Mixing war and religion? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-30-2003, 06:16 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 12:55 AM
"I come not to bring peace, but a sword"
- a metaphore if anything, since the sword often symbolizes the Bible.

He encouraged his disciples to carry swords with them cos he was realistic. They were a target because they associated with him. However, he would not condone use of the sword to protect him as he we see when he scolds peter for chopping off dudes ear and then heals the ear.
He never carried a sword, he never hurt anyone. And I find it alarming that you draw similarities between his outburst in the temple and WAR. That is unbelievable.
We're talking about the difference between upturning tables to scare people out of a temple and killing thousands of human beings...a little difference there I think.


I don't know why you are using God to justify the war, but it pleases me none to much. Find your own reasons for justifying pointless killing but don't bring God into this. He gets a bad enough rap for that as it is.
If God condones this war, I guess he would condone the US to attack the better part of THE WHOLE WORLD since there are ruthless dictators aplenty and many just as bad as saddam. Of course many of these places are poor in resources...why invade them, eh?

As I said a couple times before...war breeds conflict.
__________________

__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 06:19 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 12:55 AM
God ordered the killing of whole cities...he said that all women, men and children were to be killed on a couple instances.

Either, this is a problem with translation or he has changed the way he deals with the world. Either one is plausible
__________________

__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 06:30 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Basstrap
(1) "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"
- a metaphore if anything, since the sword often symbolizes the Bible.

(2)He encouraged his disciples to carry swords with them cos he was realistic. They were a target because they associated with him. However, he would not condone use of the sword to protect him as he we see when he scolds peter for chopping off dudes ear and then heals the ear.

He never carried a sword, he never hurt anyone.(3) And I find it alarming that you draw similarities between his outburst in the temple and WAR. That is unbelievable.
We're talking about the difference between upturning tables to scare people out of a temple and killing thousands of human beings...a little difference there I think.


(4)I don't know why you are using God to justify the war, but it pleases me none to much. Find your own reasons for justifying pointless killing but don't bring God into this. He gets a bad enough rap for that as it is.
(1)The word "sword" does not mean "Bible" in this isntance. In fact, it didn't mean "Bible" until afetr Christ died and was resurrected - the church age, Paul and Peter. In this verse it means "division". It means that because of belief in Jesus, mother will be set against son, brother against brother, etc.

(2)"...cos he was realistic". Those are you words. So, in other words, he told them to carry swords to - what- defend themselves? Yeep, that's exactly what I was saying, also. Christ did not intend for people to stand there and do nothing if someone were trying to kill them, or if someone were trying to kill others.

(3)Hey, don't find it alarming. I never drew a parallel between War and Jesus driving out the money changers. I was saying that Jesus wasn't exactly some pacifist dude who never lost his temper and always acted "peacefully". Read that again, and you'll see that I even stated taht in there. If you're going to get all fired up about something I said, make sure I actually said it first. Don't twist my words.

(4)Why am I "using" God to justify the war? I'm not using God at all. I am simply disagreeing with people who go around saying that God is always against war. I don't believe that God is always against war, so I am attempting to state my case on that issue. What is wrong with disagreeing with someone? Am I not allowed that, or is that reserved for war protestors alone?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 06:33 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 12:55 AM
oh sorry...I was unware that the US was being attacked by Iraq
my bad. It's a good thing you defended yourself cos you surely would have been overrun
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 06:46 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Afetr all those things I wrote, you are responding to one little thing, and in that flippant manner?

And by the way, America WAS attacked. Have you forgotten 9-11-2001? America was attacked by Al Qaeda, who work and have worked in the past with Iraq. Some Al Qaeda members are now in Iraq fighting against the Coalition; In fact, Iraq defectors have told us that Al Qaeda operatives were being trained in Iraq and that Bin Laden himself visited Saddam's son. It is no secret that Saddam bankrolls terrorism, and he probably bankrolls Al Qaeda.

But that's not even the important issue, whether he has attacked us. We are trying to prevent him from doing what he plans to do when his chemical and nuclear weapons are capable: destroy America. We are also attemting to liberate his own people, who he most certainly HAS attacked - and slaughtered, raped and tortured.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 07:04 PM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 12:55 AM
I replied in such a manner cos I'm growing tired of this cyclical argument. You won't convince me and I won't convince you. and that's that...I guess I'm not the one for debates.

This is the last time I state my opinions here:

so what if al queda are rumoured to be working with iraq? Point is, whether they were going to attack you or not they hadn't yet done so. And I don't think they wouldn't have been able to anyway. My stance is, attack if you're attacked. The united states is the most powerful nation on earth, I'm sure they could have
A)prevented a terrorist attack from iraq very easily since security is booming after 9-11.
B)Swiftly retaliate if a terrorist attack happens
- as it stands, the US military has probably already killed more civilians than any iraq terrorist would have managed to do barring use of WMD which I'm not even sure they have.
Even if they do have WMD and wanted to use them on the US it would be all but impossible

This war is built on a guess. A GUESS that MAYBE a terrorist from iraq MIGHT be able to get to the US with chemicals and disperse them somewhere. The chances of that happening were slim to none. Untrained terrorist vs. alert American CIA...I wonder who will win?

If there is going to be a war there should be 100% surity that it is completely necessary. That is not present in this war

and in another thought of mine...I'm doubting Bush cares much about the average iraqi citizen and their liberation. That whole pretense arose after the war had become inevitable, probably in an attempt to gain support. Before that it was all about the WMD. This way, if they don't find any weapons he can still say what a great success it was...even though the whole reason for going to war in the first place was to turn out as a sham.
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 07:15 PM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:25 AM
There better be some pretty thick evidence linking Al Quada to Iraq if we are to believe there is any sort of link. Saddam Hussein is considered an infidel by hardcore Islamic fundamentalists, and Bin Laden very recently called him one. They don't like each other, and are not part of the same train of thought. In fact, Bin Laden would love to see Saddam get deposed just as much as America does. Bin Laden would love to see anti-Americanism brewed within Iraq as well, hence killing two birds with one stone, in his mind.

As for anyone having relations with Saddam in the past, you need not have to look to Al Quada or Bin Laden. In fact, you need not look any further than the good old USA. How do you think Saddam acquired so many of his weapons of mass destruction? It wasn't Al Quada, I'll tell you that much.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 07:28 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:25 PM
But Michael Griffiths, the whole point to me bringing up Al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq is that Basstrap had said we weren't attacked. I simply reminded him of 9-11 and that Al Qaeda were being trained in Iraq. Therefore, the fact that the USA wasn't exactly opposed to Saddam in ages past doesn't have anything to do with this. By the way, you're right, it wasn't Al Qaeda who helped Saddam acquire WMD. In fact, according to the defectors, it was Iraq who was training Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in how to use the chemical weapons, which is my point: Iraq trains terrorists.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 07:42 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:25 AM
Yes, but my point is that there is no proof whatsoever that Iraq had anything to do with 911. Yet, that was what ignited the fire behind Bush's surge to war. That was what was used to fuel the push. It was manipulation, pure and simple, of the events of 911. There has been no link shown, yet the administration always alludes to 911 as the backbone to the Iraq campain. Why? Further, I don't buy your claim that Saddam trained Al Quada. If you have such information, why didn't Bush use it to convince the UN?
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 08:40 PM   #70
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
Yes, but my point is that there is no proof whatsoever that Iraq had anything to do with 911. Yet, that was what ignited the fire behind Bush's surge to war. That was what was used to fuel the push. It was manipulation, pure and simple, of the events of 911. There has been no link shown, yet the administration always alludes to 911 as the backbone to the Iraq campain. Why? Further, I don't buy your claim that Saddam trained Al Quada. If you have such information, why didn't Bush use it to convince the UN?
Exactly. This is close to being my biggest source of disgust with President Bush in connection with this war, i.e. his bullshit invoking of 9-11 to justify the bombing of Iraq when there is in fact no hard evidence of an Iraq/9-11 link.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 08:46 PM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
Further, I don't buy your claim that Saddam trained Al Quada. If you have such information, why didn't Bush use it to convince the UN?
I don't know why they didn't use it. But believe me, the investigation into the claims is definitely going on. I just saw it last weekend on an episode of a journalistic PBS show called "Wide Angle". The episode dealt with Saddam's histoyr of chemical weapon usage. It interviewed one defector ( a doctor) and one former Iraqi intelligence agent in hiding, and both said that Al Qaeda is being trained in chemical weapons at a place called "Camp 999".
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 09:07 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Nah...there are no terrorists operating in Iraq. I guess the New York Times got this story wrong:

NORTHERN FRONT
Militants Gone, Caves in North Lie Abandoned
By C. J. CHIVERS


ILIP, Iraq, March 29 Some of the cave entrances were slung low and obscured by shadows, waist-high openings in cool, moss-cloaked rock. Others were door-sized slots, tall enough for the passage of upright men.

The caves, penetrating the darkness under the ridge at Dari Baramaran, were among warrens of defenses in this remote valley along northern Iraq's border with Iran, which until this weekend had been controlled for nearly two years by Ansar al-Islam, a militant Islamic group.

An American-coordinated ground offensive against the group continued today with intensive fighting in small pockets in the mountains, but officials said the military battle against Ansar al-Islam was nearly over.

It began with cruise missile strikes a week ago and escalated on Friday when about 100 United States Special Forces soldiers and 10,000 local Kurdish fighters seized a network of villages from Ansar and drove the militants from their bases to nearby caves and mountains.

The United States contends that Ansar is a terrorist group that links Al Qaeda and Baghdad, and cited the group's operations in the largely autonomous Kurdish zone of northern Iraq as one of the justifications for the war against Saddam Hussein.

The Kurds said at least 176 Ansar fighters had died. About 150 more were said to have surrendered to the Iranian authorities at the border. Pockets of resistance in the mountains could be heard returning fire, but Kurdish military officers said the outcome seemed certain.

"They will all be finished because there is no choice," said Gen. Mustafa Said Qadir, commander of military forces in the eastern Kurdish zone. "There is just death."

Kurdish and American soldiers also captured two Islamic fighters alive, including a Palestinian man who appeared to provide further proof of the group's connections to the international jihad. The Palestinian, Ahmed Muhammad Tawil, from Rafah in the Gaza Strip, was taken into custody near here.

He was a large and dirt-caked man with a filthy beard, a cracked-toothed smile and a bullet wound in his left calf. He limped into the company of three American journalists tonight, handcuffed and escorted by guards.

He gagged repeatedly, as if to vomit, and then was cheerfully defiant, saying the United States was an Israeli toy.

"I struggle against you, fight against you," he said. "If I die, or kill, or am arrested, it is because of you. You are the criminals, the American people."

His Kurdish guards presented him as evidence of what seemed a nearly total victory. Signs of a rout could be seen here, in this network of hastily departed caves, where Ansar fighters abandoned food, clothing and ammunition, and fled for higher ground.

It was a setting reminiscent of Afghanistan, a mix of natural caves and those improved by man. Some were large, others small.

The most sophisticated was about 50 feet wide by 20 feet high. Inside, Ansar had built two rooms resembling subterranean houses, complete with plastered walls, thatched roofs and paned windows accessible only through a simple slot of unfinished stone.

The cave entrances offered paradoxical sights throughout the day.

A few hundred yards away, American Special Forces fighters called in heavy machine guns mounted on Humvees, and the column of guns began firing in the valley, at the remnants of Ansar. The canyon boomed intermittently all afternoon.

But here, Kurdish fighters lounged and chatted, napping and eating after a night of mountain fighting. Some slept deeply, afloat on the spring's surge of fresh clover and bright red wildflowers.

Other Kurds fired rockets, taking aim at positions where remaining Ansar fighters had taken refuge in the local peaks and gorges.

Having been pushed from their positions with great speed on Friday, the Ansar fighters had also abandoned their heavy weapons.

Ansar and its 650 or so fighters had been feared in northern Iraq since 2001, when they ambushed a column of Kurdish fighters near here. It has since deployed assassins and suicide bombers, and succeeded in infantry raids against the secular Kurdish authorities, whom it rejects as infidel rulers.

But today Ansar seemed on the verge of military insignificance. "We are very excited," said Dr. Barham Salih, the Kurdish region's prime minister. "It will be over before too long."

Even as skirmishes raged, Kurdish official said they were sifting through intelligence collected at Ansar's offices and command posts. "Lots of documentation and computers have been captured," Dr. Salih said.

But not all the news was cheerful. No Americans were wounded in the fighting, but 22 Kurdish fighters were killed and 73 were wounded, local officials said.

As Kurds grieved for their dead, and Special Forces fighters crisscrossed the newly claimed territory in pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, commanders and politicians were at work. They said 150 Ansar fighters had surrendered to Iran, and had been taken away by the Iranian authorities.

Among the detained militants in Iran were Abu Wahil, a senior leader who Kurds say was a link between Baghdad and Al Qaeda, and Ayub Afghani, a bomb-maker and instructor in terrorist camps.

"We are calling the Iranian liaison guys here to give us these guys back," a senior Kurdish official said.

Moreover, a local security official said that as Ansar retreated, it emptied its prison of 20 inmates and took them on what can only be described as a death march.

The official, Anwar Haji Osman, security chief in Halabja, said Ansar's prisoners were each told to carry about 50 pounds of equipment, to help militants escape.

"They told them, `Whoever can carry this load, and keep up with us, we will release them,' " Mr. Osman said. " `Whoever cannot, we will kill.' "
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 09:22 PM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:25 AM
In both cases, the article states either "the US says" or "the Kurds say". Various groups say a lot of things. Is this proof enough for the US to have started war a couple weeks ago? So much more has not been considered. I fear this will only stir terrorism against the West, more specifically, the US. This will only ignite a clash of civilizations. Not in Iraq so much, but many of the surrounding regions. I'm sure Palestine isn't too pleased about all of this either. I just wish the US used a slightly different approach.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 09:29 PM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
In both cases, the article states either "the US says" or "the Kurds say". Various groups say a lot of things. Is this proof enough for the US to have started war a couple weeks ago? So much more has not been considered. I fear this will only stir terrorism against the West, more specifically, the US. This will only ignite a clash of civilizations. Not in Iraq so much, but many of the surrounding regions. I'm sure Palestine isn't too pleased about all of this either. I just wish the US used a slightly different approach.
We have similar fears.

While I support the war I cannot say I support it due to anything this administration has done or presented. I have come to support it because of my own research and reading on the whole situation.

That said, I am of the firm belief that the failing of this administration was on the diplomatic front, not by bringing us to the war, but by failing to get a coalition of the Arab nations behind it. More than not getting the UN Security Council to suppport this, the war is lacking in the support of the nations around Iraq, which really adds to what could be percieved as an "illegitimate war". Ultimately, it may very well be the reason, Iraqi citizens are not rising up to help.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-31-2003, 02:10 AM   #75
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 04:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Nah...there are no terrorists operating in Iraq. I guess the New York Times got this story wrong:

NORTHERN FRONT
Militants Gone, Caves in North Lie Abandoned
By C. J. CHIVERS

The United States contends that Ansar is a terrorist group that links Al Qaeda and Baghdad, and cited the group's operations in the largely autonomous Kurdish zone of northern Iraq as one of the justifications for the war against Saddam Hussein.
I've read these statements before, of Al-Qaeda being active in northern Iraq (or northeastern Iraq) and every time I wondered about one aspect I see confirmed here. That terrorist cell was active in the "largely autonomous Kurdish zone". So I still have the question, how much control had the Iraqi's in that zone? And what is the role of the Kurdish 'governing body' in this?

Nevertheless it remains worrying to see activities like these and realising that Al-Qaeda is active in more than just Afghanistan/Pakistan...

C ya!

Marty
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com