Evidence for God from Science

I said it once I will say it again!

There will be no peace now , there will be no true peace until the

coming of Jesus as King!

Is that not what the bible says?

Mike the Bluesman

Hey guys, I know we are sort of done with the topic, but I thought it would be interesting to point out some things that are emerging from the mass of captured documents being translated. Here is an example:

March 2001 Document: Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests (Translation Pentagon/FMSO Iraq Pre-War documents ^ | April 5 2006

Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, shows that not only that Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but they were also recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base

No 3/6/104

Date 11 March 2001

To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General

Abdel Magid Hammot Ali

Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base

Air Colonel

Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.

End of translation of page 6

i think the answer to this question really depends on who or what determines right or wrong.

graceshaker wrote:i think the answer to this question really depends on who or what determines right or wrong.

I think you are absolutely correct. And we determined it was wrong.

The British and American governments know whats going on better than any of you tabloid reading pussies. If they think its a good idea then who are you to tell us it isn't? They knew it was unpopular but they still did it. They dont go around starting wars just because they think it will be fun.

itdontgo wrote:The British and American governments know whats going on better than any of you tabloid reading pussies. If they think its a good idea then who are you to tell us it isn't? They knew it was unpopular but they still did it. They dont go around starting wars just because they think it will be fun.

Wow. Where can I learn to debate an issue so succinctly?

itdontgo wrote:The British and American governments know whats going on better than any of you tabloid reading pussies. If they think its a good idea then who are you to tell us it isn't? They knew it was unpopular but they still did it. They dont go around starting wars just because they think it will be fun.

I suppose you mean that they knew better when they had 'intelligence' that told them that there were WMDs in Iraq?

And you say that if your government decides it's a good idea then who are we to say it isn't? That is exactly the kind of unthinking, uncritical and unquestioning attitude that Hitler would have been so happy to see.

- If my government thinks it's a good idea to kill Jews, Gypsys and the disabled then who are you to tell us it isn't?

I think you should be careful about accusing anyone of being driven by shallow tabloid thinking.

Blacknad.

as one who has done 2 tours in this war, not only was our invasion the rite thing to do. we should've done it sooner. we messed up when we didnt finish the job in the early 90's in the first desert storm. i listened to the stories of the people who lived in fear. i saw men become afraid at the mention of sadam's name. i got the whole history lesson from the kuwaities on what he did to them. i saw the places on the base where sadam lined men up and shot them along the walls. i saw the flag pole where sadam hung the kuwaitie General. that may not be pipe bombs or crashing buildings, but if thats not terrorism, i dont know what is. i guess you just have to be there to understand.

Blacknad wrote: I suppose you mean that they knew better when they had 'intelligence' that told them that there were WMDs in Iraq?

And you say that if your government decides it's a good idea then who are we to say it isn't? That is exactly the kind of unthinking, uncritical and unquestioning attitude that Hitler would have been so happy to see.

- If my government thinks it's a good idea to kill Jews, Gypsys and the disabled then who are you to tell us it isn't?

I think you should be careful about accusing anyone of being driven by shallow tabloid thinking.

Blacknad.

Saddam had WMD for years, why do you think it took so long for him to let weapon inspectors in??? he needed time to get em out. our government is not perfect. but as americans, we should stick by them. if we lose this war, we are screwed forever. we are the most powerful military in the world. if we cant stop terrorism, then no one can. what you see on TV is not what's really going on over there. the media is just out to get raitings, no matter what. things in the mid east are still dangerous, but better than you think. as for the civilians that are over there getting kidnaped and killed... they were told not to go. but the 6 figure salary spoke louder than words... so before you bash the governmant, get ALL the facts, not just the ones the media wants you to have.

i know i keep posting, but as a military member, this is near and dear to me.
this war isnt for oil, or to finish the job daddy bush couldnt do (which he did only the UN stopped him as we were about to kick down saddams front door)... this war, believe it or not is for your freedom. if we didnt commit to this war, sept 11 wouldve looked like a warning shot. it would have gotten much worse. maybe not rite away, but if we didnt do anything, it would have been a sign to the terrorists that we were scared and wouldnt react. life for your children would be like it was for iraqi children. school? maybe for the boys, if your a girl, you better not think about it. better yet, if your female, you better not think at all. safety? in your dreams! having rights? forget it, you only would have rights if they felt like letting you have em.
and FYI, some of the ones saddam killed were christians. they would teach me a thing or 2 about God (not allah) the majority of middle easterns are good people. it's just like america. lots of great people, but the only ones that get noticed are murderers and rapists.

Iggy,

Thanks for your measured response on a subject that is obviously very near to your heart. It does you credit.

We will probably never agree. I just think the West should stop tinkering in the Middle East in the way it does. I lived there and found it very difficult to comprehend the mindset of Arabs. How much harder is it for Western Governments to really understand the impact of their actions in the Muslim World? We created Saddam because of Iran and now we have to go in and mop up that mess. We are likely creating another problem by trying to install democracy into a people who are essential antithetical to the democratic process. If this doesn't turn out to be another mess I will be very surprised.

Your assessment that any military can stop terrorism is something I would take issues with. Because there has been no significant attack on American soil since 9/11 does not mean that terrorism is on anything but the ascendancy. We have had attacks here (UK) and in Spain, Bali etc. The reason we are not seeing more is due to a greater understanding of the threat and a better and more focused use of Intelligence Agencies worldwide. In my opinion the war in Iraq is doing much to radicalize young Muslims in the West and across the Middle East - and that particular bird will eventually come home to roost. Terrorism is not just sponsored by those who hate the Affluent West, but by those who have real problems with the 'Christian' West's involvement in the Middle East.

If all of the effort that has gone into Afganistan and Iraq was to be focused upon the Palestinian problem, then the USA could single handedly whip away much of the driver behind Anti- Western sentiment. This alone would reduce the terrorist base. We could then more effectively engage in places like Iraq in a military fashion without being held up to the charge of 'Double Standards' that we leave ourselves wide open to with our support of Israel and relative inactivity on behalf of the Palestinians. Who knows, it might even put us in a better place to galvanize Middle Eastern countries to support us in dealing with threats like Saddam - instead of making it difficult for them to be seen dealing with the 'Great Satan'.


What I will say Iggy is that although you may feel my anti-war stance is reprehensible, I would like to say that I am greatly appreciative of guys like you that will go out and risk their lives for something that they believe in. I can't imagine myself in Iraq facing the stuff you have and that makes my admiration the greater.

I also know that there is much good that you have done and that many people are now free who were not before. It's just that our whole policy in the Middle East could be different - and the overall price of our current method of engagement may be too high for both the East and West.

But never-the-less....

My gratitude to you,

Blacknad.

Please forgive the intrusion but I felt a response is in order.

Blacknad wrote:I just think the West should stop tinkering in the Middle East in the way it does. I lived there and found it very difficult to comprehend the mindset of Arabs.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Mindset of Arabs regarding what, democracy? I can assure you an ordinary Arab citizen would love nothing more than to live in peace and be able to practice his or her religion freely. What does go unnoticed is the multitude of good the war in Iraq has generated in the Middle East. This is but a sample:

1. Egypt: For the first time there was competition in the presidential elections. The outcome was a virtual certainty but the idea of having different candidates is unprecedented.

2. Saudi Arabia: For the first in history there was local elections (of any kind).

3. Kuwait: Again for the first time women are not only voting but also running for elections. Unheard of a mere decade ago.

4. Afghanistan: Taliban is no longer ruling. Women are going to school and voting.

5. Iraq: Like I said, despite the mess, they are much better off than they were when Sadam was in charge.

6. Lebanon: Syria's 30-year control over its neighbor is over thanks to resolution 1559 and the unwavering U.S. support. Democracy is flourishing and the country is coming back to its former glory as the star of the Middle East.

If you think any of this would've happened if it weren't for Bush and his foreign policy you are sadly mistaken.

Blacknad wrote:How much harder is it for Western Governments to really understand the impact of their actions in the Muslim World? We created Saddam because of Iran and now we have to go in and mop up that mess.

So now you agree that the mess needed to be mopped up.

Blacknad wrote:We are likely creating another problem by trying to install democracy into a people who are essential antithetical to the democratic process. If this doesn't turn out to be another mess I will be very surprised.

'We' are not installing anything to which the Iraqis did not agree themselves. If they turn it into a civil war, that would be of their own doing, no one else's. They were given the chance at true democracy the way they define it. If they don't work hard to make this chance a reality they have but themselves to blame. Even with the worst case scenario of civil war, they are still better off than they were under Sadam's rule.

Blacknad wrote:Your assessment that any military can stop terrorism is something I would take issues with. Because there has been no significant attack on American soil since 9/11 does not mean that terrorism is on anything but the ascendancy. We have had attacks here (UK) and in Spain, Bali etc. The reason we are not seeing more is due to a greater understanding of the threat and a better and more focused use of Intelligence Agencies worldwide.

Nothing can stop terrorism altogether. But military operations can be very effective in reducing it, particularly with the use of preemptive strikes. And make no mistake about it, Iraq was a preemptive strike. No need to rehash the details as August laid out the case very clearly.

Blacknad wrote: In my opinion the war in Iraq is doing much to radicalize young Muslims in the West and across the Middle East - and that particular bird will eventually come home to roost. Terrorism is not just sponsored by those who hate the Affluent West, but by those who have real problems with the 'Christian' West's involvement in the Middle East.

Terrorism is sponsored by terrorists, not by Middle Eastern nations or peoples. The U.S. has many allies in the Middle East, not just Israel.

Blacknad wrote:If all of the effort that has gone into Afganistan and Iraq was to be focused upon the Palestinian problem, then the USA could single handedly whip away much of the driver behind Anti- Western sentiment. This alone would reduce the terrorist base. We could then more effectively engage in places like Iraq in a military fashion without being held up to the charge of 'Double Standards' that we leave ourselves wide open to with our support of Israel and relative inactivity on behalf of the Palestinians. Who knows, it might even put us in a better place to galvanize Middle Eastern countries to support us in dealing with threats like Saddam - instead of making it difficult for them to be seen dealing with the 'Great Satan'.

Sorry Blacknad but that is a load of crap. The U.S. has never shied away from supporting the Palestinian cause but not at the expense of harming our closest ally in the region. You cannot be naive enough to believe the Palestinian problem lies solely with the United States. It lies firstly with the Palestinians themselves, in acknowledging Israel's right to exist and stopping acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens. Look at who they just elected to lead them, Hamas, an organization sworn to the destruction of Israel, who is allied with Iran, whose president has on numerous occasions declared that Israel should be wiped off the map. It also lies secondly with the Israelis in acknowledging the palestinians' right to their own country delineated by the pre-1967 borders, including East Jerusalem. If the two principal parties agree to these terms, do you think the U.S. will object?

Please forgive the harsh tone but I'm also very passionate about the subject (of Bush in general and the war in particular). You are right when you said we will never agree but I hope we can highlight the positive aspects of our respective positions so that we can at least soften our stance.

God Bless,

Byblos.

Byblos wrote:I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Mindset of Arabs regarding what, democracy? I can assure you an ordinary Arab citizen would love nothing more than to live in peace and be able to practice his or her religion freely. What does go unnoticed is the multitude of good the war in Iraq has generated in the Middle East. This is but a sample: ...

Wow...Let me just pick my chin off the floor.

With a name like Byblos I presume you have some connection with the Middle East. If so, I am gobsmacked by some of what you have posted.

Are you really trying to tell me that the 6 points you make are actually a result of the war in Iraq? And are you really trying to pass them off as George Bush's work? Please tell me I'm dreaming.

I lived in Beirut and I know that the Syrian departure from Lebanon was due to a number of factors and America's exact place in that is unclear. Yes the US was applying pressure, so were the Saudis and many other countries. The greatest pressure was coming from a groundswell of protesters, as a new generation of Lebanese found their voice. This was not going to go away after the assassination of Hariri and the Syrians knew it.

Hala Jaber from Beirut, writing in The Times:

The withdrawal was the result of Lebanon's three-week “cedar revolution”, in which thousands of people took to the streets of Beirut, the capital, to call for the Syrian troops' departure.

No mention of America there. Are you saying the USA has NOT been asking Syria to leave Lebanon for the 29 year duration of the occupation? What has changed and why have the Syrians suddenly obeyed the US? The thing that has changed is the sentiment in Lebanon, where people were no longer willing to put up with the Syrians, despite some of the benefits of them being there.

To try to congratulate Bush for this is as ignorant as trying to paint the war in Iraq as the cause of the rest of the good in the Middle East.

Byblos said - What does go unnoticed is the multitude of good the war in Iraq has generated in the Middle East.

There's a good reason it goes unnoticed, but I doubt you can spot it.

As for Democracy in Iraq. There are good reasons it works in Lebanon - it is on the cusp of the Middle East and the West and has a massive Western influence. But even so the balance of power is strained and probably always will be.

As for competition in Presidential Elections in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood's massive gains will be problematic for any kind of sustained democracy.

But many experts also urge caution when analyzing the group's commitment to democracy. "They've clearly embraced the procedures of democracy, but it's unclear that they have internalized the principles of democracy," says Steven Cook, an expert on Egyptian politics at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Despite the Brotherhood's rhetorical support for democracy, the group's detractors argue that the Brotherhood's interpretation of Islam will not permit it to support some values associated with liberal democracy, such as equal rights for women and non-Muslims. "I expect liberties will be curtailed if they are in power, and this is not something that we would accept," said Mona Zulifcar, a corporate lawyer and member of Egypt's National Council of Women. "We refuse a religious state, therefore we are the Brotherhood's most dangerous enemy in Egypt," said Rifat al-Said, secretary general of Egypt's leftist Tagammu Party, which has won just two seats so far in this election. Said says he calls for a society based on civil, not religious law. "Their win will increase extremism in Egypt," he says.

Now Egypt has a very strong secular presence that will sustain democracy (in part) because they have the extremists well in hand.

But this is not the case in Iraq and will not be the case when you go into Iran. Democracy is likely to be a vehicle to put the majority religion's leaders into power and for them to use that power to make their position permanent and in the process, take away democratic freedoms and end up by curtailing democracy. The kind of Islam you find in Iraq is not too eager to sit happily with the kind of freedoms that democracy thrives on.

Byblos said - 'We' are not installing anything to which the Iraqis did not agree themselves. If they turn it into a civil war, that would be of their own doing, no one else's. They were given the chance at true democracy the way they define it. If they don't work hard to make this chance a reality they have but themselves to blame. Even with the worst case scenario of civil war, they are still better off than they were under Sadam's rule.

Ah, the get out clause. We go in to remove a leader we created with our last lot of meddling - we foist a system of government upon a country that is much more likely to gravitate to theocracy and when it all goes belly-up we can sit back and say, "Oh you silly people, we gave you the chance to live like we do and you messed up - not our fault."

Byblos said - Even with the worst case scenario of civil war, they are still better off than they were under Saddam's rule.

I presume then that you have never lived in a civil war. To say that this is better than the (relative) stability and oppression of Saddam is a statement that beggars belief. Even Christians were protected under Saddam - come Civil War they will be the first to be raped, tortured and then wiped out. I have no doubt that it will come as a great comfort to them to know that this is better than being under Saddam.

Don't make the mistake of assuming I am defending Saddam's regime - because it was evil. But the alternative for many (including the 100,000 Iraqi's already killed in the last few years) will possibly make life under the Baathists look like a holiday.

This thread will go nowhere. It is as intractable as the Evolution/YEC debate.

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:This thread will go nowhere. It is as intractable as the Evolution/YEC debate.

You should have put this first and stopped there. Since you didn't, I have to assume you want to continue the discussion, knowing that we'll never agree (which is quite alright with me) so here we go.

Blacknad wrote:

Byblos wrote:I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Mindset of Arabs regarding what, democracy? I can assure you an ordinary Arab citizen would love nothing more than to live in peace and be able to practice his or her religion freely. What does go unnoticed is the multitude of good the war in Iraq has generated in the Middle East. This is but a sample: ...

Wow...Let me just pick my chin off the floor.

With a name like Byblos I presume you have some connection with the Middle East. If so, I am gobsmacked by some of what you have posted.

You are correct in presuming I have a connection to the Middle East. Byblos is the city where I was born and raised. My whole extended family is still there including my mother. I visit as often as I can. I do however, fail to see why that should change your being gobsmacked by my postings. They are as genuine as you can get.

Blacknad wrote:Are you really trying to tell me that the 6 points you make are actually a result of the war in Iraq? And are you really trying to pass them off as George Bush's work? Please tell me I'm dreaming.

You're not dreaming, wake up and smell the coffee (my feable and evidently unsuccessful attempt at humor) but that is exactly what I'm telling you. They are the direct or indirect result of the war and of Bush's foreign policy. On that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind. Is it a biased opinion considering I'm a staunch republican? Maybe, but I don't agree with them because I'm a republican; I am a republican because I agree with them.

Blacknad wrote:I lived in Beirut and I know that the Syrian departure from Lebanon was due to a number of factors and America's exact place in that is unclear. Yes the US was applying pressure, so were the Saudis and many other countries. The greatest pressure was coming from a groundswell of protesters, as a new generation of Lebanese found their voice. This was not going to go away after the assassination of Hariri and the Syrians knew it.

Hala Jaber from Beirut, writing in The Times:

The withdrawal was the result of Lebanon's three-week “cedar revolution”, in which thousands of people took to the streets of Beirut, the capital, to call for the Syrian troops' departure.

No mention of America there. Are you saying the USA has NOT been asking Syria to leave Lebanon for the 29 year duration of the occupation? What has changed and why have the Syrians suddenly obeyed the US? The thing that has changed is the sentiment in Lebanon, where people were no longer willing to put up with the Syrians, despite some of the benefits of them being there.

To try to congratulate Bush for this is as ignorant as trying to paint the war in Iraq as the cause of the rest of the good in the Middle East.

I'm not going to take away anything from my brothers and sisters of the cedar revolution. They accomplished with peaceful demonstrations what I was not able to accomplish with a canon in my day (i.e. drive the Syrians out). But to say Geroge Bush had nothing to do with it is the very definition of ignorance. I don't know when you lived in Beirut but if it was during the Syrian occupation then you should know that the Syrians would never have allowed a million march to take place if it wasn't for the presence of the U.S. military on their border and the enormous political pressure exerted by the French and the Americans. They would have no doubt killed a few thousand protesters, quashed the peaceful revolution, plunged the country back into so-called civil war and never batted an eyelash. U.N. Resolution 1559 sponsored by France and the U.S. (due in no small part to George Bush's influence) was the catalyst for the Cedar revolution. I give credit where credit is due.

Blacknad wrote:

Byblos said - What does go unnoticed is the multitude of good the war in Iraq has generated in the Middle East.

There's a good reason it goes unnoticed, but I doubt you can spot it.

Thanks for the sentiment but I'll let others be the judge of that.

Blacknad wrote:As for Democracy in Iraq. There are good reasons it works in Lebanon - it is on the cusp of the Middle East and the West and has a massive Western influence. But even so the balance of power is strained and probably always will be.

Are you really trying to educate me on my own country's political system? Besides, you are making it sound like democracy is impossible to achieve in the Middle East (Lebanon being the exception of course, due to the massive western influence, yet you deny the west had anything to do with the recent events). I have news for you, democracy can be achieved anywhere where oppression is suppressed. It may not be the version of democracy we cherish in the west but people everywhere yearn to be free from oppression, hatred and autocracy. That's basic human nature.

Blacknad wrote:As for competition in Presidential Elections in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood's massive gains will be problematic for any kind of sustained democracy.

But many experts also urge caution when analyzing the group's commitment to democracy. "They've clearly embraced the procedures of democracy, but it's unclear that they have internalized the principles of democracy," says Steven Cook, an expert on Egyptian politics at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Despite the Brotherhood's rhetorical support for democracy, the group's detractors argue that the Brotherhood's interpretation of Islam will not permit it to support some values associated with liberal democracy, such as equal rights for women and non-Muslims. "I expect liberties will be curtailed if they are in power, and this is not something that we would accept," said Mona Zulifcar, a corporate lawyer and member of Egypt's National Council of Women. "We refuse a religious state, therefore we are the Brotherhood's most dangerous enemy in Egypt," said Rifat al-Said, secretary general of Egypt's leftist Tagammu Party, which has won just two seats so far in this election. Said says he calls for a society based on civil, not religious law. "Their win will increase extremism in Egypt," he says.

Now Egypt has a very strong secular presence that will sustain democracy (in part) because they have the extremists well in hand.

I agree and yet you do see signs of change that haven't been seen before, ever. Who do you think Moubarak is trying to appease and why?

Blacknad wrote:But this is not the case in Iraq and will not be the case when you go into Iran. Democracy is likely to be a vehicle to put the majority religion's leaders into power and for them to use that power to make their position permanent and in the process, take away democratic freedoms and end up by curtailing democracy. The kind of Islam you find in Iraq is not too eager to sit happily with the kind of freedoms that democracy thrives on.

There you go again, proclaiming the impossibility of democracy in Iraq. It may not be your version of democracy but I think it is doable. It's not going to be easy considering the level of distrust but it's definitely doable. Only time will tell but we need to keep doing our part first.

Blacknad wrote:

Byblos said - 'We' are not installing anything to which the Iraqis did not agree themselves. If they turn it into a civil war, that would be of their own doing, no one else's. They were given the chance at true democracy the way they define it. If they don't work hard to make this chance a reality they have but themselves to blame. Even with the worst case scenario of civil war, they are still better off than they were under Sadam's rule.

Ah, the get out clause. We go in to remove a leader we created with our last lot of meddling - we foist a system of government upon a country that is much more likely to gravitate to theocracy and when it all goes belly-up we can sit back and say, "Oh you silly people, we gave you the chance to live like we do and you messed up - not our fault."

You know, what is it that you want? At some point you have to deal with the reality presented and say to yourself given the circumstances I've done all I could and will continue to do so until the job is done. Of course mistakes were made; no one is denying that. But it doesn't mean we're going to bail on the Iraqis unless they bail on themselves first. They haven't yet. There's still a chance for a lasting peace in that country.

Blacknad wrote:

Byblos said - Even with the worst case scenario of civil war, they are still better off than they were under Saddam's rule.

I presume then that you have never lived in a civil war.

I am sorry to say you are very wrong sir. Not only did I live thru it, I have experienced the sort of atrocities one does not wish on their worst enemy. The difference is that we did not have a choice. Of course I do not wish that on the Iraqis either but they clearly have choices. We can give them all the assistance they require but in the end it is up to them to choose the type of country they want to live in.

Blacknad wrote: To say that this is better than the (relative) stability and oppression of Saddam is a statement that beggars belief. Even Christians were protected under Saddam - come Civil War they will be the first to be raped, tortured and then wiped out. I have no doubt that it will come as a great comfort to them to know that this is better than being under Saddam.

My first choice would be to form a type of democracy that protects all. In the absence of that, which do I choose? Dictatorship or civil war? I don't know about you but I'm clausterphobic; a dictatorial regime does not suit me very well and as such, there's no question which I would choose. People will die in either choice but only one of them will have a cause to die for.

Blacknad wrote:Don't make the mistake of assuming I am defending Saddam's regime - because it was evil. But the alternative for many (including the 100,000 Iraqi's already killed in the last few years) will possibly make life under the Baathists look like a holiday.

I assume nothing and respectfully disagree as to the alternative.

God Bless,

John of Byblos.

Hey Blacknad,

What is your solution for the terrorist problem?