Discussion in 'Religion' started by craig a, Jul 21, 2007.

  1. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Well, I guess we are even then, because I have no idea why you think killing people and forcing your way of life on them is freeing them from oppression. I guess if they are dead technically they are free from oppression but if they had been given a choice...I'd bet they'd have picked life.

    As I clearly stated and even the Bush Administration finally admitted, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but you still use the old argument that nobody, except you, believes that Iraq and 9/11 had so much as a thread of connection. You make the same arguments that all tyrants make that is always proven to be false by history. Do you ever pick up a book and read a little history? If you have, it didn't stick.
  2. jwevansv

    jwevansv All-knowing

    Who killed the 100,000 you have been talking about? Did the US kill all these people?

    Show me a link from the Bush administration saying their was no like between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

    Again, show me some facts surrounding Bush being proven false by history? You are HOPING Bush will be proven wrong but deep down you know you will be proven wrong and that will shatter your perfect mis-conception of reality!!!!
  3. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.
    The study, which was carried out in 33 randomly-chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq representative of the entire population, shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq. Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, stroke and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.
    Last night the Lancet medical journal fast-tracked the survey to publication on its website after rapid, but extensive peer review and editing because, said Lancet editor Richard Horton, "of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq". But the findings raised important questions also for the governments of the United Sates and Britain who, said Dr Horton in a commentary, "must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians".
    The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers who went to the 988 households in the survey were doctors and all those involved in the research on the ground, says the paper, risked their lives to collect the data. Householders were asked about births and deaths in the 14.6 months before the March 2003 invasion, and births and deaths in the 17.8 months afterwards.
    When death certificates were not available, there were good reasons, say the authors. "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded. Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths," they write.
    They found an increase in infant mortality from 29 to 57 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is consistent with the pattern in wars, where women are unable or unwilling to get to hospital to deliver babies, they say. The other increase was in violent death, which was reported in 15 of the 33 clusters studied and which was mostly attributed to airstrikes.
    "Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground," write the researchers. Only three of the 61 deaths involved coalition soldiers killing Iraqis with small arms fire. In one case, a 56-year-old man might have been a combatant, they say, in the second a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint and in the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the second two cases, American soldiers apologized to the families.
    "The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry,"

    I said to 9/11. Please read the posts before flying off the handle.

    Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found

    President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.
    The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.
    Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.
    "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.
    "And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."
    Most of the administration's public assertions have focused on the man Bush mentioned, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a senior Osama bin Laden associate whom officials have accused of trying to train terrorists in the use of poison for possible attacks in Europe, running a terrorist haven in northern Iraq -- an area outside Saddam's control -- and organizing an attack that killed an American aid executive in Jordan last year.
    Security analysts, however, say al-Zarqawi made his way to Iraq, where his leg was amputated. . Unconfirmed reports claim he then visited northern Iraq, where a militant Islamic group affiliated with al-Qaida is encamped not far from the border with Iran.
    The group, however, far from being an ally of Saddam, sought to replace his secular government with an Islamic regime.
    A senior intelligence official, who asked not to be identified, said the information linking the group, Ansar al Islam, to Saddam comes "almost exclusively from defectors produced by the Iraqi opposition. They are not uniformly credible."
    Bush's statement was the latest in a series by administration officials this week that appeared to distance the White House from the widely held public perception that Saddam was a key figure in the attacks.
    Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania.
    In his May 1 declaration of military victory in Iraq from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, Bush said, "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding." He also said, "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror."
    Two months earlier, in a speech aimed at mustering public support for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Bush said, "The attacks of September 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."
    Critics have said the steady drumbeat of that message has tied Saddam to the attacks in the mind of the public. A recent poll by The Washington Post found that nearly seven Americans out of 10 believe Saddam played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, a notion the administration has done little to tamp down.
    But retired NATO commander Wesley Clark, in a little noticed appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" on June 15, charged that "a concerted effort ... to pin 9/11" on Saddam began in the fall of 2001, and "it came from people around the White House." Clark, who declared his campaign for president yesterday, did not identify anyone by name.
    It was just weeks after the terrorist attacks that the first link between Saddam and al-Qaida was alleged by the administration. It came from Cheney, who said it had been "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, the man held responsible for masterminding the Sept. 11 hijackings, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April 2000, an allegation congressional investigators later dismissed.
    Sunday, Cheney began the group of Bush administration officials denying any ties between Saddam and Sept. 11. He said "we don't know" whether Saddam was connected to the attacks, but admitted, "It's not surprising that people make that connection."
    The vice president also said: "If we are successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
    White House National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in an interview aired late Tuesday on ABC's "Nightline," said one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." But she insisted, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11."

    History with regard to Bush hasn't happened yet. We are still in the present for the most part.

    I think you have more invested in Bush being right that I have in Bush being wrong. If Bush is right, good for us, if Bush is wrong, bad for us all, but either way, you have to play the hand you are dealt not the one you wish you had.
  4. Midas

    Midas New Member

    Monday, August 27, 2007

    Al Qaida clerics distributing editions of the Koran

    ABU DHABI — Qatar has banned the import and distribution of unauthorized Korans.

    Officials said the Islamic Affairs Ministry has ordered mosques and clerics to use only Korans and other Islamic text approved by the government, Middle East Newsline reported. They said clerics have employed Korans to promote the doctrine of Islamic war against the West.

    "This is one of several measures by the ministry to ensure that no copies of the Koran that contains mistakes would be circulated in the country," Mohammed Bin Hamad Ajlan Al Kuwari, director of inspections at the ministry, said.


    More proof that "true" islam with all of its hate, enslavement, fighting and killing are what "true" muslims are all about!
  5. OldDan

    OldDan New Member

    You Mr. Moen, of all people, should try and remember this sage advice!
  6. jwevansv

    jwevansv All-knowing

    Send me the link to the above statement from you.
  7. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Honestly, you just want to slam the source but that isn't necessary because everything is cited and referenced in the article. Do your own research and go directly the the medical journal that it is published in. See below:

    "...the Lancet medical journal fast-tracked the survey to publication on its website after rapid, but extensive peer review and editing because, said Lancet editor Richard Horton, "of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq".

    You have always seemed unable to go beyond your emotional response to see the truth and I suspect this will be no different. If you are truly curious about the truth, it is easy to research unless you don't want to acknowledge the answers you find. It's in your hands and I needn't say anything more.
  8. OldDan

    OldDan New Member

    Well, research is exactly what I did as suggested by Mr. Moen. I don't need to bad mouth this report, as many noted people have already done it for me. I won't even tell you it's all B.S., but leave the reading to you to determine for your selves. Here are a couple of sources that think it's all smoke and mirrors:

    and when you have found what you are looking for in these articles, here is what his own people in England think of the the 'Lancet's' editor:
  9. jwevansv

    jwevansv All-knowing

    Thanks OldDan, I really didn't want to waste any of my time researching statements from MOEN. I knew it would take at least 1 second to disprove his statements. For someone to say something in these forums and then tell you that he won't attach the link for fear of someone discounting them tells you a lot about that persons true feelings about what they had falsely posted as fact. Nothing new though.

    Not only that, but I am still awaiting an answer as to How many of these "deaths" are from U.S. forces compared to foreign fighters slaughtering innocent Iraqi's? Moen seems to think all these deaths are from U.S. forces! Another lie. Man, MOEN do you ever post anything true?
  10. jwevansv

    jwevansv All-knowing

  11. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    I guess you two share a certain comfort in ignorance that the rest of us don't have any need for. No skin off of my nose if you choose to stay that way. :p:p
  12. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Another withering comeback. Ouch!
  13. jwevansv

    jwevansv All-knowing

    MOEN, just send us all a link informing us all that the U.S. is responsible for the 100,000 innocent Iraqi deaths. If you can't then just STFU and post something truthful for once!
  14. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Like I already said, the article already references it's sources. Like you already said, "I really didn't want to waste any of my time researching statements from MOEN". They are not MY statements.

    What you choose to learn or not to learn at this point is your own business. Don't ask me any more questions that you really didn't want the answers to in the first place. There are just too many smart people to talk to in this forum to waste any time on those that favor ignorance.

    Some people prefer the Rush Limbaugh infotainment type news sources and the rest of us prefer the truth.
  15. jwevansv

    jwevansv All-knowing


  16. Midas

    Midas New Member

    Frankly...if "true" muslims wish to hide behind and sacrifice woman and children (i.e., hellzbullah and hamas) for the glory of their allah...well, that is the price THEY pay in war. After all, the U.S. painstakenly uses million dollar 'smart' wepaons to kill only the bad guys and unfortunately, innocent civilians are killed acting as human shields for these "true" muslims.

    Can appeasers honestly state that "true" muslims only would use "smart" weapons to target military targets as do the United States?

    Make no mistake..."true" muslims would use ANYTHING to kill as many infidels as possible for the glory of their per the koran:


    Oh please...cry me a river.
  17. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    I have a better idea. You tell me how many civilians have died as a direct result of coalition forces. You seem incapable of accepting the numbers I've come up with so you tell me how many civilians have died in Iraq so far. Simple question.
    2 people like this.
  18. jwevansv

    jwevansv All-knowing

    Anyone else see a trend with MORONs non-answers to my questions?
    2 people like this.
  19. OldDan

    OldDan New Member

    If anyone had taken the time to read the three references I posted, you would know the answer to this question. Hint!!!!!!! it's a long way from the number Moen says it is.
    2 people like this.
  20. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    So you get to ask all the questions. Deny the answers without so much as doing any research yourself. Then refuse to answer any questions asked of you. Well, this BS is at an end. Bye!

Share This Page