| FreddiesGhettoTrench 26.11.2005 15:46 |
No one ever shows any love for poor Judas Iscariot. Such a fluffy young man, so loathed throughout history. Therefore, I begin the Judas Iscariot Love Thread. *licks Judas* |
| doremi 26.11.2005 15:55 |
I end the Judas Iscariot Love thread. ZZZZZZZZZ |
| Serry... 26.11.2005 16:15 |
Arlene R. Weiss wrote: I end the Judas Iscariot Love thread. ZZZZZZZZZLOL. It was fast! |
| Yuri 26.11.2005 16:32 |
wow... you certainly are fascinated by the strangest personalities :-/ |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 26.11.2005 16:48 |
Alex Solan wrote:You've already got both - a dick that shrinks.Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote:Yeah, thanks Arlene! PS: FGT, get a shrink and a dick. (REALLY tough job on the last one)Arlene R. Weiss wrote: I end the Judas Iscariot Love thread. ZZZZZZZZZLOL. It was fast! |
| doremi 26.11.2005 17:05 |
I repeat. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ |
| Penetration_Guru 26.11.2005 18:41 |
Cool, Arlene's now a moderator. And if it's sending her to sleep, it must be fucking boring... |
| Lisser 26.11.2005 21:43 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: Cool, Arlene's now a moderator. And if it's sending her to sleep, it must be fucking boring...Oh....shit..... |
| iGSM 27.11.2005 03:27 |
What a fab-fucking-taculously smart man! |
| goodco 27.11.2005 11:54 |
His performances of 'Heaven On Their Minds' and 'Superstar' were magnificient. |
| John S Stuart 27.11.2005 15:10 |
What's wrong with loving Judas? I mean Jesus KNEW he would betray him, and poor Judas was ordained to do so. If Judas had NOT betrayed him - then the story would not have worked. That's what I love about Christianity. They always release the bad guys to sin again!!! Here is an example: At the end of Star Wars: A New Hope, George Lucas does NOT kill-off Darth Vader. Instead he allows him to escape so that he has a villian for the second movie. It's the same with the old devil. Why not just put him down and keep him down - because, it spoils the story! |
| doremi 27.11.2005 15:28 |
goodco wrote: His performances of 'Heaven On Their Minds' and 'Superstar' were magnificient.LOL! I will admit I love his performance in JCS! Course that's a whole other ball park! The original rock star! (Stole the show!) Yep, those are 2 outstanding songs, especially as done by the late Carl Anderson! |
| The Real Wizard 27.11.2005 23:56 |
Judas was simply a scapegoat created to shift the blame of Jesus' death on the Jews. Any critical reader sees the anti-Jewish bias in the Gospels, especially in the Gospel of John. This anti-Jew bias inevitably contributed to centuries of persecution of Jewish people, but that's another discussion altogether. In 1 Corinthians chapter 10, Paul wrote of Jesus appearing to the 12 disciples at his resurrection (but let's not turn this into a 'did Jesus rise' debate - I'm just using this quote for argument). But if the story of Judas was real and historical, then wouldn't Jesus have appeared to only 11, since Judas had supposedly killed himself? But no, Paul says there were 12 present. This can only suggest that the Judas story was written later on, in fact decades later, when the Jew-Christian hostility had grown astronomically. At that point in time, none of the writers had any clue that their writings would be part of a collection of books like the bible, so this inconsistency was probably never even thought of at the time. Of course, there are still people whom, when they become aware of this inconsistency, claim that someone else was reinstated to make it 12, but it's just another case of conservative Christians trying to rewrite history by reconstructing new information they've received to match their beliefs. The conviction of most critical scholars, and of myself, is that there was no Judas. But regardless of such convictions, one with open eyes can at least agree that Paul and the Judas story both cannot be correct. |
| Farlander 28.11.2005 01:15 |
That...was a joke, right? In either case, ROFL. |
| Mr.Jingles 28.11.2005 08:21 |
<font color =#CC00FF>***Marial-B*** wrote: For FreddieGhetto: Girl, I can understand why you admire John Lennon, even Brian Epstein, but someone who was a d**k and betrayed his mentor... You're the one who has to go to a shrink, and for realI think she actually went to a shrink, but the shrink just said... YOU KNOW WHAT, I GIVE UP! That's exactly the same thing a shrink said when Tom Cruise went for a consultation. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 28.11.2005 09:54 |
Arlene R. Weiss wrote:I prefer Murray Head, but Carl was cool :)goodco wrote: His performances of 'Heaven On Their Minds' and 'Superstar' were magnificient.LOL! I will admit I love his performance in JCS! Course that's a whole other ball park! The original rock star! (Stole the show!) Yep, those are 2 outstanding songs, especially as done by the late Carl Anderson! |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 28.11.2005 09:58 |
<font color =#CC00FF>***Marial-B*** wrote: For FreddieGhetto: Girl, I can understand why you admire John Lennon, even Brian Epstein, but someone who was a d**k and betrayed his mentor... You're the one who has to go to a shrink, and for realI don't *admire* Judas exactly. I simply think he's a very misunderstood figure. Jesus knew what was up, obviously, and he still selected Judas as one of his Apostles. He didn't *have* to do that, but there must have been something about Judas that drew Jesus to him. What that is has maybe been lost to history for now, but I think one of these days we'll discover the true story. Judas was, after all, a person so distraught by what had occurred to kill himself - the first of the Twelve to die. When you look at the fact that the other 11 were SLEEPING when Jesus was arrested... I guess at least Judas was doing SOMETHING. |
| @ndy38 28.11.2005 10:01 |
What ya mean he was the only one doing something? When Peter found out what was happening he cut someone's ear off! |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 28.11.2005 10:03 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: In 1 Corinthians chapter 10, Paul wrote of Jesus appearing to the 12 disciples at his resurrection (but let's not turn this into a 'did Jesus rise' debate - I'm just using this quote for argument). But if the story of Judas was real and historical, then wouldn't Jesus have appeared to only 11, since Judas had supposedly killed himself?Well, there could have been a mistranslation. Or, Jesus could've appeared to Judas even though Judas was dead (not entirely sure *how* this would be done, but hey, it could happen). Also, I don't buy that the Judas story was made up to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment. I think perhaps Judas' role may have been exagerrated to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment (I mean, come on, it's ROMANS with the cat o' nine tails, that's not Judas), but I think the general tale is pretty much truthful. Of course, there are still people whom, when they become aware of this inconsistency, claim that someone else was reinstated to make it 12, but it's just another case of conservative Christians trying to rewrite history by reconstructing new information they've received to match their beliefs.There was a replacement Apostle - Matthias. But I'm not sure when he was instated. So it could have been Matthias there. |
| Mr.Jingles 28.11.2005 10:15 |
This is the reason why Judas ended up betraying Jesus: Back in those days Jesus was the coach to a football (soccer) team called 'The Apostles'. Since he was only allowed to have 11 players on the field, Jesus for the most part left Judas sitting on the bench. Judas then got really pissed off, and told the Romans that Jesus was paying referees to have the games fixed. |
| Mr.Jingles 28.11.2005 10:53 |
Didn't Jesus know what his destiny was? It's mentioned countless of times that he prayed and meditated to cope with the pain of what was coming. Apparently he never tried to change the course of what God had prepared for him. |
| Mr.Jingles 28.11.2005 10:57 |
Cool, Jesus had an evil twin! |
| doremi 28.11.2005 12:00 |
<font color =#CC00FF>***Marial-B*** wrote:Where do people fabricate this crap and then everyone does not take the time to think for themselves or get facts and then blindly believes whoever starts the crap just as a windup.Lisser wrote:Oh my... this is quite... interesting :PPenetration_Guru wrote: Cool, Arlene's now a moderator. And if it's sending her to sleep, it must be fucking boring...Oh....shit..... I am NOT a moderator. Never have been and never will be. Only Richard and Barb do that...PERIOD. All I did was make a joking comment, when I said that that thread was ended. Sheesh. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 28.11.2005 16:33 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: As a sidenote: Jesus had a brother, Judas Thomas Didymus, who is mentioned in the bible a few times. However, thomas and didymus are not names, but words, in Hebrew (I think) and Greek, BOTH meaning TWIN(-BROTHER). Since no twin is indicated, this means (by the style of the day) that the genitive in the sentence "Judas twin of" is the beforementioned person, which is, surprise surprise, Jesus.I believe you're mixing up two people. Jesus did have a brother named Judas, but it was not a twin brother. Judas Thomas, on the other hand, was an Apostle whose name was Judas but he was called Thomas by Jesus because there were two Apostles named Judas already. |
| PainPleasure 28.11.2005 16:49 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Whatever...<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: As a sidenote: Jesus had a brother, Judas Thomas Didymus, who is mentioned in the bible a few times. However, thomas and didymus are not names, but words, in Hebrew (I think) and Greek, BOTH meaning TWIN(-BROTHER). Since no twin is indicated, this means (by the style of the day) that the genitive in the sentence "Judas twin of" is the beforementioned person, which is, surprise surprise, Jesus.I believe you're mixing up two people. Jesus did have a brother named Judas, but it was not a twin brother. Judas Thomas, on the other hand, was an Apostle whose name was Judas but he was called Thomas by Jesus because there were two Apostles named Judas already. |
| The Real Wizard 28.11.2005 18:18 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:The lack of logic in religion today is saddening, really. Religion is the only subject in this world that somehow encourages people to seek even the most remote possibilities in favour of more logical possibilities. This is a perfect example. It is not a mistranslation. Paul writes that Jesus appeared to 12 because the Judas story hadn't been created yet. This should be the end of the discussion. But on the subject of resurrection, Paul makes it very clear that it was a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one. The so-called Christology didn't grow to become a physical resurrection until Matthew and Luke were written. Jesus doesn't actually rise from the dead in Mark, which was written before Matthew and Luke. The King James version has the longer ending of Mark in there, but that was clearly added later, as most manuscripts don't have it. Christians in the second century must have been unhappy with the story that didn't end "properly", so they made up an ending to match other writings (well, actually two endings). One who believes literally in the stories of the bible doesn't want to believe a word I'm saying. But one with open eyes can at least entertain it as being possible.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: In 1 Corinthians chapter 10, Paul wrote of Jesus appearing to the 12 disciples at his resurrection (but let's not turn this into a 'did Jesus rise' debate - I'm just using this quote for argument). But if the story of Judas was real and historical, then wouldn't Jesus have appeared to only 11, since Judas had supposedly killed himself?Well, there could have been a mistranslation. Or, Jesus could've appeared to Judas even though Judas was dead (not entirely sure *how* this would be done, but hey, it could happen). Also, I don't buy that the Judas story was made up to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment. I think perhaps Judas' role may have been exagerrated to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment (I mean, come on, it's ROMANS with the cat o' nine tails, that's not Judas), but I think the general tale is pretty much truthful.The majority of the stories in the Gospels aren't historically truthful. They are metaphorical. Mostly, they simply take elements from the Jewish scriptures. Read "Liberating the Gospels" by John Shelby Spong, and you'll understand what I'm talking about. To understand the Gospels, you have to understand Jewish culture, practices, and their liturgical year. Remember, the writers were Jewish. The Gospels are Jewish books, written by Jewish people, for Jewish people. We must remember that the majority of the first Christians were converted Jews, so the Gospels were written with language and imagery that could be understood by its first readers. There was a replacement Apostle - Matthias. But I'm not sure when he was instated. So it could have been Matthias there.Again, one just wants to assume this is true. Barry © wrote: The book of Isaiah written years before Jesus's birth foretells what will happen to the Messiah. There are other instances in the bible, i can't think of them offhand.The ignorance rampant in Christianity today is awful beyond belief (pun not intended). The majority of Christians believe that the Jewish scriptures were written only to "pave the way" for the Christian scriptures that came later on. This is a total ignorance for the Jewish tradition. Prophets were not predicting the future. They were critics of their time. They thought very metaphyiscally and creatively, unlike how we think scientifically and literally today. It's so unfortunate that almost every Christian takes scripture so literally. This leads people, especially in most conservative circles, to focus on their personal salvation, rather than things |
| jasen101 28.11.2005 21:29 |
okay....please....no one else repsond any further! |
| jasen101 28.11.2005 21:30 |
oh great Sir GH is on a roll.... |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 28.11.2005 22:07 |
FYI, Sir GH, I'm not the most religious person in the world. I don't know Bible verses off the topic of my head, I've been to church a total of three times in the last ten years, and fundie B.S. makes me roll my eyes. All I'm saying is that the Judas story can make perfect sense without having to be a vehicle for anti-Semitism. We don't know Judas' exact reasoning behind his decision, it's just taken for obvious by many to be greed. However, eh, a kiss is a sign of friendship, so there was probably a loooot more going on there. For the Judas story to be made up, I suppose Caiaphas would have had to go in and pluck Jesus out himself, which would STILL paint the Jewish people of the time in a bad light. But really, it was Judea, after all. There weren't a whole lot of people in play who weren't Jews or Romans. So it was a for better or worse deal. |
| Mr.Jingles 28.11.2005 22:31 |
We all know that O.J. Simpson was the one who betrayed Jesus, and not Judas. Then Mark Fuhrman tried to save Jesus by telling Pilatus to stop people from crucifying him, but it was useless. Then on the third day, Dick Cheney came to announce the resurrection of Jesus and his raise to the kingdom of heaven. Meanwhile George W. Bush awaits for Jesus' second coming to allow him to blow the shit out of Iran, North Korea, and France. THE END |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 28.11.2005 22:53 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: We all know that O.J. Simpson was the one who betrayed Jesus, and not Judas. Then Mark Fuhrman tried to save Jesus by telling Pilatus to stop people from crucifying him, but it was useless. Then on the third day, Dick Cheney came to announce the resurrection of Jesus and his raise to the kingdom of heaven. Meanwhile George W. Bush awaits for Jesus' second coming to allow him to blow the shit out of Iran, North Korea, and France. THE ENDWhy don't you stop mocking me and actually read what I'm writing? Then maybe you wouldn't be so quick to judge people like Fuhrman, Cheney & Bush. |
| Mr.Jingles 29.11.2005 10:26 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Because neither you or your so admired cronies can be taken seriously any longer.Mr.Jingles wrote: We all know that O.J. Simpson was the one who betrayed Jesus, and not Judas. Then Mark Fuhrman tried to save Jesus by telling Pilatus to stop people from crucifying him, but it was useless. Then on the third day, Dick Cheney came to announce the resurrection of Jesus and his raise to the kingdom of heaven. Meanwhile George W. Bush awaits for Jesus' second coming to allow him to blow the shit out of Iran, North Korea, and France. THE ENDWhy don't you stop mocking me and actually read what I'm writing? Then maybe you wouldn't be so quick to judge people like Fuhrman, Cheney & Bush. Do you think that a man who considers himself a devout christian and then justifies starting a war because "God told him to do so", can be taken seriously? Imagine if 50 Cent shot a white man and then he defended himself by saying that Martin Luther King Jr's ghost came up to him and said: - "SHOOT THAT MUTHAFUCKA CRACKER!" |
| jasen101 30.11.2005 02:30 |
apparently George Bush wanted to blow up aljazeera...haha...that's fuckin hilarious! |
| Mr.Jingles 30.11.2005 08:47 |
jasen101 wrote: apparently George Bush wanted to blow up aljazeera...haha...that's fuckin hilarious!I can just picture Dumbya... Hmmm, maybe if I blow up Al-Jazeera they will like me more. Al-Jazeera just makes me look so uncool. |
| PainPleasure 30.11.2005 12:17 |
<font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote:Linda, how you're doing dear!?Mr.Jingles wrote:xD LMFAOFreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Because neither you or your so admired cronies can be taken seriously any longer. Do you think that a man who considers himself a devout christian and then justifies starting a war because "God told him to do so", can be taken seriously? Imagine if 50 Cent shot a white man and then he defended himself by saying that Martin Luther King Jr's ghost came up to him and said: - "SHOOT THAT MUTHAFUCKA CRACKER!"Mr.Jingles wrote: We all know that O.J. Simpson was the one who betrayed Jesus, and not Judas. Then Mark Fuhrman tried to save Jesus by telling Pilatus to stop people from crucifying him, but it was useless. Then on the third day, Dick Cheney came to announce the resurrection of Jesus and his raise to the kingdom of heaven. Meanwhile George W. Bush awaits for Jesus' second coming to allow him to blow the shit out of Iran, North Korea, and France. THE ENDWhy don't you stop mocking me and actually read what I'm writing? Then maybe you wouldn't be so quick to judge people like Fuhrman, Cheney & Bush. |
| The Real Wizard 30.11.2005 12:51 |
the_hero wrote: For people that are an atheist like me... this is the most boring topic ever cause Jesus has not exsisted.Nah, he most likely did exist. The real guy bears little resemblance to the one you read about in the bible. People wrote stories about him that matched what they wanted to believe about him. He was most likely a person who was crucified for promoting change that angered the authorities. Thousands were crucified just like him. The early church decided to develop him into a much bigger figure, and that's still where we are today. People in the middle ages simply accepted what was handed down to them, because they were mostly illiterate, and we've yet to break out of this mass religious illiteracy. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 30.11.2005 16:15 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:So apparently Iraq was doing better under Saddam?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Because neither you or your so admired cronies can be taken seriously any longer. Do you think that a man who considers himself a devout christian and then justifies starting a war because "God told him to do so", can be taken seriously? Imagine if 50 Cent shot a white man and then he defended himself by saying that Martin Luther King Jr's ghost came up to him and said: - "SHOOT THAT MUTHAFUCKA CRACKER!"Mr.Jingles wrote: We all know that O.J. Simpson was the one who betrayed Jesus, and not Judas. Then Mark Fuhrman tried to save Jesus by telling Pilatus to stop people from crucifying him, but it was useless. Then on the third day, Dick Cheney came to announce the resurrection of Jesus and his raise to the kingdom of heaven. Meanwhile George W. Bush awaits for Jesus' second coming to allow him to blow the shit out of Iran, North Korea, and France. THE ENDWhy don't you stop mocking me and actually read what I'm writing? Then maybe you wouldn't be so quick to judge people like Fuhrman, Cheney & Bush. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 30.11.2005 16:18 |
the_hero wrote:Yeah, others have already said this, but he DID exist. Everything after that is, I suppose, up to one's opinion, but there's no reason to go around saying he didn't exist just because you don't like what he had to say.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:For people that are an atheist like me... this is the most boring topic ever cause Jesus has not exsisted.<font color =#CC00FF>***Marial-B*** wrote: For FreddieGhetto: Girl, I can understand why you admire John Lennon, even Brian Epstein, but someone who was a d**k and betrayed his mentor... You're the one who has to go to a shrink, and for realI don't *admire* Judas exactly. I simply think he's a very misunderstood figure. Jesus knew what was up, obviously, and he still selected Judas as one of his Apostles. He didn't *have* to do that, but there must have been something about Judas that drew Jesus to him. What that is has maybe been lost to history for now, but I think one of these days we'll discover the true story. Judas was, after all, a person so distraught by what had occurred to kill himself - the first of the Twelve to die. When you look at the fact that the other 11 were SLEEPING when Jesus was arrested... I guess at least Judas was doing SOMETHING. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 30.11.2005 16:20 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Religion is NOT "illiteracy". It's simply a belief system, just like any other belief system. Believing in religion does not make a person "illiterate" or that they "accept what was handed down to them". There are very, very smart people who are religious.the_hero wrote: For people that are an atheist like me... this is the most boring topic ever cause Jesus has not exsisted.Nah, he most likely did exist. The real guy bears little resemblance to the one you read about in the bible. People wrote stories about him that matched what they wanted to believe about him. He was most likely a person who was crucified for promoting change that angered the authorities. Thousands were crucified just like him. The early church decided to develop him into a much bigger figure, and that's still where we are today. People in the middle ages simply accepted what was handed down to them, because they were mostly illiterate, and we've yet to break out of this mass religious illiteracy. |
| Mr.Jingles 30.11.2005 17:10 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:This is not about Saddam Hussein.Mr.Jingles wrote:So apparently Iraq was doing better under Saddam?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Because neither you or your so admired cronies can be taken seriously any longer. Do you think that a man who considers himself a devout christian and then justifies starting a war because "God told him to do so", can be taken seriously? Imagine if 50 Cent shot a white man and then he defended himself by saying that Martin Luther King Jr's ghost came up to him and said: - "SHOOT THAT MUTHAFUCKA CRACKER!"Mr.Jingles wrote: We all know that O.J. Simpson was the one who betrayed Jesus, and not Judas. Then Mark Fuhrman tried to save Jesus by telling Pilatus to stop people from crucifying him, but it was useless. Then on the third day, Dick Cheney came to announce the resurrection of Jesus and his raise to the kingdom of heaven. Meanwhile George W. Bush awaits for Jesus' second coming to allow him to blow the shit out of Iran, North Korea, and France. THE ENDWhy don't you stop mocking me and actually read what I'm writing? Then maybe you wouldn't be so quick to judge people like Fuhrman, Cheney & Bush. It's about Dubya thinking he's Joan Of Arcadia. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 30.11.2005 21:04 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:It obviously IS about Saddam, you just don't want to MAKE it about Saddam. Bush did not invade France. He invaded a country where the following was going on:FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:This is not about Saddam Hussein. It's about Dubya thinking he's Joan Of Arcadia.Mr.Jingles wrote:So apparently Iraq was doing better under Saddam?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Because neither you or your so admired cronies can be taken seriously any longer. Do you think that a man who considers himself a devout christian and then justifies starting a war because "God told him to do so", can be taken seriously? Imagine if 50 Cent shot a white man and then he defended himself by saying that Martin Luther King Jr's ghost came up to him and said: - "SHOOT THAT MUTHAFUCKA CRACKER!"Mr.Jingles wrote: We all know that O.J. Simpson was the one who betrayed Jesus, and not Judas. Then Mark Fuhrman tried to save Jesus by telling Pilatus to stop people from crucifying him, but it was useless. Then on the third day, Dick Cheney came to announce the resurrection of Jesus and his raise to the kingdom of heaven. Meanwhile George W. Bush awaits for Jesus' second coming to allow him to blow the shit out of Iran, North Korea, and France. THE ENDWhy don't you stop mocking me and actually read what I'm writing? Then maybe you wouldn't be so quick to judge people like Fuhrman, Cheney & Bush. link |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 30.11.2005 21:05 |
the_hero wrote:Did I use the word despise (or, uh, dispise if you like it that way)?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Where did I say that I dispise the words he might have said? If he HAD lived than the things he said were well said.the_hero wrote:Yeah, others have already said this, but he DID exist. Everything after that is, I suppose, up to one's opinion, but there's no reason to go around saying he didn't exist just because you don't like what he had to say.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:For people that are an atheist like me... this is the most boring topic ever cause Jesus has not exsisted.<font color =#CC00FF>***Marial-B*** wrote: For FreddieGhetto: Girl, I can understand why you admire John Lennon, even Brian Epstein, but someone who was a d**k and betrayed his mentor... You're the one who has to go to a shrink, and for realI don't *admire* Judas exactly. I simply think he's a very misunderstood figure. Jesus knew what was up, obviously, and he still selected Judas as one of his Apostles. He didn't *have* to do that, but there must have been something about Judas that drew Jesus to him. What that is has maybe been lost to history for now, but I think one of these days we'll discover the true story. Judas was, after all, a person so distraught by what had occurred to kill himself - the first of the Twelve to die. When you look at the fact that the other 11 were SLEEPING when Jesus was arrested... I guess at least Judas was doing SOMETHING. |
| inu-liger 01.12.2005 11:21 |
Oh for fuck sakes, FGT, OPEN YOUR FUCKING SQUINTY EYES!!! Bush is clearly a dictator in his own (undeserving) right. He cares nothing for people other than himself. ANSWER THIS QUESTION: How can someone who CLAIMS to be a follower of God (who himself (God) says "Thou shall not kill" *AND* teaches AGAINST war), go to war and murder INNOCENT men, women and children, and FORCE "democracy" on a country that did NOT ask for it in the first place. Doesn't killing go AGAINST the teachings of God, Allah, and all other gods?! Now, that being asked, do NOT respond with "Oh Saddam was doing this, that, BLAH BLAH BLAH to deserve a war" and "Saddam had this and that WMD's BLAH BLAH BLAH". We ALL know too well what you would say about Saddam, and so I am saying THIS IS NOT THE POINT HERE. ALSO, how can Bush justify going to war based on false PRETENSES, that he and his cronies obviously had a hand in creating, about "WMD's in Iraq"?! Especially when it was ACCURATELY REPORTED that there were NONE in Iraq after all! And DID the United Nations declare that this was an ILLEGAL WAR, and that it should NOT have happened?? Or am I wrong?! Answer my questions TRUTHFULLY, SaraJane, if your pertinent ignorance will stay out of the way for once to permit it. |
| inu-liger 01.12.2005 11:35 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Despise is another way of interpreting "don't like", FGT.the_hero wrote:Did I use the word despise (or, uh, dispise if you like it that way)?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Where did I say that I dispise the words he might have said? If he HAD lived than the things he said were well said.the_hero wrote:Yeah, others have already said this, but he DID exist. Everything after that is, I suppose, up to one's opinion, but there's no reason to go around saying he didn't exist just because you don't like what he had to say.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:For people that are an atheist like me... this is the most boring topic ever cause Jesus has not exsisted.<font color =#CC00FF>***Marial-B*** wrote: For FreddieGhetto: Girl, I can understand why you admire John Lennon, even Brian Epstein, but someone who was a d**k and betrayed his mentor... You're the one who has to go to a shrink, and for realI don't *admire* Judas exactly. I simply think he's a very misunderstood figure. Jesus knew what was up, obviously, and he still selected Judas as one of his Apostles. He didn't *have* to do that, but there must have been something about Judas that drew Jesus to him. What that is has maybe been lost to history for now, but I think one of these days we'll discover the true story. Judas was, after all, a person so distraught by what had occurred to kill himself - the first of the Twelve to die. When you look at the fact that the other 11 were SLEEPING when Jesus was arrested... I guess at least Judas was doing SOMETHING. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 01.12.2005 15:14 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote: Oh for fuck sakes, FGT, OPEN YOUR FUCKING SQUINTY EYES!!! Bush is clearly a dictator in his own (undeserving) right. He cares nothing for people other than himself.If he didn't care about anyone but himself, he would be sitting on his ass doing nothing about Iraq. This war has caused him a lot of trouble. But what's right isn't always what's easy. What would be easy would be to go "Saddam will comply eventually, he's not a threat" and join the Worldwide Thumb-Twiddling contest that is the UN in ignoring Saddam. ANSWER THIS QUESTION: How can someone who CLAIMS to be a follower of God (who himself (God) says "Thou shall not kill" *AND* teaches AGAINST war), go to war and murder INNOCENT men, women and children, and FORCE "democracy" on a country that did NOT ask for it in the first place. Doesn't killing go AGAINST the teachings of God, Allah, and all other gods?!Democracy's not forced. Democracy is something people aspire to. People WANT democracy, they want a say in their government. No group of people wants to be ruled over with an iron fist. No one is happy being a slave. War is not pretty, it's hell. Coming from a military family, I know this well. But the alternative is far, far worse. All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. In the Civil War, should we have allowed the South to declare independence and continue their "peculiar institution" of slavery? Were we forcing our way of life on people who did not want it then? Lincoln was murdered for starting that war. It would have been easier to allow the South to do what they wanted. But yet again, easy is not always right. It was not in that case and it is not now. Innocent men, women, and children were killed in the Civil War, too, but it was necessary to ensure freedom. Peace without freedom is merely appeasement. Now, that being asked, do NOT respond with "Oh Saddam was doing this, that, BLAH BLAH BLAH to deserve a war" and "Saddam had this and that WMD's BLAH BLAH BLAH". We ALL know too well what you would say about Saddam, and so I am saying THIS IS NOT THE POINT HERE.Saddam is very much the point. If we had not gone to war, he would still have his gas weapons and his torture chambers. Instead, Iraq is being run by a democratic government. They will be able to eventually return to being a normal country instead of Saddam's dartboard. ALSO, how can Bush justify going to war based on false PRETENSES, that he and his cronies obviously had a hand in creating, about "WMD's in Iraq"?! Especially when it was ACCURATELY REPORTED that there were NONE in Iraq after all!1) Saddam did HAVE WMDs. The question at hand is whether he had them when we invaded. He did not have them when we invaded, however, that does not mean he *never* had them. Remember that Colin Powell had to state their locations, so they very well could have been moved to Saddam's dear friends in Syria. 2) There was a twenty-two reason list stating the reasons for going to war in Iraq. WMDs were but one of them. 3) Gore said Iraq had WMD. Kerry said Iraq had WMD. Numerous others said it as well. 4) We were already at war with Iraq. Clinton bombed them in 1998. And DID the United Nations declare that this was an ILLEGAL WAR, and that it should NOT have happened?? Or am I wrong?!And DID the UN have a hand in the corrupt Oil for Food scandal, or am I wrong? |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 01.12.2005 15:16 |
Despise is another way of interpreting "don't like", FGT.de·spise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-spz) tr.v. de·spised, de·spis·ing, de·spis·es 1. To regard with contempt or scorn: despised all cowards and flatterers. 2. To dislike intensely; loathe: despised the frigid weather in January. Despise means to dislike INTENSELY, not to merely dislike. |
| inu-liger 01.12.2005 21:57 |
Oh for Christ's sake! I've tried reasoning with you, I've tried asking truthful and challenging questions, but all you do is act like a brick wall. There's no point in arguing with a totalus ignoramus like you. I ask you a question for which I expected DIRECT answers, but all you do is go out and talk about something else that has NOTHING to do with the question(s) at hand. Are you seriously THAT blind that you can't open your tightly shut eyes and see your "president" and his cronies for what they TRULY ARE?!?! There has to be a Roger Waters song somewhere that is fitting of you... PS. You especially did NOT answer my questions directly about God's words AGAINST murder and war. Fucking retard... |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 01.12.2005 23:26 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote: PS. You especially did NOT answer my questions directly about God's words AGAINST murder and war. Fucking retard...Because morally EVERYONE should be against murder and war. Murder and war are evil, hellish things. But when they are necessary to prevent worse evil, they must occur. Also, I must interject that you offend me greatly by using "retard" as an insult. You should have the class not to use such an improper phrase. |
| John S Stuart 01.12.2005 23:41 |
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man religion and he'll starve himself to death praying for a bloody fish." |
| goodco 01.12.2005 23:48 |
oy, what a long thread....jeesh damn, I forgot....did I mention that Judas did pretty good on 'Blood Money'? |
| The Real Wizard 02.12.2005 01:30 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Saddam did HAVE WMDs. The question at hand is whether he had them when we invaded. He did not have them when we invaded, however, that does not mean he *never* had them. Remember that Colin Powell had to state their locations, so they very well could have been moved to Saddam's dear friends in Syria....even though Rumsfeld was once captured on tape saying there were no WMDs? Coincidentally, of course, after Hailburton expressed interest in going to Iraq, suddenly there were WMD's in Iraq? OPEN YOUR EYES! Religion is NOT "illiteracy". It's simply a belief system, just like any other belief system. Believing in religion does not make a person "illiterate" or that they "accept what was handed down to them". There are very, very smart people who are religious.I fully agree with the above statements. But there are still millions of people who are religious simply because it has been handed down to them, and often with the help of fear tactics. While I fully believe that people know right from wrong and can choose the path of their life, one must remember that abandoning one's religion may also mean abandoning one's family, which is obviously no easy thing to do. But when I mentioned religious illiteracy, I was speaking about how little most Christians actually know about the history of their religion. Observe the following: Does the average Christian know that in 325 CE, the year when Christianity became the official religion of Rome, the emperor Constantine surpressed and/or destroyed all other known sacred writings that disagreed with what he wanted to become the common belief system? Do they know that some of these writings have since been recovered and offer insight into other types of Christianity that are very different from theirs? Do they know that such information is easily accessible? Do they know that all scripture was written in Greek, and has been translated/altered dozens of times before reaching their hands? Do they know that every ancient manuscript of every book in the New Testament is different, yet certain ones had to be chosen for every particular version of the bible? Do they know that ALL known biblical manuscripts have no differentiation between upper/lower case letters, have no spaces between words, and have no punctuation? This is what every bible translator has had to work with since day one. Do they know that all of the stories they've heard and believed since their childhood were transmitted in an oral culture for decades before actually being written down? Do they know what happens to a story told for 30-40 minutes, never mind 30-40 years? Even if things were written down immediately after they "happened", does the average Christian know that Jesus' native language was Aramaic, and that if his second language wasn't Greek, all of his authentic words are therefore lost forever? Do they know that Paul's letters were written before the gospels were written, even though they appear after the gospels in the bible? Do they know that Mark was actually the first gospel to be written, even though Matthew appears first in the bible? Do they know that both the apostle Paul and the gospel of Mark say nothing about the virgin birth? Furthermore, do they know that writers of the gospels of Matthew and Luke were using a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures called the Septuagint, which used the word "parthenos", which did NOT mean "virgin", but rather "young woman" when it was written? Do they know that in the gospel of Luke, John the Baptist, the person who supposedly baptized Jesus, is in jail before Jesus is baptized? Do they realize that because the gospels appear first in the bible, it seems that Paul is also talking about a physical resurrection, when he is actually talking about spiritual resurrection? Do they k |
| Maz 02.12.2005 01:54 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: People once wanted to explain the unknown, and that's how we developed the need for religion, i.e. to say that God does this and that. We've since answered many questions. We now know that high/low pressure systems are the cause of precipitation, that the Earth isn't the centre of the Universe, and that epilepsy is not caused by demon possession, despite the fact that the bible says otherwise on all of these topics. The bible was written centuries before modern science was even a thought. All we have done over the last few centuries is narrow things down to what we cannot yet prove to be untrue. In addition to that, the studies of human psychology will one day tell us enough about the workings of the brain, and we will then understand exactly we feel we need religion in our lives. So, with both of those points in mind, we will one day render religion obsolete. But when that happens, just imagine how many religious people will lose their minds, and in large groups, act out in ways we've never seen or imagined...Not true, GH. Many people thought that science could explain everything and that through intellectual advances we could make the world a perfect place. Scientific management seeped into virtually every element of our society, for both good and bad reasons. Then the First World War happened and we questioned all of are presumptions. How can science be the answer if it's responsible for such wanton destruction, they asked. We learned then, and I imagine we'll learn again that some deep cultural and societal issues cannot be addressed by science alone. Religion plays a very important part in that. Your model is predicated on the belief that religion exists solely to "understand" the world around us. I'm sure there are many people who do feel that way, but modern theology has moved more and more toward the existentialism of religion. Religion, regardless if it's Christianity, Islam, Judism, etc, provides much more than a simple "understanding," and for that reason will never go away. (On a personal note, some of your criticisms of Christianity seem to be heavily biased and extreme generalizations. Undoubtedly, some people do believe those issues that you attack. However, the attack on oral traditions, for instance, is in itself a very establisment-orientated attack. It assumes that only true knowledge can be transmitted through "good" sources. If we accept the existentialism of Christianity, that is that Christianity provides a truth I can "trust," then how it is transmitted becomes irrelevant. Does the Declaration of Independence in the US lost its effectiveness when we learn it was written by a slave holder? Is the Emanciaption Proclaimatin any less useful when we learn it was issued as a last resort? Can ideas evolve past their creations and take on a greater meaning for people or are they beholden to their construction and able to be rejected out of hand? And when I get tired, I get snippy, Bob. Don't take offense) |
| The Real Wizard 02.12.2005 02:19 |
Zeni wrote: Many people thought that science could explain everything and that through intellectual advances we could make the world a perfect place. Scientific management seeped into virtually every element of our society, for both good and bad reasons. Then the First World War happened and we questioned all of are presumptions. How can science be the answer if it's responsible for such wanton destruction, they asked. We learned then, and I imagine we'll learn again that some deep cultural and societal issues cannot be addressed by science alone. Religion plays a very important part in that.You're right, and I agree. But what kind of religion? Religion that requires the acceptance of ancient dogma, or religion that makes one spiritually strong, free from the need to accept things which will one day be unacceptable (or at the moment, to some, *are* unacceptable) ?? On a personal note, some of your criticisms of Christianity seem to be heavily biased and extreme generalizations. Undoubtedly, some people do believe those issues that you attack.Things are believed because they were believed yesterday. People go with the flow because it's easier than challenging what has been traditionally accepted as being truth. I can see how some of my words come across as being generalizations, but I was just giving brief summaries of each topic. I could have gone on for paragraphs on each one to make things more clear, but I can only write so much! Is there any particular one you'd like me to elaborate on? I just can't believe that with our intelligence, these things aren't openly debated, especially by Christians. These things are all "dealt with" by sweeping them under the rug. I just wish people could think more when it comes to these kinds of things, and furthermore, I also wish our religious leaders would encourage free thought on these subjects. They should be the ones propelling us through the 21st century, not keeping us in the first and second centuries. While I acknowledge that many preachers find ways to make religion useful today, they still ignore countless issues, such as those I mentioned above. Whether or not I am right about all of them, they are all issues worthy of thought and debate. However, the attack on oral traditions, for instance, is in itself a very establisment-orientated attack. It assumes that only true knowledge can be transmitted through "good" sources. If we accept the existentialism of Christianity, that is that Christianity provides a truth I can "trust," then how it is transmitted becomes irrelevant.So then my question is this: When the day comes when we learn about that certain things are intellectually fathomable or historically untrue, can we then live with ourselves by accepting they are true anyway for spiritual reasons? More simply, the question is, can we turn our brains off? Can ideas evolve past their creations and take on a greater meaning for people or are they beholden to their construction and able to be rejected out of hand?Of course not. Things evolve. But certain things can only evolve to a point. Alchemy evolved for centuries, but modern science eventually rendered alchemy obsolete. Not that I'm implying that religion will one day have to be "replaced", but you get my drift. And when I get tired, I get snippy, Bob. Don't take offenseNo worries! |
| Mr.Jingles 02.12.2005 10:35 |
goodco wrote: oy, what a long thread....jeesh damn, I forgot....did I mention that Judas did pretty good on 'Blood Money'?Just like Halliburton. |
| Mr.Jingles 02.12.2005 11:25 |
Many people (among them atheists and communists) say that prohibiting religion is the solution to solving all the problems in the world. Religious extremism is just about as dangerous as non-religious extremism. I know it would take A LOT from us as human beings to accept that we're different and that we have different kinds of beliefs, but there needs to be some common sense of acceptance when it comes realizing that we are not all the same. Religion from a spiritual and moral point of view can sometimes be a very good thing, but once the line is crossed and members of a certain religion go on a crusade with the main goal of destroying those who disagree, marks a point where that religion has become nothing but a threat. Osama Bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Center with the justification that Allah was on their side, and then George W. Bush went to bomb Iraq with the excuse that God was on our side. On whose side is God? Probably neither. |
| The Real Wizard 02.12.2005 12:24 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Osama Bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Center with the justification that Allah was on their side, and then George W. Bush went to bomb Iraq with the excuse that God was on our side. On whose side is God? Probably neither.My God has a bigger dick than your God! -George Carlin |
| Mr.Jingles 02.12.2005 13:13 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:LMAO!!Mr.Jingles wrote: Osama Bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Center with the justification that Allah was on their side, and then George W. Bush went to bomb Iraq with the excuse that God was on our side. On whose side is God? Probably neither.My God has a bigger dick than your God! -George Carlin |
| Maz 02.12.2005 14:48 |
You raise good points, Bob, but I would just caution that not every religious person, whether Christian, Jew, Buddahist, etc, adheres as tightly to dogma as critics would demonize them for. But religion is not the only dogma that people do not question. Many liberals and conservatice stick to their political beliefs without questioning them; same goes for social, cultural and economic issues. I've met apolitical people who are convinced that their economic beliefs are perfect and refuse to discuss other options. All you can do is educate and foster discussion, not disregard their beliefs out of hand. And I'll email later when I can get a list together. |
| The Real Wizard 02.12.2005 23:21 |
Zeni wrote: You raise good points, Bob, but I would just caution that not every religious person, whether Christian, Jew, Buddahist, etc, adheres as tightly to dogma as critics would demonize them for.Indeed, I know. :) But religion is not the only dogma that people do not question. Many liberals and conservatice stick to their political beliefs without questioning them; same goes for social, cultural and economic issues. I've met apolitical people who are convinced that their economic beliefs are perfect and refuse to discuss other options. All you can do is educate and foster discussion, not disregard their beliefs out of hand.Good observation. I fully agree that such attitudes are not present only in religion. Ah, the joys of being open to change... |
| inu-liger 02.12.2005 23:45 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Care to list those 22 reasons individually?ALSO, how can Bush justify going to war based on false PRETENSES, that he and his cronies obviously had a hand in creating, about "WMD's in Iraq"?! Especially when it was ACCURATELY REPORTED that there were NONE in Iraq after all!2) There was a twenty-two reason list stating the reasons for going to war in Iraq. WMDs were but one of them. 3) Gore said Iraq had WMD. Kerry said Iraq had WMD. Numerous others said it as well.Show me the proof (from reports dating from 2003 and BEYOND) and I'll consider believing you a little bit. Answer my question, squinty, and I'll answer yours.And DID the United Nations declare that this was an ILLEGAL WAR, and that it should NOT have happened?? Or am I wrong?!And DID the UN have a hand in the corrupt Oil for Food scandal, or am I wrong? |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 03.12.2005 12:35 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:1. In the aftermath of the attacks on America that killed thousands of innocents from 80 countries, Saddam Hussein said, “America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world.”FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Care to list those 22 reasons individually?ALSO, how can Bush justify going to war based on false PRETENSES, that he and his cronies obviously had a hand in creating, about "WMD's in Iraq"?! Especially when it was ACCURATELY REPORTED that there were NONE in Iraq after all!2) There was a twenty-two reason list stating the reasons for going to war in Iraq. WMDs were but one of them. 2. Iraq shelters and supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. 3. Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. 4. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former U.S. President. 5. In 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. 6. Were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. 7. Iraq still employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians and retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon 8. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. 9. United Nations' inspections revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. 10. On at least 10 occasions, Saddam Hussein’s military forces have attacked Iranian and Kurdish targets with combinations of mustard gas and nerve agents through the use of aerial bombs, 122-millimeter rockets, and conventional artillery shells. 11. Iraq has admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. 12. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. 13. Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. 14. In the late 1980’s Saddam Hussein launched a large-scale chemical weapons attack against Iraq’s Kurdish population, killing thousands. 15. Former UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur Max Van der Stoel’s report in April 1998 stated that Iraq had executed at least 1,500 people during the previous year for political reasons. 16. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. 17. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents. 18. Saddam blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the U.N., even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and buy arms for his country. 19. Child labor persists and there are instances of forced labor. 20. There are widespread reports that food and medicine that could have been made available to the general public, including children, have been stockpiled in warehouses or diverted for the personal use of some government officials. 21. Saddam has held military training camps for children between 10 and 15 years of age. 22. Human rights organizations and opposition groups received reports of women who suffered from severe psychological trauma after being raped by Iraqi personnel while in custody. Okay, there was MORE than 22 reasons. Continuing on: |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 03.12.2005 12:42 |
Also, you've never answered how YOU would have dealt with Saddam. You'd have obviously let him fester and murder more innocent people instead of dealing with him, because you wouldn't want to be politically unpopular. You'd let more Shiites and Kurds be murdered and you wouldn't care because they're not "ours", well listen, I believe that the little children that were put into fucking WOODCHIPPERS because their parents dared to oppose Saddam deserve justice. How in the hell does one expect to bring Saddam to justice when you're just playing with him? |
| Mr.Jingles 03.12.2005 13:01 |
Well then we should ask Bush Sr. why didn't he bring Saddam Hussein to justice when he had the chance. He actually mentions that the reason why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein after the end of the Gulf War in 1991 was because it would start a huge bloodbath that would cause the death of thousands of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. The great majority of the murders committed by Saddam Hussein occured during the late 80s and early 90s, and nobody did anything about it. Neither the U.S. or the U.N. However, if there's an American president to blame for what's going on in Iraq and the raise of Al-Qaeda that's Ronald Reagan. Wherever that asswipe is, I hope he's paying for all the shit he did. link |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 03.12.2005 13:07 |
Bush Sr. fucked up by not unseating Saddam. He should have gotten rid of the asswipe when he had the chance. At least now we're finishing what we started. Interesting coincidence: right after I finished typing my last message, the Army recruiter called. ^_^ |
| inu-liger 03.12.2005 14:44 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Interesting coincidence: right after I finished typing my last message, the Army recruiter called. ^_^Good. That's one less Bushie we need in this world. |
| inu-liger 03.12.2005 14:45 |
Also, check these websites out, and entertain yourself Squinty: link link How can someone so stupid as him be elected "president" (with a lower p)?? |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 03.12.2005 15:09 |
the_hero wrote: why did this thread go from Judas to US politicians... well it should be obvious.lol, well, Caiaphas and Annas wanted to get rid of Jesus for political reasons, and people want to get rid of Bush for political reasons. lol |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 03.12.2005 15:10 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:Even when I'm in the military, I'll still be in the world, lamebrain.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Interesting coincidence: right after I finished typing my last message, the Army recruiter called. ^_^Good. That's one less Bushie we need in this world. |
| inu-liger 03.12.2005 16:37 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:You missed the point, as usual.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:Even when I'm in the military, I'll still be in the world, lamebrain.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Interesting coincidence: right after I finished typing my last message, the Army recruiter called. ^_^Good. That's one less Bushie we need in this world. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 03.12.2005 22:19 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:You don't HAVE a point, as usual.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:You missed the point, as usual.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:Even when I'm in the military, I'll still be in the world, lamebrain.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Interesting coincidence: right after I finished typing my last message, the Army recruiter called. ^_^Good. That's one less Bushie we need in this world. |
| Mr.Jingles 04.12.2005 17:35 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Neither do you.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:You don't HAVE a point, as usual.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:You missed the point, as usual.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:Even when I'm in the military, I'll still be in the world, lamebrain.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Interesting coincidence: right after I finished typing my last message, the Army recruiter called. ^_^Good. That's one less Bushie we need in this world. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 04.12.2005 17:45 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I've been HAMMERING my point forever. The point is FREEDOM. Freedom from tyranny, torture, and everything else Saddam was doing. It's the anti-Bush crowd that would rather twiddle their thumbs while people die!FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Neither do you.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:You don't HAVE a point, as usual.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:You missed the point, as usual.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:Even when I'm in the military, I'll still be in the world, lamebrain.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Interesting coincidence: right after I finished typing my last message, the Army recruiter called. ^_^Good. That's one less Bushie we need in this world. |
| Mr.Jingles 04.12.2005 17:58 |
Freedom can't be achieved by harvesting fear on everybody. I'm sure you think that it's no big deal when innocent people die, but regardless of the circumstances it brings nothing but more and more hatred. Of course, it's so easy to support war when the battlefield is thousands of miles away. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 04.12.2005 19:24 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Freedom can't be achieved by harvesting fear on everybody. I'm sure you think that it's no big deal when innocent people die, but regardless of the circumstances it brings nothing but more and more hatred. Of course, it's so easy to support war when the battlefield is thousands of miles away.Of course I care that innocent people die in war! I think it's horrible! But the alternative, letting people be tortured and murdered by a bloodthirsty fiend like Saddam, is far worse. Also, FYI - I = future ROTC. I have full expectations of seeing that battlefield sometime soon. I'm no chickenhawk. |
| inu-liger 05.12.2005 02:01 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Have you ever heard of subtlety / hidden meanings? Guess not, since you're retarded.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:You don't HAVE a point, as usual.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:You missed the point, as usual.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:Even when I'm in the military, I'll still be in the world, lamebrain.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Interesting coincidence: right after I finished typing my last message, the Army recruiter called. ^_^Good. That's one less Bushie we need in this world. My POINT was that you would be joining your fellow soldiers to their (and your) deaths. That's what we (Queenzoners) hope anyways, on your part. |
| inu-liger 05.12.2005 02:05 |
And lemme reiterate my famous quote from earlier this year: "Right...Why don't you just fuck off to your local graveyard, dig up some skeletons and have your way with them. That way, you'll overstimulate your death fetish and die, so you can be obsessed with yourself" Except, this time add "army's" instead of local - that way, it suits you more when you're in the army. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 05.12.2005 06:48 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:Gee, sure, every single soldier dies. Right. That's why my mother, maternal grandfather, and parental grandparents, who were all in the Armed Forces, got out perfectly fine. Because the Armed Forces are a death machine. Not actually.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Have you ever heard of subtlety / hidden meanings? Guess not, since you're retarded. My POINT was that you would be joining your fellow soldiers to their (and your) deaths. That's what we (Queenzoners) hope anyways, on your part.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:You don't HAVE a point, as usual.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:You missed the point, as usual.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:Even when I'm in the military, I'll still be in the world, lamebrain.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Interesting coincidence: right after I finished typing my last message, the Army recruiter called. ^_^Good. That's one less Bushie we need in this world. There's a chance of dying in the Armed Forces, true, but there's a chance of dying in ANY profession. |
| Mr.Jingles 05.12.2005 08:31 |
Richard please stop talking so much shit in behalf of all Queenzoners. I don't think there's anyone here (except you) who wishes death on Sarajane, and that's an absolutely despicable way of setting an argument. I think Sarajane needs a big reality check, and I really hope she doesn't have to be sent to a war zone to realize all the horrible things that happen there. She's just one one of the many who have been brianwashed by this administration into believing that war is the best way to settle international conflicts. A lot of people in the armed forces have the potential to become killing machines. Has anyone ever watched 'Platoon'? Say all you want about how that movie is just fiction, but the truth is that war brings the worst out of everyone one of us. The desperation for survival brings people down to the level of animals where the only law that applies is the survival of the fittest. Now, I'm not saying that all people who serve in an army are bound to become killing machines, because many of them are there to do their duty without getting carried away by hatred. What can't be denied is that a lot of sick people eventually join the armed forces because it's the only way for them to get away with commiting crimes and satisfy their thirst for blood. |
| LittleBabyNothing 05.12.2005 15:03 |
Sir GH In 1 Corinthians chapter 10, Paul wrote of Jesus appearing to the 12 disciples at his resurrection (but let's not turn this into a 'did Jesus rise' debate - I'm just using this quote for argument). But if the story of Judas was real and historical, then wouldn't Jesus have appeared to only 11, since Judas had supposedly killed himself?your information is wrong... in chapter 10 of 1 corinthians, paul does not mention 12 disciples... in fact, it does not mention any disciples... get your facts right :P 1. For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2. and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3. and all ate the same spiritual food; 4. and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. 6. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. 7. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, "THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY." 8. Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9. Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. 13. No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. 14. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15. I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16. Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17. Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? 19. What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20. No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we? 23. All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. 24. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. 25. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake; 26. FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. 27. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake. 28. But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; 29. I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? 30. If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? 31. Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; 33. just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit o |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 05.12.2005 17:09 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Richard please stop talking so much shit in behalf of all Queenzoners. I don't think there's anyone here (except you) who wishes death on Sarajane, and that's an absolutely despicable way of setting an argument. I think Sarajane needs a big reality check, and I really hope she doesn't have to be sent to a war zone to realize all the horrible things that happen there. She's just one one of the many who have been brianwashed by this administration into believing that war is the best way to settle international conflicts. A lot of people in the armed forces have the potential to become killing machines. Has anyone ever watched 'Platoon'? Say all you want about how that movie is just fiction, but the truth is that war brings the worst out of everyone one of us. The desperation for survival brings people down to the level of animals where the only law that applies is the survival of the fittest. Now, I'm not saying that all people who serve in an army are bound to become killing machines, because many of them are there to do their duty without getting carried away by hatred. What can't be denied is that a lot of sick people eventually join the armed forces because it's the only way for them to get away with commiting crimes and satisfy their thirst for blood.But what about the people who were taught discipline by the military? What about the African-Americans in the South before the civil rights era because they could get a fair deal there? What about the people whom the military gave camaraderie, a steady paycheck, and a love of country? |
| Maz 05.12.2005 17:38 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: What about the African-Americans in the South before the civil rights era because they could get a fair deal there?link You mean that type of "fair deal"? Blacks in the military did not have nearly that many rights as you would claim. Black units were heavily segregated and whites claimed that black officers were unable to lead effectively in battle. Most blacks in the military were in service positions and not on the front lines. Yes, there were heroic black divisions during WW2, but please don't claim that the military was a great outlet in an oppressive society. It was just as bad, or worse, than the rest of American society. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 05.12.2005 22:02 |
Zeni wrote:The military was desegregated LONG before any other public institution.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: What about the African-Americans in the South before the civil rights era because they could get a fair deal there?link You mean that type of "fair deal"? Blacks in the military did not have nearly that many rights as you would claim. Black units were heavily segregated and whites claimed that black officers were unable to lead effectively in battle. Most blacks in the military were in service positions and not on the front lines. Yes, there were heroic black divisions during WW2, but please don't claim that the military was a great outlet in an oppressive society. It was just as bad, or worse, than the rest of American society. |
| Maz 05.12.2005 22:42 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: The military was desegregated LONG before any other public institution."LONG"? Re-read your text book. link link 6 years is not "LONG" |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 06.12.2005 06:50 |
Zeni wrote:The South was desegregated by Brown v. Board of Education in theory but not in practice. The first attempt at integrating a public school in the South was, for instance, not until 1958 and it turned into a nightmare, whereas I don't recall any riots going on when the military was desegregated.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: The military was desegregated LONG before any other public institution."LONG"? Re-read your text book. link link 6 years is not "LONG" Gee, it seems those "killing machines" have far more decency than Southern white high school students of the time! |
| The Real Wizard 06.12.2005 11:57 |
LittleBabyNothing wrote:Oops, I meant chapter 15! It was verses 1-10 I was focusing on... verse 5 in particular. Sorry about that!Sir GH In 1 Corinthians chapter 10, Paul wrote of Jesus appearing to the 12 disciples at his resurrection (but let's not turn this into a 'did Jesus rise' debate - I'm just using this quote for argument). But if the story of Judas was real and historical, then wouldn't Jesus have appeared to only 11, since Judas had supposedly killed himself?your information is wrong... in chapter 10 of 1 corinthians, paul does not mention 12 disciples... in fact, it does not mention any disciples... get your facts right :P "...and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." So my point stands. Paul writes that Jesus appeared to 12, but the Judas story has decreased the number of disciples from 12 to 11. This shows that (at least) one of the accounts are not historically true, as logic would dictate that it cannot be both 11 and 12. Being as Paul wrote his letters at least 2 decades before the Gospels of Matt/Luke were written, one begins to see (as long as they do not wear spiritual blinders) the strong possibility that the Judas story is not historically true. Again, whether or not JC rose from the dead is another discussion. |
| Erin 06.12.2005 12:07 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Gee, it seems those "killing machines" have far more decency than Southern white high school students of the time!Yeah..no one had a problem with desegregation in the military. It was like "Operation get behind the Darkies" in South Park. |
| Maz 06.12.2005 12:32 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: The South was desegregated by Brown v. Board of Education in theory but not in practice. The first attempt at integrating a public school in the South was, for instance, not until 1958 and it turned into a nightmare, whereas I don't recall any riots going on when the military was desegregated. Gee, it seems those "killing machines" have far more decency than Southern white high school students of the time!Southern white high schools were not fighting a war in 1950 that required additional troops and reinforcements. Really, Sarajane, use your critical thinking skills; it's as if you put blinders on your analytical skills. Military desegragation happened differently because it was, um, the military. Has the American military ever rioted in the twentieth century? Do you actually think that men lost all racist tendencies once they entered the military? But, in the end, it's worthless trying to discuss this with you because you're 17 and you know everything. I'll stop even trying. |
| Mr.Jingles 06.12.2005 13:02 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:CasparFreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Bush Sr. fucked up by not unseating Saddam. He should have gotten rid of the asswipe when he had the chance. At least now we're finishing what we started. Interesting coincidence: right after I finished typing my last message, the Army recruiter called. ^_^You're going into the army? Would you please volunteer as human shield? Or as test-person for chemical weapons (which your country has plenty of, as it refuses to sign any treaty outlawing barbaric weapons)? Why bring yourself down to Sarajane's level of justifying violence as the solution to a problem? I don't wish harm to anyone despite their radical thoughts. However, if being in a war zone is what it takes for them to understand the sad reality of war, then let it be it. |
| Erin 06.12.2005 13:17 |
She didn't say she was joining the Army. She just said the recruiter called. They called me all the time my senior year of high school. It got to the point where I had to hang up on them. |
| Maz 06.12.2005 13:26 |
You know, the military can help you with that shame. |
| Mr.Jingles 06.12.2005 14:10 |
Zeni wrote: You know, the military can help you with that shame.Also help you with DISCIPLINE, so expect to hear some of this: " Today... is Christmas! There will be a magic show at zero-nine-thirty! Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines! God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand? " |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 06.12.2005 14:56 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Why don't you ask the Shiite and Kurdish civilians about that?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:I'm going to quote the first democratic post-Saddam president of Iraq: "Human rights in Iraq are, at present, worse than they were under Saddam Hussein"Mr.Jingles wrote: Freedom can't be achieved by harvesting fear on everybody. I'm sure you think that it's no big deal when innocent people die, but regardless of the circumstances it brings nothing but more and more hatred. Of course, it's so easy to support war when the battlefield is thousands of miles away.Of course I care that innocent people die in war! I think it's horrible! But the alternative, letting people be tortured and murdered by a bloodthirsty fiend like Saddam, is far worse. Also, FYI - I = future ROTC. I have full expectations of seeing that battlefield sometime soon. I'm no chickenhawk. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 06.12.2005 14:58 |
<font color =#CC00FF>***Marial-B*** wrote: So you're going to the Army :S??? Sarajane... I know you love your country and that you defend it a lot, but think about what you're leaving behind....I am going to do ROTC, but I haven't decided what branch yet. I'm trying for NROTC, but it'll be a little more complicated because the college I'm going to doesn't have it. Alternatively, I could go for regular ROTC at the Military College next door to my college, or AFROTC at another nearby college, but I'm working all that out. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 06.12.2005 14:59 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Maturity at its peak, really.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Bush Sr. fucked up by not unseating Saddam. He should have gotten rid of the asswipe when he had the chance. At least now we're finishing what we started. Interesting coincidence: right after I finished typing my last message, the Army recruiter called. ^_^You're going into the army? Would you please volunteer as human shield? Or as test-person for chemical weapons (which your country has plenty of, as it refuses to sign any treaty outlawing barbaric weapons)? |
| Mr.Jingles 06.12.2005 15:15 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:It seems clear that Iraqi citizens are not happy about the occupation. Nor they feel like it's helping put an end to the war.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Why don't you ask the Shiite and Kurdish civilians about that?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:I'm going to quote the first democratic post-Saddam president of Iraq: "Human rights in Iraq are, at present, worse than they were under Saddam Hussein"Mr.Jingles wrote: Freedom can't be achieved by harvesting fear on everybody. I'm sure you think that it's no big deal when innocent people die, but regardless of the circumstances it brings nothing but more and more hatred. Of course, it's so easy to support war when the battlefield is thousands of miles away.Of course I care that innocent people die in war! I think it's horrible! But the alternative, letting people be tortured and murdered by a bloodthirsty fiend like Saddam, is far worse. Also, FYI - I = future ROTC. I have full expectations of seeing that battlefield sometime soon. I'm no chickenhawk. link |
| bitesthedust 06.12.2005 15:16 |
is that a cd? Return Of The Champions? |
| inu-liger 06.12.2005 20:40 |
no, it's Return of the Chumps ;-) |
| Music Man 06.12.2005 22:48 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:1. In the aftermath of the attacks on America that killed thousands of innocents from 80 countries, Saddam Hussein said, “America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world.”FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Care to list those 22 reasons individually?ALSO, how can Bush justify going to war based on false PRETENSES, that he and his cronies obviously had a hand in creating, about "WMD's in Iraq"?! Especially when it was ACCURATELY REPORTED that there were NONE in Iraq after all!2) There was a twenty-two reason list stating the reasons for going to war in Iraq. WMDs were but one of them. |
| Music Man 06.12.2005 22:49 |
Please, bear with me while I edit the above post. And those below it. This site's quote system leaves much to be desired. |
| Music Man 06.12.2005 22:49 |
|
| Music Man 06.12.2005 22:50 |
|
| Music Man 06.12.2005 23:11 |
|
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 07.12.2005 06:59 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Hey, we're not looking to stick around, either. We're trying to get out, but we can't have another Vietnam where the second we leave all we worked for goes moot.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:It seems clear that Iraqi citizens are not happy about the occupation. Nor they feel like it's helping put an end to the war. link<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Why don't you ask the Shiite and Kurdish civilians about that?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:I'm going to quote the first democratic post-Saddam president of Iraq: "Human rights in Iraq are, at present, worse than they were under Saddam Hussein"Mr.Jingles wrote: Freedom can't be achieved by harvesting fear on everybody. I'm sure you think that it's no big deal when innocent people die, but regardless of the circumstances it brings nothing but more and more hatred. Of course, it's so easy to support war when the battlefield is thousands of miles away.Of course I care that innocent people die in war! I think it's horrible! But the alternative, letting people be tortured and murdered by a bloodthirsty fiend like Saddam, is far worse. Also, FYI - I = future ROTC. I have full expectations of seeing that battlefield sometime soon. I'm no chickenhawk. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 07.12.2005 07:01 |
<font color =#CC00FF>***Marial-B*** wrote:ROTC stands for Reserve Officer Training Corps. It's a program in which you take military courses during your regular college experience, and after you get out you have a certain commitment to the military (usually two years). ROTC is for Army, NROTC is for Navy, and AFROTC is for Air Force. I'm not sure if they have one for Coast Guard or not.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:ROTC???? The only one I know is Return of the Champions xD... sorry, lame joke :P<font color =#CC00FF>***Marial-B*** wrote: So you're going to the Army :S??? Sarajane... I know you love your country and that you defend it a lot, but think about what you're leaving behind....I am going to do ROTC, but I haven't decided what branch yet. I'm trying for NROTC, but it'll be a little more complicated because the college I'm going to doesn't have it. Alternatively, I could go for regular ROTC at the Military College next door to my college, or AFROTC at another nearby college, but I'm working all that out. |
| Music Man 07.12.2005 08:15 |
I would have guessed that AFROTC was the black corps. |
| Mr.Jingles 07.12.2005 08:20 |
Music Man wrote: I would have guessed that AFROTC was the black corps.Also known as "human shields". Remember the South Park movie. |
| Mr.Jingles 07.12.2005 08:21 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:But hasn't it gone moot already.Mr.Jingles wrote:Hey, we're not looking to stick around, either. We're trying to get out, but we can't have another Vietnam where the second we leave all we worked for goes moot.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:It seems clear that Iraqi citizens are not happy about the occupation. Nor they feel like it's helping put an end to the war. link<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Why don't you ask the Shiite and Kurdish civilians about that?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:I'm going to quote the first democratic post-Saddam president of Iraq: "Human rights in Iraq are, at present, worse than they were under Saddam Hussein"Mr.Jingles wrote: Freedom can't be achieved by harvesting fear on everybody. I'm sure you think that it's no big deal when innocent people die, but regardless of the circumstances it brings nothing but more and more hatred. Of course, it's so easy to support war when the battlefield is thousands of miles away.Of course I care that innocent people die in war! I think it's horrible! But the alternative, letting people be tortured and murdered by a bloodthirsty fiend like Saddam, is far worse. Also, FYI - I = future ROTC. I have full expectations of seeing that battlefield sometime soon. I'm no chickenhawk. |
| Music Man 07.12.2005 08:26 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I must make a note to watch that, though I'm personally not a big South Park fan. It seems they rely too much on shock value and too little on wit. I'm a Family Guy man, myself. Not to say I don't enjoy it on occasion, but my respect for the show is lacking. Not to mention that too many of the episodes are hit or miss - although I must admit that the hits, are HITS.Music Man wrote: I would have guessed that AFROTC was the black corps.Also known as "human shields". Remember the South Park movie. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 07.12.2005 18:26 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:The liberal position is that it's been moot from Day One, correct?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:But hasn't it gone moot already.Mr.Jingles wrote:Hey, we're not looking to stick around, either. We're trying to get out, but we can't have another Vietnam where the second we leave all we worked for goes moot.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:It seems clear that Iraqi citizens are not happy about the occupation. Nor they feel like it's helping put an end to the war. link<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Why don't you ask the Shiite and Kurdish civilians about that?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:I'm going to quote the first democratic post-Saddam president of Iraq: "Human rights in Iraq are, at present, worse than they were under Saddam Hussein"Mr.Jingles wrote: Freedom can't be achieved by harvesting fear on everybody. I'm sure you think that it's no big deal when innocent people die, but regardless of the circumstances it brings nothing but more and more hatred. Of course, it's so easy to support war when the battlefield is thousands of miles away.Of course I care that innocent people die in war! I think it's horrible! But the alternative, letting people be tortured and murdered by a bloodthirsty fiend like Saddam, is far worse. Also, FYI - I = future ROTC. I have full expectations of seeing that battlefield sometime soon. I'm no chickenhawk. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 07.12.2005 18:28 |
Barry © wrote: My son is in the army and I don't like it one bit. The one reason why I never joined was because I would never be cannon fodder for some arsehole politician. We have a 74 year old peace activist from britain who may or may not have his head because of politicians making wrong decisions. Another thing, Why is Saddam's trial on delayed video? Are they frightened of what he knows?The peace activist may or may not have his head because the terrorists are disgusting evil bastards, not because of politicians making "wrong decisions"! Rather, a 16 year old girl was tortured by Saddam's men because no one had the guts to knock him out beforehand! As for "what Saddam knows" - Saddam knows how to intimidate, torture, and ramble. That is all he knows. |
| Mr.Jingles 07.12.2005 19:04 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:What a coincidence. So does the Bush administration.Barry © wrote: My son is in the army and I don't like it one bit. The one reason why I never joined was because I would never be cannon fodder for some arsehole politician. We have a 74 year old peace activist from britain who may or may not have his head because of politicians making wrong decisions. Another thing, Why is Saddam's trial on delayed video? Are they frightened of what he knows?The peace activist may or may not have his head because the terrorists are disgusting evil bastards, not because of politicians making "wrong decisions"! Rather, a 16 year old girl was tortured by Saddam's men because no one had the guts to knock him out beforehand! As for "what Saddam knows" - Saddam knows how to intimidate, torture, and ramble. That is all he knows. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 07.12.2005 20:46 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I suppose I blocked out the memories of being electroshocked by Bush.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:What a coincidence. So does the Bush administration.Barry © wrote: My son is in the army and I don't like it one bit. The one reason why I never joined was because I would never be cannon fodder for some arsehole politician. We have a 74 year old peace activist from britain who may or may not have his head because of politicians making wrong decisions. Another thing, Why is Saddam's trial on delayed video? Are they frightened of what he knows?The peace activist may or may not have his head because the terrorists are disgusting evil bastards, not because of politicians making "wrong decisions"! Rather, a 16 year old girl was tortured by Saddam's men because no one had the guts to knock him out beforehand! As for "what Saddam knows" - Saddam knows how to intimidate, torture, and ramble. That is all he knows. |
| inu-liger 08.12.2005 02:14 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Which girl was that? :PBarry © wrote: My son is in the army and I don't like it one bit. The one reason why I never joined was because I would never be cannon fodder for some arsehole politician. We have a 74 year old peace activist from britain who may or may not have his head because of politicians making wrong decisions. Another thing, Why is Saddam's trial on delayed video? Are they frightened of what he knows?The peace activist may or may not have his head because the terrorists are disgusting evil bastards, not because of politicians making "wrong decisions"! Rather, a 16 year old girl was tortured by Saddam's men because no one had the guts to knock him out beforehand! And the peacemaker COULD be dead BECAUSE of the politicians that MADE the decision in the first place to GO TO WAR. If they had not DECIDED to go to WAR in Iraq (illegally btw.), that guy would most likely be alive for sure! |
| inu-liger 08.12.2005 02:17 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:It doesn't matter what we say, you'll defend anything that George Bush Jr. does, cos he's your sugar daddy. It doesn't matter what daddy does, even if it's ILLEGAL or just PLAIN WRONG, anything he does is automatically OK, cos he's a saint to you.Mr.Jingles wrote:I suppose I blocked out the memories of being electroshocked by Bush.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:What a coincidence. So does the Bush administration.Barry © wrote: My son is in the army and I don't like it one bit. The one reason why I never joined was because I would never be cannon fodder for some arsehole politician. We have a 74 year old peace activist from britain who may or may not have his head because of politicians making wrong decisions. Another thing, Why is Saddam's trial on delayed video? Are they frightened of what he knows?The peace activist may or may not have his head because the terrorists are disgusting evil bastards, not because of politicians making "wrong decisions"! Rather, a 16 year old girl was tortured by Saddam's men because no one had the guts to knock him out beforehand! As for "what Saddam knows" - Saddam knows how to intimidate, torture, and ramble. That is all he knows. Am I right, or am I right? |
| inu-liger 08.12.2005 02:19 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote: Also, check these websites out, and entertain yourself Squinty: link link How can someone so stupid as him be elected "president" (with a lower p)??(Excuse me for quoting myself) I bet anything you didn't even check out my links above, FGT. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 08.12.2005 07:00 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:I didn't have to. I know Bush says stupid things from time to time, but he was elected PRESIDENT, not Secretary of Proper Use of English.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote: Also, check these websites out, and entertain yourself Squinty: link link How can someone so stupid as him be elected "president" (with a lower p)??(Excuse me for quoting myself) I bet anything you didn't even check out my links above, FGT. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 08.12.2005 07:08 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:Witness A at Saddam's Trial. "He hit me and shot at the wall with a pistol. I thought it was real, but it turned out to be just a sound. I was forced to take off my clothes, and he raised my legs up and tied up my hands. He continued administering electric shocks and whipping me and telling me to speak. They were more than one, as if I were their banquet, maybe more than five people, all of them are officers. Is that what happens to the virtuous woman that Saddam speaks about? .... [snip] They brought the men in before our eyes, before our children's eyes and told them to run in place. Those who disobeyed were whipped with the lash. One of my relatives who is mute and deaf, they brought him in front of the women and stripped him naked ... then they pulled him by the penis and said, "What kind of creature is this?" The women were crying. ... The young people were taken to the bathrooms and given five minutes. Even if they have diarrhea or stomach cramps, anyone who doesn't get out in five minutes got 100 lashes. ... This woman was giving birth, and the baby got stuck between her legs. Another woman tried to help, but the guards told her it was none of her business. The baby suffocated between her legs." That's your pretty boy Saddam and his insurgent fuck-buddies for you. That shit would still be going down if we weren't there.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Which girl was that? :PBarry © wrote: My son is in the army and I don't like it one bit. The one reason why I never joined was because I would never be cannon fodder for some arsehole politician. We have a 74 year old peace activist from britain who may or may not have his head because of politicians making wrong decisions. Another thing, Why is Saddam's trial on delayed video? Are they frightened of what he knows?The peace activist may or may not have his head because the terrorists are disgusting evil bastards, not because of politicians making "wrong decisions"! Rather, a 16 year old girl was tortured by Saddam's men because no one had the guts to knock him out beforehand! And the peacemaker COULD be dead BECAUSE of the politicians that MADE the decision in the first place to GO TO WAR.And it would be better for only innocent Iraqis to be slaughtered by Saddam? Are Iraqi citizens not worth American lives? If they had not DECIDED to go to WAR in Iraq (illegally btw.), that guy would most likely be alive for sure!He's a PEACE ACTIVIST. He's going to go to a war wherever one is! He would be in a war zone anyway! That is what he does, he PROTESTS WARS! |
| Mr.Jingles 08.12.2005 08:21 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:I also blocked out of hearing of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.Mr.Jingles wrote:I suppose I blocked out the memories of being electroshocked by Bush.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:What a coincidence. So does the Bush administration.Barry © wrote: My son is in the army and I don't like it one bit. The one reason why I never joined was because I would never be cannon fodder for some arsehole politician. We have a 74 year old peace activist from britain who may or may not have his head because of politicians making wrong decisions. Another thing, Why is Saddam's trial on delayed video? Are they frightened of what he knows?The peace activist may or may not have his head because the terrorists are disgusting evil bastards, not because of politicians making "wrong decisions"! Rather, a 16 year old girl was tortured by Saddam's men because no one had the guts to knock him out beforehand! As for "what Saddam knows" - Saddam knows how to intimidate, torture, and ramble. That is all he knows. |
| Mr.Jingles 08.12.2005 08:30 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:I wish it was just saying stupid things, but it's more about DOING stupid things rather than saying them.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:I didn't have to. I know Bush says stupid things from time to time, but he was elected PRESIDENT, not Secretary of Proper Use of English.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote: Also, check these websites out, and entertain yourself Squinty: link link How can someone so stupid as him be elected "president" (with a lower p)??(Excuse me for quoting myself) I bet anything you didn't even check out my links above, FGT. Do you think it's a smart move to name a guy head of FEMA when that person has no experience whatsover managing emergencies? |
| inu-liger 08.12.2005 11:33 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Website link where you got this, please.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:Witness A at Saddam's Trial. "He hit me and shot at the wall with a pistol. I thought it was real, but it turned out to be just a sound. I was forced to take off my clothes, and he raised my legs up and tied up my hands. He continued administering electric shocks and whipping me and telling me to speak. They were more than one, as if I were their banquet, maybe more than five people, all of them are officers. Is that what happens to the virtuous woman that Saddam speaks about? .... [snip] They brought the men in before our eyes, before our children's eyes and told them to run in place. Those who disobeyed were whipped with the lash. One of my relatives who is mute and deaf, they brought him in front of the women and stripped him naked ... then they pulled him by the penis and said, "What kind of creature is this?" The women were crying. ... The young people were taken to the bathrooms and given five minutes. Even if they have diarrhea or stomach cramps, anyone who doesn't get out in five minutes got 100 lashes. ... This woman was giving birth, and the baby got stuck between her legs. Another woman tried to help, but the guards told her it was none of her business. The baby suffocated between her legs." That's your pretty boy Saddam and his insurgent fuck-buddies for you. That shit would still be going down if we weren't there.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Which girl was that? :PBarry © wrote: My son is in the army and I don't like it one bit. The one reason why I never joined was because I would never be cannon fodder for some arsehole politician. We have a 74 year old peace activist from britain who may or may not have his head because of politicians making wrong decisions. Another thing, Why is Saddam's trial on delayed video? Are they frightened of what he knows?The peace activist may or may not have his head because the terrorists are disgusting evil bastards, not because of politicians making "wrong decisions"! Rather, a 16 year old girl was tortured by Saddam's men because no one had the guts to knock him out beforehand! |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 08.12.2005 12:43 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:linkFreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Website link where you got this, please.Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote:Witness A at Saddam's Trial. "He hit me and shot at the wall with a pistol. I thought it was real, but it turned out to be just a sound. I was forced to take off my clothes, and he raised my legs up and tied up my hands. He continued administering electric shocks and whipping me and telling me to speak. They were more than one, as if I were their banquet, maybe more than five people, all of them are officers. Is that what happens to the virtuous woman that Saddam speaks about? .... [snip] They brought the men in before our eyes, before our children's eyes and told them to run in place. Those who disobeyed were whipped with the lash. One of my relatives who is mute and deaf, they brought him in front of the women and stripped him naked ... then they pulled him by the penis and said, "What kind of creature is this?" The women were crying. ... The young people were taken to the bathrooms and given five minutes. Even if they have diarrhea or stomach cramps, anyone who doesn't get out in five minutes got 100 lashes. ... This woman was giving birth, and the baby got stuck between her legs. Another woman tried to help, but the guards told her it was none of her business. The baby suffocated between her legs." That's your pretty boy Saddam and his insurgent fuck-buddies for you. That shit would still be going down if we weren't there.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Which girl was that? :PBarry © wrote: My son is in the army and I don't like it one bit. The one reason why I never joined was because I would never be cannon fodder for some arsehole politician. We have a 74 year old peace activist from britain who may or may not have his head because of politicians making wrong decisions. Another thing, Why is Saddam's trial on delayed video? Are they frightened of what he knows?The peace activist may or may not have his head because the terrorists are disgusting evil bastards, not because of politicians making "wrong decisions"! Rather, a 16 year old girl was tortured by Saddam's men because no one had the guts to knock him out beforehand! |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 08.12.2005 12:45 |
Barry © wrote: FGT, most of the terrorists in the Iraq war zone are Syrians coming over the boarder. Bush opened up a can of worms over there. Saddam has committed crimes that is not in doubt, but does that give Bush the right to act as world police?So, what SHOULD have been done about Saddam's atrocities? Or would you have just sat back and twiddled your thumbs? I think I am wasting time here because if Bush bombed a group of nuns you would still agree with what he does. This could also be written about that arse kisser Blair in number 10, he is just as bad for following like a sheep. Tony Blair by getting involved in this war has opened up the United Kingdom to Islamic terrorism.Rather, Blair has balls, unlike the rest of Europe. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 08.12.2005 12:45 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:And we have done WHAT to the people who abused prisoners at Abu Gharib? PROSECUTED THEM!FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:I also blocked out of hearing of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.Mr.Jingles wrote:I suppose I blocked out the memories of being electroshocked by Bush.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:What a coincidence. So does the Bush administration.Barry © wrote: My son is in the army and I don't like it one bit. The one reason why I never joined was because I would never be cannon fodder for some arsehole politician. We have a 74 year old peace activist from britain who may or may not have his head because of politicians making wrong decisions. Another thing, Why is Saddam's trial on delayed video? Are they frightened of what he knows?The peace activist may or may not have his head because the terrorists are disgusting evil bastards, not because of politicians making "wrong decisions"! Rather, a 16 year old girl was tortured by Saddam's men because no one had the guts to knock him out beforehand! As for "what Saddam knows" - Saddam knows how to intimidate, torture, and ramble. That is all he knows. |
| The Real Wizard 08.12.2005 13:07 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: I didn't have to. I know Bush says stupid things from time to time, but he was elected PRESIDENT, not Secretary of Proper Use of English.Um... I think the President of the USA should know how to speak. That, and perhaps he should have a degree in political science, or at least, some kind of post-secondary education. But by now we should all know that Bush does what he's told to do, and says what he's told to say. The only time he needs to speak for himself is at presidential debates before an election. And we all know how he performed at those last year... FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: And it would be better for only innocent Iraqis to be slaughtered by Saddam? Are Iraqi citizens not worth American lives?Can you not entertain the possibility that there could be another way to bring peace other than declaring war and having people die? About a year ago, a poll of Iraqi people was taken, and 80% of them agreed that the country was in a worse state with the US there than when Saddam was in power. So tell me, why should your words have more merit than theirs? |
| Mr.Jingles 08.12.2005 13:31 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:...and why did we prosecute them? Because Lyndee England and her buddies thought that whatever happens in Abu Ghraib, stays in Abu Ghraib. Including their collection of precious Kodak moments.Mr.Jingles wrote:And we have done WHAT to the people who abused prisoners at Abu Gharib? PROSECUTED THEM!FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:I also blocked out of hearing of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.Mr.Jingles wrote:I suppose I blocked out the memories of being electroshocked by Bush.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:What a coincidence. So does the Bush administration.Barry © wrote: My son is in the army and I don't like it one bit. The one reason why I never joined was because I would never be cannon fodder for some arsehole politician. We have a 74 year old peace activist from britain who may or may not have his head because of politicians making wrong decisions. Another thing, Why is Saddam's trial on delayed video? Are they frightened of what he knows?The peace activist may or may not have his head because the terrorists are disgusting evil bastards, not because of politicians making "wrong decisions"! Rather, a 16 year old girl was tortured by Saddam's men because no one had the guts to knock him out beforehand! As for "what Saddam knows" - Saddam knows how to intimidate, torture, and ramble. That is all he knows. Rumsfeld did everything he could to keep the incident hidden from the public light, but when the pictures showed up on '60 Minutes', it was too late. There's no doubt that Rumsfeld should be removed from office for trying to cover up the whole incident, but as we all known one dirty hand has to clean the other. We all know that far worse shit happens at Guantanamo, and the reason why Abu Ghraib became a major scandal is because there were pictures to actually prove it. |
