and i was just refering to the dancing fat cow with the bananas having never seen your "ample ass"

Am,

Since when is politics about right and wrong?

It's been our intention to leave all along. If they ask us it means they must be willing to step up. Good for them.
The day we leave get ready for a return trip somewhere else. As long as we fight on thier terms it is certain that we will visit another Islamic state soon. To wait we just continue to give the the fist shot for free.

No one is saying Iraq was directly responsible for 911. But it is clear that Iraq has direct ties to terrorist activities, has funded, harbored, and trained terrorists. This guys aren't stupid for the most part. They know that as long as their hench men do the dirty work, they can claim they were not involved and know it will be hard for us to respond. If I wanted to attack america and not face the consequences, I would work with terror groups as they have done.

More evidence comes out every week. Here are some snips from a recent report:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Important new information has come from Edward Jay Epstein about Mohammed Atta’s contacts with Iraqi intelligence. The Czechs have long maintained that Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official, posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague.”

“Prior to the 9/11 attacks, the Czechs were closely watching the Iraqi embassy. Al-Ani’s predecessor had defected to Britain in late 1998, and the Czechs (along with the British and Americans) learned that Baghdad had instructed him to bomb Radio Free Europe, headquartered in Prague, after RFE had begun a Radio Free Iraq service earlier that year.”

“starting with the first assault on New York’s World Trade Center, Iraq was working with Islamic militants to attack the United States”

“Evidence is “something that indicates,” according to Webster’s. Proof is “conclusive demonstration.” The report of a well-regarded allied intelligence service that a 9/11 hijacker appeared to have met with an Iraqi intelligence agent a few months before the attacks is certainly evidence of an Iraqi connection.”

“Following the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, senior officials in New York FBI, the lead investigative agency, believed that Iraq was involved. When Clinton launched a cruise missile attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters in June 1993, saying publicly that the strike was punishment for Saddam’s attempt to kill former President Bush when he visited Kuwait in April, Clinton believed that the attack would also take care of the terrorism in New York, if New York FBI was correct.”

“But if the entire 1991 Gulf War did not deter Saddam for long, why should one cruise missile strike accomplish that aim? Indeed, the Iraqi plot against Radio Free Europe—the existence of which is confirmed by RFE officials—is clear demonstration that the June 1993 cruise missile strike did not permanently deter Saddam.”

PP,

I have a couple of things to say about this thread:

(1) I don't think the parents of Nick Berg appreciate these pictures being propogated across the web, especially for political spin that somehow this legitimizes the war when they have publically stated they are against it.

(2) The Bush administration should have publised a 5000 page document before we went to war explicitly documenting why this war is justified and what our strategy is. Whatever stuff dribbles out in the news paper now has about as much integrity as the leak of Joseph Wilsons (former US Ambassador) wifes identity, was was a CIA operative.

King
Are you for real... One thing is for sure, your posts give humor to my day.

Aunty
Give um hell

I have fun with these topics like I normally do, I am quite serious, as this isn't the only fishing forum plagued with this left wing misinformation campaign and anti american propaganda. Too many young guys not yet tempered with wisdom (and of course, old farts who should have wisdom but don't) are being subjected to propaganda. I hope they will stop and think about what is real and just, and what the consequences could be for not making decisions and taking action to stop threats against our country.


It's just our opinions and either side could be right or wrong only time will tell.

It's not just opinions IF you have an agenda here to spread hate for Christians.

Go Harley,

About that question that began this thread, I could only think of, "Remember the Alamo!," as Texas diplopmacy.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

"More evidence comes out every week. Here are some snips from a recent report:"

If you are relying on a source for fact in a forum it is polite to post that source so one can get perspective...

If you post something as fact from FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
Atta/Prague new information (Edward Jay Epstein)

I assure you there are just as many articles like this:

Calling the shots
Rumsfeld's great expectations

David Corn
The Nation

My point being, the information you get and the source are important to consider.

Who is spreading hate for christians?

I don't see even a glimmer of it here. I have seen people express dissatisfaction with certain aspects of christianity, certainly people like myself have been ardently speaking out about the need to keep church and state separate.

Is this what you are referring as hateful?

If you were to juxtapose my thoughts on christianity against yours on islam, which do you think a reasonable person might describe as hateful and virulent?

From where I sit I see the hatred and vitriol are coming strictly from the other side of the table...you know, the 'judge not another man...." side, the "love thine enemies...." side, etc....

Its no wonder most of the world is looking on incredulously right now as we 'spread our democracy'.

H20,

There is some 2000 years of written history on the difference between Christianity and Islam. Pick any time period or point and I will debate your understanding of either or both.

If by pointing out that fundamental Islam has called for the return of all territory of the historical Ottoman Empire and the destruction of Isreal as being it's non negotiable goals as stated by them is being a bad Christian then I am gulity. If by pointing out that this demand by the Whabbi clerics has not been addressed as fanatical or Radical by the so called and yet invisable Moderate Islamic people it is Islams objective by action and words makes me a bad then I am guilty. Many experts have pointed to these same issues as being the fundamental issue between Islam and the west today. Colin Powell even addressed in yesterday on Meet the Press. You openly bash Christians and clearly have an issue with them in my opinion.

King,

My man, you have GOT to get your facts straight.

Islam wasn't even around 2000 years ago.

Here's a brief chronology:

Muhammad was born into the trading society of Mecca in 570 A.D. He was a part of one of the dominant tribes, the Qu'raish (Adler, p.184). Mecca was a great trade city and was a stopping place for merchants and businessmen of all races, religions, and countries. In general, it was open to the world. Although Mecca continually struggled for supreme power and went through many leaders, Mecca's strength was the ability of the people to form a common mind for the "common good" (Watt, p.50).

Not much is known about this man during the first forty years of his life other than the fact that he married a rich widow and later they had a daughter, Fatima, who became the wife of the great warrior, Ali (Ibid., p.186). However, around 610, Muhammad claimed that after meditating in the desert God had revealed many messages to him concerning life. These revelations came from the angel Gabriel, who Muhammad claimed God had used to call him to publish his religion (Guillaume, p.96). Muhammad's revelations were written shortly after his death and they are now called the Qur'an.

After these experiences in the desert, Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God with the great desire to guide others by God's message. So, he began to preach to those around him in 617 (Ibid., p.100). The people of Mecca at this time were involved in a religion called Ka'aba meaning "black stone," in which they literally worshipped a black stone. Those following this religion believed that many objects, other than the black stone, possessed spirits and power. Therefore, Muhammad's message asserting the lordship of Allah was not well received at first. The people called him a sorcerer and false prophet and claimed that he was possessed (Watt, p.102) and in 622 Muhammad was forced to flee Mecca. He had been condemned by Meccan authorities who held to Ka'aba (Guillaume, p.124). This escape is now called the year of the Hegira ("Flight") and marks the first year on the Muslim calendar (Adler, p.185).

Muhammad found refuge in the rival city of Medina where he was accepted and gathered a fairly large following. Even in Mecca he had some followers and people all over were accepting his message, but, from Medina, he issued a holy war against Mecca. After eight years, Muhammad captured Mecca and became the ruler. He implemented the divine orders he believed he was called to carry out and retained the pilgrimage to Mecca as part of his religious restoration (Watt, p.151).

Muhammad was born poor, but he died known as the founder of the great religion of Islam, and was considered a "poet, an inspired prophet with a fearless heart (Dermenghem, p. 37)." Muhammad died in 632 with the majority of the Arabian Peninsula under Islam, a word which literally means "submission." However, he didn't claim to be a revolutionary or innovator -- but to complete the work of the Jewish Christian prophets (Ibid., p.70).

4Salt,

you cannot debate from Google when will you learn:-)

Abraham ( from Canan, modern day Iraq)was promised his decendants would be gods chosen people. He was married to Sarah but early on they had no Children and thought Sarh to be baron. So he impregnated Hagar the maid of Sarah and Ishmael was born out of wedlock. Later Sarah became pregnant with Abrahams child Issac in wedlock.Ishamel is the father of the Islamic tribes and Issac the father of the Jewish tribes. Both claim to be gods chosen people per the promise of God to Abraham. The jews claim that since Ishmael was born out of wedlock and is therefore a ******* he was born of sin making Issac the rightful heir to the promise of God. Islam claims that since Ishmael was Abrahams first born he his the rightful heir to the promise of god. So the debate started Ishmael lived 137 years (Genesis 25:17). He had 12 sons, who became the founders of Ishmaelite tribes that spread from Egypt to what is today Iraq. Many of the modern-day Arab peoples correctly recognize that they are the descendants of Ishmael, while the Jews, and the rest of the Israelites, are descendants of Isaac - but all are descended from Abraham. Ishmael was born 4000 years ago.

NONE of that changes the fact that MUHAMMAD, born in 570 A.D. IS THE RECOGNIZED FOUNDER OF THE RELIGION OF ISLAM!


Once again you try to steer emphasis away from your obvious mistake.

King - You are wrong! Why can't you just admit it? We won't think any less of you... promise!

4salt,

Were we not talking about the origins of the dispute? It goes back 4000 years and anyone with a slightest more than-google knowledge of the history of the two religions refers to the origin of Islam with Ishmael before Muhammed.

Turn off Google a read a little.

There's your quote King. This isn't about semantics... this is about you posting things that are patently false, and then not accepting responsibility when you are proven wrong!


p.s. Ya know.. this is kinda not that much fun anymore. When your "debate" opponent (you) is always wrong... there just isn't that much joy in constantly pointing it out... :p

4salt,

make a point please your last post is way out there.

4salt,

Come on show me where the post is false. O r is it easier just to declare your self correct and not back it up?

Show me how the confilct between Jews/Christians and Islam did not start 4000 years ago with Ishmael and Issac. Show me where there is not 2000 years of written history of this dispute. Show me how Mohammed even comes in to play if the 2500 years of history before his arrival did not happen. I await your response.

GAWD King! I'm almost embarrassed to have to to this to you again!

Christianity - Root word: Christ - A religion founded on the premise that Jesus Christ is the son of God. The Messiah or savior only through whom a place in heaven shall be attained... etc. etc. ad nauseum.

The modern calendar we use today says that we're living in the year 2004. That's 2004 A.D. Annum Deium. (sp) Latin for year of our lord.

The number 2004 signifies that it's been 2004 years since the birth of Christ

So, if we accept the above as fact then it stands to reason that... read this carefully now King and REALLY let it soak in... JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT BORN 4000 YEARS AGO, SO THERE WAS NO CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND NO CONFLICT BETWEEN CHRISTIANS AND JEWS!

I've already shown you that the religion of Islam was founded somewhere around the year 640 A.D. (Remember King, that's 640 years AFTER the birth of Christ) by Muhammad.

Your above statement therefore has NO merit whatsoever, and only serves to further demonstrate the conspicuous fact the you DO NOT know what the hell you're talking about!

4salt,

Come on you cannot be that dense. Read a little before you get in over your head next time.