teach. No, in the Ayn Rand way we can't destroy an idea, but we can give people options, we can teach them that compassion is rewarded rather than violence.

It's difficult to argue that the liberal expert's estimate of 650,000 dead is even approximated by all the violent deaths during that time in a much larger country built on the idea of compassion and good works. So something in the compassionate Kool Aid appears to be working. And any liberal with a better plan on how to change what schools in the Muslim nations teach their children, and with a plan of how to enforce it, is welcome to come forward.

“I know... you'll blab about FISA but understand that the FISA law doesn't EVEN apply to this topic.”

Now do, please explain why the FISA Act doesn’t apply as this is exactly what the FISA Act was designed to address.

Oh I get it. When facts and logic are involved it doesn’t apply to the extremist right wing Republican agenda.

As far as FISA goes what we liberals detest is the abuse of power. Now why would you not want oversight? Say just by chance there is a Democrat in the Presidency and the house and Senate are 51% or more Democrat, just humor me here, wouldn’t you want some oversight on wire taps?

There is even a stipulation that in the 1/1,000,000th case where time was of the essence that the court order can be received retro actively. The funny thing is the Republicans have hundreds of ads out there that completely ignore this fact. Why do you suppose that is? I’ll tell you it is because they value power over truth and the protection of the United States. It is as plain and simple as that.

“You oppose tracking of international transfers of money amongst terrorist groups.”

Another extremist myth. Where do you come up with this line of crap… oh yeah Karl Rove and the GOP talking points that are regurgitated ad nauseum.

“You oppose the Patriot Act. Yes, it's a bad idea that government agencies can talk to one another”

If this is so, why did bush cut funding for several programs with just this intent in mind when he came into office in 2000? This brings up the ugly truth of, who it was that is so hate filled that they would fail to attempt to protect the US of A in favor of their hate filled agenda. This hate filled agenda goes on in the appointment of people to set up and run critically important appointments in Iraq. This is a sure fire agenda for failure.

“So...Third, it appears from your stance that you'd rather extend US Constitutional Rights to people who aren't Americans who just happen to want to kill as many innocent people as they can.”

It isn’t the true terrorists that we are concerned with, it is that more people, after being detained for months and years, after being shipped to third countries for torture (which indecently an over whelming majority of professional interrogators claim is counter productive) have proven to be the wrong people and have nothing to do with the terrorists. But then I guess the extremist right wing, of which most Republicans are actually an unwitting or complicit accomplice of, think that the ends justify the means, so if we become worse than the terrorists themselves (let alone those insane worthless liberals) it was worth it.

“how can anyone take you seriously when making the Bush-Hitler”

How can anyone take you seriously when you keep saying that liberals just want to sit down and sing koom-bah-yah with Osama? (Funny how they use a Christian song to try and slam the Liberals and at the same time they say that Liberals hate Christians) ;-)

I could go on and on with examples of the lies perpetuated by Bush lemmings and conservatives. So you can see if we draw conclusions what is really behind conservatives' behavior. Either you are really against terrorists and what they stand for or you hate progressives so much that constitutional rights mean nothing to you (even though that is what the US of A was founded on) or you hate progressives SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much that you'll oppose commonsense solutions and stop making suggestions to improve legislation then actually get something done.

“several thousand score more innocent lives lost”

Sounds like Iraq to me. Women can’t walk the street without fear of rape. Common Iraqis can’t walk the street without fear of totally random acts of violence that has claimed more lives (depending on who you believe) than Saddam was ever responsible for. Anarchy, Cival war etc. etc.

“yet it just seems to me that the side of the debate you've joined just can't hunt on this issue”
That is unless you think what Dick Cheney does is hunt!!!! (I’m sorry it would be so funny except that an innocent bystander was hurt, and the potential for serious injury was so great, but by the grace of God was saved from the injuries that this administration has inflicted upon tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.) This is another fine example of the situational awareness of this administration.

"...some of you who think America is the enemy.."

That's a cheap rhetorical trick, Mr.Noonan.
Opposition to the Bush Admin.'s policies does
NOT equate to hatred of America. GWBush is not
America, as he tries to insinuate.Nobody on the
Left that I've heard thinks of the U.S. as the
enemy ,when it comes to terrorism. That's just
ridiculous.

While I believe that you are sincere in your call
to arms, it is obvious that you have bought into
campaign-rhetoric fear-mongering. The threat of
terrorism is at a critical stage, but that does'nt
mean that people should be whipped into a
hysterical frenzy in a thinly-veiled modern day
Crusade against "Islamo-fascists".

Unfortuneately, at a time when we need tough and
smart leadership, we've got only the former.
GWBush had the world behind him in the months
following 9/11. He squandered that opportunity
with arrogance,incompetence and greed.

Wow RAL:

I didn't think it possible but you've proved my point to a Tee... you'll ARGUE out both sides of your mouth and out your ass at the same time.

You rail against EVERYTHING Bush does, include breathing, and then you justify your point by saying Bush did it.

Under Democratic proposals, we have better weapons to fight organized crime then we do terrorists.

They'd rather let innocent babies be aborted after seventh months of pregnancy then kill groups of people who murder for a radical religious outlook.

The Democratic Party of 2006 is 100% do nothing and about 0% honesty when it comes to about 80% of the problems of this nation.

It's clear by the actions of liberals that you DO hate Christians, or at least Christians being Christians in their daily lives. You hate backroom abortions but you're trying to push to backalley religious practice.

I can't think of one Democrat in favor at the DNC headquarters right now who actually lives the faith they profess to have.

Now you'll go on and on about how you're tough on this and against this and will work hard for the common man.

What you won't do is speak the truth about ANYTHING. Admit it, you play class warfare, race warfare, and gender warfare instead of suggesting ways we can actually solve the problems of the day.

It's why you hate Lieberman right? He saw a threat and is willing to STILL see the threat even if Kos is inviting the terrorists to dinner.

Whether you win in 2006 or not, you're toast in 2008. Just admit it, Democrats don't stand for anything except blatant want of power.

Terrorism affects everyone and everyone I know wants terrorism destroyed, however, there are differing opinions about what would have been the best way to rid the world of it after 9/11. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the leader of the USA took the wrong steps, claimed a false victory, and continues to push ahead in the Iraq conflict—a conflict that can not be won (by traditional definitions of winning or victory) and in whatever state the conflict is left, will not end terrorism because terrorism didn’t start in Iraq and is now fueled and trained for there. The USA government continues to not address the causes of terrorism and seems to be stuck as to what to do next—hence Bushes statement that this situation will be left for the next administration to fix.

As far as anyone being critical of the president and the USA government, assessment of your employees is part of life and everyone in this country should be assessing the entire government as they are your employees. We voted them in (or didn’t) and we pay their salaries along with the money to allow them to do anything. Speaking out in favor and against their work is part of the way things work. There are some similar goals (like ending terrorism) and some that may not be so similar, but there are frequently different means to achieve those goals.

I wasn’t aware that outgoing first class USPS mail could be opened without cause and warrant. Not sure how USPS works with outgoing first class mail—it may require a search warrant to open such mail. Incoming mail and packages can be opened by customs, but that’s been going on for years. I’d like to see law about that if you can find it. If we’ve given up that right to privacy along with other privacy rights that are part of the constitution, the US is lost as a nation.

As Benjamin Franklin wrote: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

RAL,

You're the greatest. Really. We love your posts. You words assure us that liberals and Democrats will never again obtain positions of power and authority in the United States.

Do the words "Kool-aid drinking, brain-dead, liberal, autobot" mean anything to you? Because that is what you are, a walking, talking DNC talking point machine. And you do it so well. You are to be commended.

I find it fascinating that you criticize the "right-wing hate machine", while you spew hatred for President Bush, Republicans, and conservatives all over this blog. If I didn't know better, I say you had a "hate filled agenda".

But enough about you, lets disect your latest pile of BS.

"Now do, please explain why the FISA Act doesn’t apply as this is exactly what the FISA Act was designed to address."

For your information (and please try to remember, as I tire of reminding you liberals of the facts), there have been five federal courts, including the FISA Court of Review, that have ruled that the President has the authority under the Constitution to authorize warrantless intercepts to gather foreign intelligence. He does not need FISA approval, or Patriot Act approval, or your approval. He has the authority under the Constitution (which, by the way, is the Supreme Law of the Land).

"As far as FISA goes what we liberals detest is the abuse of power. Now why would you not want oversight?"

You you detest what President Clinton did by authorizing warrantless wiretaps against Americans? Great. I'm glad we got that cleared up. When will you be asking for an investigation of President Clinton for violating FISA?

If you had the mental capacity to do basic research, you would discover that there have been exactly ZERO Americans who have even alleged that their rights have been violated. I know a bunch of liberal lawyers filed suit complaining that their ability to converse with their terrorist clients was being jeopardized. Too bad. If you want to converse with a terrorist, assume you are being listened to.

So you want oversight? Have we got oversight for you. How about we have the Attorney General review the terrorist surveillance program every 60 days to ensure American's civil rights are being protected and only those supected of conversing with terrorists are targeted? How about we brief selected members of Congress every 3 or 4 months or so? We could brief all members of Congress, but we know how hard it is for them to keep a secret and we don't want to tempt them into divulging classified information, as if that stopped them in the past. How about we have the FISA Court of Review look at the program and see if it passes muster? Would those safeguard be enough for you? They would? Great, because those safeguards are already in place.

As a bonus, I'll let you in on a secret. You know why we don't get warrants for the intercepts? Because when we are initiating the intercept, WE DON"T KNOW WHO THE TERRORISTS ARE TALKING TO. Its kind of hard to get a court order for a wiretap if you don't know the name and location of the target. Once we identify the target, a FISA warrant is requested.

Did you know that in the past four years, over 6,700 FISA warrants have been issued? You didn't? I'm surprized. I thought you knew everything. You're a liberal. Did you know that more FISA warrants have been issued in the past four years than all other types of wiretap requests? No? I'm doubly amazed.

"“You oppose tracking of international transfers of money amongst terrorist groups.”

Another extremist myth. Where do you come up with this line of crap… oh yeah Karl Rove and the GOP talking points that are regurgitated ad nauseum."

You don't oppose it? Then why did a liberal rag, the NYT, publish information about the SWIFT, even after the White House asked them not to? By publishing the information, the NYT effectively killed the program. Oh yea, yesterday, the Public Editor of the NYT admitted they should never have published the article. I'm sure that the NYT published the article as a public service. To the terrorists.

"If this is so, why did bush cut funding for several programs with just this intent in mind when he came into office in 2000?"

What? Is this some new liberal, wacko conspiracy theory? You're going to have to provide some proof of your claim. And not from DU or Kos.

"more people, after being detained for months and years, after being shipped to third countries for torture ... have proven to be the wrong people and have nothing to do with the terrorists."

Oh really. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the wrong person and had nothing to do with the terrorists? I thought he was the mastermind behind the 9/11 atacks.

While there may have been one or two individuals erroneously detained, the rest are hardened terrorists. They were caught on the battlefield doing those things terrorists like to do. You know, cutting off heads, blowing up women and children, nice, neighborly things.

Keep it up, RAL. You're winning over the hearts and minds of all conservatives. Really, you are.

OK. You're really not. But you are funny as he**. Have you ever sent your material to Scrappleface, BlameBush, or IMAO? You should. You are the perfect parody of a liberal.

Cheers.

Why We Fight...

An Eid Gift from Al Qaeda Lgf, "As Ramadan comes to its conclusion, the mujahideen send a holiday message to the Muslim world:" "Islamist Holiday Video Calls for Jihad and Slaughter of 'Crusaders'."

MEMRI.org: This ten-minute video ( Link ), titled “Rise Up,” was posted on Islamist websites on October 22, 2006, and was described as “a gift for ‘Eid Al-Fitr.” Produced by an individual identified as “Abu Osama” (whose real identity is unknown), it calls on the Muslims to wage jihad against the “Crusaders.” A caption in the film explains that Abu Osama produced the film on the occasion of the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq.

The film begins with footage of horsemen under the caption: “O ye who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter” (Koran 9:38).

Next, several Al-Qaeda leaders and commanders, including bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Al-Zarqawi and a number of unidentified young men (who may be field commanders or intended suicide bombers) call upon the Muslims to join the jihad. The following are excerpts:

Al-Zawahiri says: “I urge you, in [the name of] the duty of jihad, which is incumbent upon every Muslim, to hurry and pursue martyrdom in order to kill the Crusaders and the Zionists.” An armed individual calls: “[Oh] defenders of the faith, hurry and prepare [for jihad], this is no time for [internal] disagreement.” Another individual, sitting under a banner that reads, “Expel the polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula,” asks: “Are there no men in this nation?” and a masked individual declares: “Jihad is ancient, and the fate of [all] infidel leaders is one and the same: to be slaughtered.”

The video then shows a scene in which a man is beheaded. This is followed by another beheading, even more grisly, in which the severed head is waved in the air. (Both scenes, and another graphic scene, have been omitted from the version of the film posted here, but are available upon request).

UK Campus Jihad Lgf, "The Wall Street Journal has a disturbing article on the efforts of Islamic infiltration groups in British universities:" "Campus Jihad".

WSJ.com: [..] MI5 has hugely upped its game, as recent arrests show. But MI5 also believes that the number of extremists is rising and not just because it now knows better where to look for them. MI5 keeps very close tabs on more than 1,000 extremists; 14,000 British Muslims are considered potential terrorist threats, security sources told me.

I believe a significant number get radicalized and recruited on university campuses. At least 13 convicted Islamist terrorists and four suicide bombers have been students at British universities. Radical Islamist student societies make full use of university resources. They operate Web sites, hosted by university servers, which direct visitors to organizations that glorify jihad and terror. These “religious” groups are given “prayer rooms” on campus, which are also used to disseminate extremist literature and DVDs. Muslim students concerned about these developments tell me that at many of these Islamic societies terrorism is portrayed as justified acts of “resistance.” A leading imam in Birmingham often preaches on British campuses that the London bombers have to be seen as “martyrs.”

(Read the whole article for the UK-Pakistan connection.)

Mark,

Even if the United States loses in Iraq, it doesn’t mean we will be attacked by terrorists. At the same time, if the United States wins in Iraq, it doesn’t guarantee that we won’t be attacked by terrorists. One has nothing to do with the other. Winning the war in Iraq is not going to stop many Islamic extremists from wanting to kill Americans. Obviously it would be a good thing for Iraq to become a peaceful democracy but it’s not vital to our security that it does.

Nate,

For the zillionth time - we DID NOT ARM SADDAM. Brazil provided more military hardware to Saddam's regime than the US and Great Britain COMBINED, and the US and British arms which did arrive in Saddam's arsenals were sold illegally by third parties. Saddam's arms came 60%+ from Russia, 25%+ from France.

That aside - there is no conceivable cost of prevailing in Iraq which is higher than the cost of losing in Iraq.

Aaron,

Perhaps, then, you should look at the good we've done - stop watching the television news and look in to how many schools we've opened; how many people have seen a doctor because of us; how much food we've distributed to the hungry...

Brian,

You couldn't be more wrong - A failure in Iraq would be a crushing defeat for the United States. We'd be demoralised and divided, while the terrorists would seem invincible - and the wavering Moslem masses, seeing the United States lacking the will to fight until victory, will default over to the terrorists. Within a year an Islamo-fascist block stretching from the Syria to Afghanistan would be the luanching pad for attacks on Israel and the United States. Eventually they'd commit the outrage of all outrages, and we'd have to go back in...but this time with an army of millions to conquer every square inch of the Moslem world...literal tens of millions will die in quite brutal and pitiless war if we fail in Iraq.

PoD,

It is a war to the death - that you refuse to see it for what it is cannot be helped by me. You might think it not all that large an issue, but our enemies think it the most important thing in human history: To them, this is the culmination of all history, the precursor to Judgement Day. People who believe like that are hard to deter - people who believe like that who also believe killing the innocent is pleasing to God are an overwhelming danger to the entire world.

Mark,

People were saying the same things about Vietnam as you are saying about Iraq but within fifteen years of the Communist takeover of South Vietnam, Communism collapsed.

Terrorists can’t attack the U.S. from Iraq because they don’t have long range bombers or missiles. If they tried to establish bases in Iraq, the U.S. Air Force could easily wipe them out without any ground forces. Terrorists don’t need bases to launch attacks against the U.S.. The terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11 planned and carried out their attack from inside the United States. They even received their flight training here. Total victory in Iraq will not stop terrorists from wanting to attack the United States. The best way to prevent terrorist attacks in the U.S. is to keep terrorists from entering our country. This method has worked very well for the past five years. As long as the terrorists stay in Iraq or Saudi Arabia or whatever country they're from, there’s not much they can do to hurt us here. Of course our intelligence agencies should continue to track down and capture or kill terrorists but securing our borders and making sure that terrorists don’t get into this country is the best way to prevent more attacks from happening here.

Brian,

Yes, people were saying that if we lost in Vietnam, there would be a bloodbath...and their was, right on schedule just as people said their would be...at least three million dead in Indo-China between 1975 and 1980. To prevent that, wouldn't you have agreed to 10,000 more American dead? Or are the lives of brown people who live far away just not worth that much to you?

But that three million dead wasn't all - because of the perception of American weakness after Vietnam, the world got stuck with a long, bloody civil war in Namibia (with Cuban troops massacring Africans in the name of communism), communist revolution in Nicaragua and civil war in El Salvador. There was also the horror of Eithiopia, which its communist-government created famine...

The cost of defeat in war is always higher than the cost of victory - once in a war, the only way out is victory. That is what we must have in Iraq.

And as for your, "they can't hit us here"...I seem to recall them hitting us here in the past...and unless you want a mile high wall around the US with no one in or out, then there is no way to prevent them from getting in here...and they've only got to get in to America once with a WMD to cause more death and destruction than even ten more years of battle in Iraq.

Mark,

This is embarrassing:

-"we DID NOT ARM SADDAM."

Oh, that's right, I forgot that all of the advanced hardware that we sent to Saddam was for civilian use only. How were we supposed to know that Saddam would use this stuff for military purposes? And those billions of dollars in loan guarantees were supposed to be for strictly non-military benefit. And when we took Iraq OFF the list of countries that support terrorism in 1982, that was meant to make it HARDER for companies, American or otherwise, to sell high-tech hardware to Iraq, right? And I bet you think that everything Howard Teicher says is BS too, huh?

Oh, and the satellite data that we provided had no military purpose either, did it?

Mark, you might as well just go ahead and claim that the U.S. didn't care if Iraq lost its war with Iran. You'll come off just as uninformed, but at least you'll be more consistent.

-"Brazil provided more military hardware to Saddam's regime than the US and Great Britain COMBINED"

Evidence please. I think you made this up, but I'll keep an open mind. I'd like to see where you got this.

-"and the US and British arms which did arrive in Saddam's arsenals were sold illegally by third parties."

Really? All of them? Are you really claiming that there were no exports of weaponry to Iraq that went without the approval of the Reagan administration? Let me know how much money you'd like to bet.

Besides all of this, you seem to be stuck on the idea of weapons, as though weapons were the only thing that made Saddam strong. As though the U.S. didn't make a concerted effort to help Saddam win the war with Iran. Massive industrial support, money, loans, massive agricultural support, funny sort of "dual-use" hardware like Hughs helicopters, all these things were meant to keep Saddam under control, right?

But here's the cherry on the cake of your comment:

-"there is no conceivable cost of prevailing in Iraq which is higher than the cost of losing in Iraq."

* No * Conceivable * Cost *

This is so good, I have to savor the aroma for a while. No conceivable cost. Like you just can't imagine a sacrifice too great for the U.S. to make in order to win in Iraq. You didn't answer my trillion-dollar question, but it's no matter, since you clearly think that NO price is too great. Money, our liberties, dare I say, your immortal soul?

Yes, I'm making fun of you. You'll hear more about this from me in a few months after the Bush administration figures out it's new strategy in Iraq.

nate,

Forget it - you've been hanging 'round the paranoid, leftwing conspiracy sites...you know, where they've got a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam as proof of our support for him...that 7 months I spent in the Persian Gulf in the Navy? Well, let me tell you, that was one clever ploy of ours - going to general quarters every time an Iraqi ship or plane came by....man, we were just fooling everyone. And all those Russian tanks, planes, artillery pieces, chemical warfare equipment, uniforms, boots, helmets? Yet another clever ploy on our part - convincing the Russians to arm Saddam when he was secretly on our side all along...

I'd better go now...the black helicopters are lurking...

Mark

As all clear thinking individuals know the USSR was the main country arming Saddam followed by France and China as proven by this chart. Almost all of the 1% the USA was involved with was satellite technology on Iranian troop movements.

"I'd better go now...the black helicopters are lurking..."-MN

Want me to call in an airstrike? heh.
:P

*Disclaimer* That was just a joke.

Mark

Do you think people like Nate who have a seething hatred for our military know they're lying? It's so easy to prove them wrong. Is that hatred to strong that it precludes the truth from getting through? I mean not even a left wing kook could believe 650,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion. But yet they repeat it.

Brian,
You write:
"Even if the United States loses in Iraq, it doesn’t mean we will be attacked by terrorists. At the same time, if the United States wins in Iraq, it doesn’t guarantee that we won’t be attacked by terrorists. One has nothing to do with the other."

You need to get your money back from whoever tried to teach you logic. "Doesn't guarantee" is not the same thing as "has nothing to do with the other." Remember why Osama started attacking us (without using long range bombers)? He said it himself: we left Mogadishu just like we left Vietnam, so he knew we (or at least our leaders) were behaving weakly, that our leaders couldn't take the political fallout from lost American troops. He was right then, but since George W Bush was elected, he's been wrong, and I for one am happy about us. They attack us because they believe we will run away.

Jonas,
I'm still waiting for that cite about your 650,000 number and how you came up with it.

Morris,

This is the study that I'm guessing Jonas got the 650,000 number from:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

Mark,

Great reply. You dodged all of my questions, and then erected your favorite strawman - the paranoid conspiracy-theorist liberal. Let me remind you that I voted for Bush twice, and I will be voting for republicans in the coming elections.

I'm not a black-heli kind of guy. I'm just unhappy with some things that my government has done. In your mind, that automatically makes me paranoid liberal. So who's the paranoid one again?

Let's look at your non-answers:

-"you've been hanging 'round the paranoid, leftwing conspiracy sites...you know, where they've got a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam as proof of our support for him."

Right, we dealt with this one. If your mind is too small to even debate with other republicans who don't totally agree with your support of Bush, then you can't exactly be a good spokesman for your president, can you? And by the way, I have never used that picture of Rummy and Saddam as evidence of our cozy relationship with Iraq.

-"that 7 months I spent in the Persian Gulf in the Navy? Well, let me tell you, that was one clever ploy of ours - going to general quarters every time an Iraqi ship or plane came by....man, we were just fooling everyone."

So let me summarize your point here: because you went to general quarters when Iraqi military approached, that's proof that the U.S. did not support Saddam Hussein in any way. Is that right? Instead, do you think that maybe it was because both the Iraqi and Iranian navies had attacked neutral merchant at various times? Just a thought. Remind me Mark, when exactly were you in the persian gulf?

-"And all those Russian tanks, planes, artillery pieces, chemical warfare equipment, uniforms, boots..." blah blah blah.

Yes, we know that Saddam got a lot of stuff from the russians. Again, how does that translate into proof that the U.S. did nothing to support Saddam? The Pakistanis fly mostly french fighter planes; does this prove that the U.S. has not massively aided Pakistan either?

Mark, let me make this REAL simple for you: you seem to be saying that the U.S. did absolutely nothing to help strengthen Iraq during Saddam's war with Iran. This is a ridiculous position to take, and you must have some terrific evidence to back it up. It should certainly be easy for you to answer some of my questions, so why not give it a try? Maybe give me some evidence that Howard Teicher is full of lies. Or tell me something that I don't know about the billions of dollars in CCC loan guarantees we made to Saddam's regime. Or tell me why you think the Commerce Department allowed U.S. companies like Matrix Churchill Corp. to transfer technology considered highly sensitive to Iraq. Shoot, man, tell me why American taxpayers were left with $2 billion dollars of defaulted Iraqi debt when the first gulf war started. Is the U.S. in the habit of loaning billions of dollars to countries that pose a military threat to us?

Or maybe all of this was totally justifiable to you. I await your answers.

No Conceivable Cost!

Wow, this is the kind of stuff worth reading! So much liberal wisdom! Where can one attend class to learn just a little of what they know? The only thing missing from their rhetoric
is the usual name calling that liberals are so famous for. Maybe they are waiting to use them as their ace-in-the-hole? So far though, they have been able to set out a few real names of the hated such as G.Bush, senior G.Bush,Cheney, Jimmy Swaggart, Dobson, Robertson and Falwell! (such cads!) They'll probably add my name to the list soon.
They love bashing the Christian folk so much when it is convenient to their twisted point of view and then stoop to quoting scripture and ending with "amen brother"! What hypocrites!! (And wade, the only way to get rid of a disease is to somehow kill it.'If the shoe fits---')
I would argue my conservative points of view here if I felt it would do any good, but if the points already established here hasn't done the job, the dummies either can't or refuse to wake up. A-10, you get my vote but I believe it went right over the head of RAL.
The best thing is to let them wallow in their ignorance. The bad thing about it though is that they are dangerous and if they are not overcome, they will destroy this country. We cannot allow the democrats to come into power for if they do, we will surely lose in Iraq.
And shipley, I'm not picking on you, but, your eyes are brown.

Seems like all the Republicans are trolls, while the Liberals are actually talking about the topic.

Well, USA, if you consider jonas' mindless regurgitation of debunked baseless Airhead talking points as "talking about the topic" then I suppose the Libs are right on target. It's not as if you care that he is spouting invented "information" or that the Libs here are so hate-motivated they simply cannot make any sense at all.

The fact is, going into Iraq was a gamble. While you smartypants love to strut the vast "knowledge" you get at the knees of the sacred gurus of the Left, the decisions were made by professional warriors with hundreds of years of education and experience among them, men and women who had been all over the world serving our country, who had seen things we can not even imagine, who had conferred with the greatest political and military leaders of our time, and who had the greatest access to the intelligence gathered by the most skilled and well-equipped intelligence services in history.

And they knew it was a gamble. They knew there were no guarantees of success. They knew that the very definition of "success" would change as circumstances changed around them. These are not, were not, stupid people. They are not, were not, careless of the security of this country. They are not, and were not, indifferent to the loss of life associated with ANY of their decisions. They are not, were not, reckless or politically motivated or otherwise deserving of the malignant abuse you love to heap upon them.

But they understood that failing to act would be inviting far more chaos, disaster, and death than acting would generate. They understood that the ground under them would shift constantly, that the enemy would change and evolve and mutate as fast as we could come up with ways to deal with the last personas they presented to us.

And, unfortunately but too too accurately, they understood that much of the danger would come from within, that their every effort would be subjected to internal sabotage and attempts to undermine them, derail them, and eventually destroy them.

But they had the courage to mount a battle against the enemy without, knowing all the time that they would be faced with another enemy within. And they did this because they had the experience, persepective, and intelligence to understand that they had to do SOMETHING.

Have mistakes been made? You bet. Were they the result of abject stupidity? Probably not. While abject stupidity can and does interject itself into nearly every situation at one time or another, it seldom drives the train. No, it is just that it would be impossible to embark on such a huge, complicated, and ever-changing effort as this effort to protect our country and our way of life, without mistakes being made. Sometimes those mistakes would be due to wrong decisions. Sometimes they would be due to bad intelligence. Sometimes they would be due to errors in interpreting good intelligence. Sometimes they would be because the enemy has the advantage of defining terms, and we have to play catch-up and be more reactive than active. Most often they would not be mistakes as such, but the result of taking one fork in the road instead of another, knowing that each fork would have its own dangers and consequences.

But the insane claims of the radical Left that simple, unavoidable, mistakes are really malignant efforts to manipulate the entire world in a mad grasp at power, or the result of criminal stupidity, are far more indicative of the mindset of that radical Left,and its propensity for projection of itself onto the world around it, than of the facts.

So, you loony Lefties, as long as you cannot or will not admit that mistakes would have happened no matter who had been in charge or what path had been taken, as long as you persist in the irrational demonization of people who are doing the best they can to keep your butts safe, you will be held in contempt by those of us who ackhowledge the immensity of the job of protecting us and the impossibility of doing it 100% right all the time.

I hope your not equating warblogging with actual combat, like the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

I hope you're going to learn how to use the words "your" and "you're" when you grow up, steveGAmoron.

And we use "we" because on the right, we're all in this together. If America is at war, "we" on the right, as Americans, support our troops and their mission, because "we" are at war, unlike you, steveGAmoron. You support defeat, as in "you" support the enemy.

The "terrorist" is now merely a Bush created boogey man to scare us into voting for what is obviously the most dangerous and incompentent administration this nation has or will ever see.

Wade, the only imcompetence that exists here is your boogie-brain, son. Terrorists were around long before this Bush took office, you stupid ass.

As for incopetence in the White House, I guess you weren't around for Jimmuh.

Wade, you're a sorry excuse for a human being, a waste of oxygen. Why don'cha go jump in front of a bus or somethin'?

Wade

Almiranta,

Amen to that.

Almiranta

"...jonas' mindless regurgitation of debunked baseless Airhead talking points..."

Which of the facts I listed have been debunked? Are there not between 100,000 and 650,000 innocent Iraqis dead because of the war we started? Are real wages not falling? Is there not an annual deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars? Did Bob Nay not plead guilty to selling his votes? Is Jack Abramoff a free man? Has OBL been captured? Was unqualified Michael Brown not put in charge of FEMA because of his Repulbican connections? Have we cracked down on illegal employment of undocumented aliens?

When can I expect to see fruits such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control?

Mark,

We were fighting the North Vietnamese and Vietcong in Vietnam, not the Khmer Rouge, who murdered millions of people. The Vietnamese Communists actually went to war with the Khmer Rouge after the Vietnam War ended and took over Cambodia.

When the Khmer Rouge was murdering millions of people, I think the United States should have used military force to stop the killing. One of the reasons I’m disgusted with President Bush is because he has not done anything to stop the mass killings of Christians in Sudan. I’m not even a Christian and I want strong action taken against Sudan to stop this. President Bush, who is always professing his Christianity, is doing nothing while his fellow Christians are being murdered in large numbers in Sudan.

Brian

Libs blame everthing on Bush.Damn, Bush caused a hurricane! Damn, Bush caused the DOW to drop. Damn, Bush caused a power outage. Damn, Bush caused-----. Note, Bush has already called this a genocide and requested UN intervention. The UN stops short of calling it genocide and refuses to intervene because Sudan says UN forces there would threaten their sovereignty. You libs love the UN. Now blame them instead of Bush.
BTW, this stuff goes on all the time in African countries. Armies could be sent into some African country every month for the next 100 years and before they could quell one uprising, another one would emerge.
So, if this is why you hate Bush, go on with your bad self. However, I suspect you have other reasons for hating Bush.

Jonas

You said: "When can I expect to see fruits such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control?"
Why? These are the values of the Christian Right!
These are what Robertson, Swaggart and Falwell preach all of the time. These are the people libs squalk about all of the time! Do I detect a hint of hypocrosy here?
Oh, truthfullness was left out!
Not pickin' on ya, just wondering where ya stand.

Rod

Wade,

I don't usually respond to the christian bashing that you and your secular leftist friends engage in. However you quote the ravings of a lunatic as if it were Christian gospel.

The difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christianity teaches peace (see below). The Bible says that all manner of sins shall be forgiven to him that asks (Mt 12:31). So there is even hope for you.

The Imam quoted above uses the Koran to justify the killing of homosexuals. However the Bible both OLD & NEW Testaments teach something else.

Jesus said:

Ro 12:17,18
Render to no man evil for evil. Take thought for things honorable in the
sight of all. If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men.

Ro 12:19
Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense,
saith the Lord.

The Old testament affirms that vengeance belongs to GOD not man!!! The Koran says the reverse.

De 32:35
Vengeance is mine (saith the Lord), and recompense, At the time when their foot shall slide:
For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things that are to come upon
them shall make haste.

Ps 94:1
O Jehovah, thou God to whom vengeance belongeth, Thou God to
whom vengeance belongeth, shine forth.

So maybe you should read the bible before you make a fool of yourself by quoting passages without understanding.

Sadly, Rod, you don't recognize the fruit of the Spirit. Galatians 5:22. I'll pray for you.

Rod: "Why [should I expect to see love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithful, gentleness and self control from those running this country]?"

Because the word of God tells us that by their fruit shall they be judged. We should expect that the actions of all true Christians to look like the fruits described in scripture. If their actions are not such, we should be cautious they may not be Christians afterall. We should not let them lead us astray. "There are many in the House of God who have been misled. They are not to be castigated, but make known to them the Message from Heaven."

Rod: "Oh, truthfullness was left out!"

I don't know what feel-good Bible you read, Rod, but I study the KJV, and I don't add to the Word. Though I value truthfulness, if Paul didn't see fit to include truthfulness in the fruits, neither do I.

"When can I expect to see fruits such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control?"

Posted by: jonas

Jonas, Jesus called on each of us to live out these in our OWN lives. He didn't leave this as a perscription for government.

So these fruits start with YOU first. Don't expect your government to fulfill what is required of YOU PERSONALLY.

Jonas
Thanks. I don't read a "feel good" Bible. I really don't wish to argue, discuss or turn to religious subjects in this forum. The subject is
"Why we fight".It just seemed strange to me that a libral normally is against the Christian Right which means they are for removing God from anything American. Then to see an apparent liberal quote these values was very strange. Since you were referring to the gov't. in your remarks, it seemed you should require truthfullness in the requirement.

In any event, I welcome prayers from you or anyone else, as I am sure G.W.Bush and our troops
in Iraq would.
The question is Jonas, why do we fight? Should we stay the course or cut and run? Are our long term and short term consequences worse if we leave without a victory or worse if we stay without any guarantee of victory?
I havn't seen you stand behind our gov't. in your posts yet. I have noticed your dissent! Therefore, you seem to be on the left. Leftist advocate cut and run! It would seem that you would stand with your country's decision to be in Iraq regardless of past mistakes and pray for our victory.

Leftists hate G.W.Bush more than they love their country. They would sacrifice our position in the middle east regardless of the consequences if it would hurt G.W.!!!

Why do we fight? So you can go to bed tonight and wake up tomorrow safe and sound. Since 911 we have had no terrorist action in this country. Tonight, thank your best friend G.W.Bush for your safety.
Oh, and please pray for our victory in Iraq.
Rod.

Tom,
Thanks for the link on the study. It has a few glaring methodological flaws. First, the pre-war estimate of deaths/thousand would be the lowest in the Middle East. Their estimate is 5.5 deaths/thousand. As a comparison, the mortality rate estimated on the CIA fact page for the United States last year is 8.26. So we would have to believe that if their methods are valid, the United States has on average one and a half times the death rate of Iraq. I'm not saying the CIA's estimate is more reliable, only that their method of sampling 12,000 people, finding out 629 died (though death certificates were given for only 80% of them), then extrapolating a comparison against reports of deaths from the previous year (and maybe/maybe not they didn't get the reports from the people who actually died and weren't around to tell them, and about those who were killed by Saddam because people probably wouldn't say that to strangers for fear they actually work for Sunni death squads).

phnxbmed,
Are you really arguing that God wants us to be loving, joyful, peaceful... in our private lives but that God wants us to create a hateful, destructive, evil society? My Bible says God has a single set of values. It commands me to manifest those values in my personal life and to use my time, talent, money, power and influence to manifest those values in the world.

Was Christ crusified because someone was afraid he was going to be too peaceful, loving, joyful in his personal life? No. He was crusified because he demanded that those in power use their power to build a peaceful, loving, joyful society.

Continue your argument that values don't matter in society and government. I'd like to hear more.

phnxbmed,
Are you really arguing that God wants us to be loving, joyful, peaceful... in our private lives but that God wants us to create a hateful, destructive, evil society? My Bible says God has a single set of values. It commands me to manifest those values in my personal life and to use my time, talent, money, power and influence to manifest those values in the world.

Was Christ crusified because someone was afraid he was going to be too peaceful, loving, joyful in his personal life? No. He was crusified because he demanded that those in power use their power to build a peaceful, loving, joyful society.

Continue your argument that values don't matter in society and government. I'd like to hear more.