 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | (...) I am not a Catholic so whatever the Pope says is inconsequential to me-- I have no idea as to his motivations. (...) Many died in Iraq because of SH's refusal to abdicate his rule. If he had stepped down, there would have been no need to (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Pope aside, are saying that the statments made by many church leaders were politically motivated? (...) He was under no obligation to step down. (...) Come on John, that lie has been long exsposed. Your naivety must be starting to wear by now? (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) I don't know which leaders you are talking about and even if I did I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations (unless they so indicated). I come from a traditional that believes that each and every person has direct access to God without (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | (...) So you have no problem threatening our own leaders (watch it, with the Patriot Act, you might be locked up for life with no trial on this one...)? Our leaders supported the Taliban, after all... Our leaders supported SH, after all... (I'm too (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Let me clarify: I believe it is totally appropriate to threaten any and all leaders of any nation who aid and abett terrorists who threaten our national security. (...) Against a greater threat, namely the USSR. (...) Against a greater threat, (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) That is where you and I differ. I believe in “Freedom”. Not just for me: I believe in freedom for everyone. Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I honestly don't know what you mean by that. What does that have to do with people who wish to kill you and will given the chance? Your statement is a feel-good non sequitur. JOHN (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Richard explians all: (URL) A (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) That's interesting, but it does not explain your "political" comment, nor does it answer my question. (...) What right did Bush have to threaten him? (...) Not everyone; was that not why Rumsfeld established is own little intelligence fiefdom? (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) lol What are you talking about?? I thought you wanted to know if church leaders' comments were politically motivated? To which political comment of mine are you referring? As far as your question about church leaders' motivation-- I already (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles) —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | (...) Now THERE is a peculiarly American point of view. On the basis that terrorists are those who forsake non-violent means of change, and violently target combatants and non-combatants alike to coerce changes in state policy, I'd have thought that (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Oh, great--now Australians hate freedom, too... Dave! (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well they are a bunch of convicts! ;) Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles) —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Perhaps our history has given us additional insights into the importance of freedom, and the lengths one might be prepared to go for it. Not to suggest our thinking is necessarily better, perhaps just a little different ;-) Richard Still (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) "Loving Freedom" doesn't mean "Loving Freedom for me". Denying others' rights to win your own hardly qualifies someone as a "freedom lover"-- more like a disgusting hypocrite. (...) Oppression never justifies the murder of innocents. What is (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) Ducking for cover as the opposition has a field day with this... -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) SH only became a "problem" after he invaded Q8... i.e. he was America's friend when he perpetrated many of his worst crimes. (...) Tell that to the ANC & IRA. BTW: which terrorist groups have been beaten with force? (...) Indeed! (...) You (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Much in the same way Stalin was our "friend" during WWII. (...) Yeah, and when did you stop beating your wife, Scott? I do not condone the killing of Iraqi children; I mourn the killing of Iraqi children. You are a jerk for saying so. Iraqi (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Show me how that analogy is relevant. (...) Get a dictionary, and see what "condone" actually means. Then look up "cluster bomb"... a weapon of indiscriminate destruction. You are a (...) Did I say civilians were targets at any point? (...) (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I don't have time for your endless tangentalizing-- as if I am obligated to comment on every new topic you toss out in the form of a 6 word question. JOHN (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Prove it. (...) So, apparently, does "gentleman's" war, if it's a useful objective. ROSCO (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | You know, I had kinda hoped that someone other than John might have spoken up in defence here. Perhaps that they have not is a very good sign. This post is longish, and I do apologise. I don't normally wax quite so lyrical, but it is a deep and (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) De plane, boss, de plane! De fence, boss, de fence! Oh, sorry, defense. Ummmmmmmm, okay, maybe if I knew what I was supposed to be defending. Perhaps if I read on and not pick on a minor error... :-) (...) I find something ironic in that (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Mmmmmm. Brevity being the soul of wit etc. 'namby-pamby PC touchy-feely' is a collection of adjectives I seldom encounter in relation to myself (I think if I was John I'd be offended ;-), and its not like the additional detail is helping very (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | Just a drive by participant here in this particular thread, more's the pity as it has been interesting and I wish I had more time.... (...) I agree with this but fear that in some cases (that of the radical fanatic who is convinced that his god is (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) It does. There are different kinds of religions. Changing a popular or materially well resourced religion is no small thing. But even Christianity got over this when essentially left to its own devices. Mind you, in the hundreds of years it (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate spelling properly —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, Bruce old man, you sat me back on my heels there for a minute, but no, this is not an error, just yet more American Imperialism and intolerance! 'If you don't do it like me you must be wrong'. Top marks. Next you'll be explaining to me (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate spelling properly —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Who can keep up with British backwardness, I tell ya! :-) (oops) But still worth making fun of! De feet, boss, de feet! (...) Considering how much you ran on about it, I doubt that! :-) (...) See! I was right! (...) Michaelangelo disagrees (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) (snippage) (...) First, I think we all can agree that no nation is perfect, including the US. That said, I am reticent about commenting on Guantanamo because I don't believe that enough facts are about the interned are readily available. I (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | (...) I think Richard was talking about the "givens" that they have been held for up to 2 years without being charged, in the name of "security". Something that the administration would frown upon in the name of freedom. (...) Women, pregnant women, (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) There are so many different legal issues-- definitions of POWs and of being "at war" and the Geneva Convention and whatnot. It's lawyer stuff and I really try to avoid it. That doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who aren't on up (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But a land invasion was tried first! "Oh well, that didn't work looks like more innocents will die that way, lets go with the nuke and see how well that works". And they didn't stop at one to see if it worked, they killed many more thousands (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) You have summed up the problem without realizing it, I think. If, for example, an administration wanted to quiet someone, all they have to do is throw them in the Gulag (I like Richard's appraisal of what it is) and simply refuse to divulge (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) First off, let's not assume that those detained are "innocent". They all were captured fighting against our forces. When I said "all of the facts aren't in", I meant that I didn't possess all of the facts in order to comment-- and neither does (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) (rereading what I wrote) Nope, didn't say that. They all (...) Allegedly. Maybe. Maybe not. If they were, two years held without charges? Those in charge are incompetent or evil. Take your pick, we need to get rid of them either way. When I (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) lol I'll gladly drop it:-) (...) I'm curious. If WMDs were discovered to have been smuggled off to Syria, would Bush be exonerated in your estimation? (regardless of whether you thought attacking Iraq was a good idea or not) (...) I believe (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) If the elections are rigged so that only the two entrenched parties can prevail and the facts of the situation are shrouded in secrecy, how exactly are the leaders in any way accountable? (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, the public can rely on perfectly secure and transparent digital voting systems, as well as an accurately representative and flexible electoral college, just like we enjoy here in the States. Dave! (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | (...) No wonder I didn't get it. I would never have thought that I needed a moral justification for freeing myself from 'evil oppression'. I'll think on this some more. (snip) (...) I am not sure that there is a useful difference between the concept (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I fear you still don't get it. I am talking about killing an innocent (unrelated to your oppression) in order to free you from your oppressor. I am saying that that action is morally unjustified. (...) WRT to Iraq, the US took great care to (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Why are unlawful killings not investigated? This is from (URL) HRW>: “It’s a tragedy that U.S. soldiers have killed so many civilians in Baghdad,” said Joe Stork, acting executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Welcome aboard [was Re: Terrorists hate freedom] —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) …and who is making sure we stay in the dark? The reality is that five Britons were released without charge from Guntanamo Bay this week... a fact that suggests Bush had no reason to hold them! Since their release, they have been giving their (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I do. But you now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations" (...) It is you who said they were politically motivated, and now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations"! (...) I'm just not clear on what the threat was. (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Show me specifically where I said that their comments were politically motivated. I think I specifically said that a) they weren't speaking as Christian leaders, because they have no authority (that I recognize anyway) to speak on behalf of (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) (URL) see here> (...) So why corner him? (...) Tell that to those who died on USS Cole & in Kenya. Scott A Have you had a look at Arthurs Seat Yet? (2 URLs) (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) No answer John? (...) No answer John? Scott A (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Would you compare the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's in the US to the Intifada today? Which group has progressed further-- Blacks or Palestinians? Why is that? Because Palestinian leaders like Arafat are not concerned with the freedom of (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) No. Can you show me how that analogy is valid? (...) Arafat has long recognised Israel. Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) If you have a point, make it. I don't have time for 20 questions. JOHN (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I'm asking you which terrorist groups he supported which made him a threat to the USA. Scott A (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Do your own Google Search. I found this for starters: (URL) JOHN (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) It is not me that is making the claim. (...) Hardly a credible objective viewpoint! (URL) About> the same pet group: "Some U.S. officials see Iran as a target for regime change and have suggested using the Mujahedin-e Khalq as a vehicle for (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) hehe You are so predictable! (...) Try (URL) this> viewpoint! :-) JOHN (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
