There are some people posting here who think they are the fountain of wisdom.
Those are the ones who twist words and intentions and try to sell their own visions and agenda on what they want to be said, but which isn’t be said by a poster.
I don’t go into such silly replies. But I’m sorry to disappoint you, Christians weren’t “persecuted” in Iraq and by the way. More then 97% of the citizens are Muslim.
And Monty, you are a funny person. I see that I’m going to be much amused by you.
And tracer: ever touched a splinter bomb? Why don’t you go try it.
Saddam’s Iraq and Turkey are the two secularist states in the Muslim world. The governments there don’t believe in favoring any religion, even that of the Muslim Shia or Sunni majority and minority. Sad to say, with Saddam gone, secularism also went with him. I am not a Saddam 's fan – pro Iraq war advocates are always ready to pounce on anyone with so much as a shadow of a doubt of pro Saddam bias.
Super, please do some good background reading on Saddam’s Iraq and also on Turkey.
It might be that I am the greater fool here for being misinformed, though.
Tracer, I forgot to ask: how do you name an Iraqi child that is still in its mother’s womb when the mother is killed. A piece of monkey trash?
Aldebaran
Aldebaran, I’m appalled as you are at the idea of evangelical Christians going into Iraq and under the guise of humanitarian aide spreading their faith. I’ve been on the receiving ends of such actions in this country and am tired of it.
But your confrontational style, ad homien attacks and lack of substance in your replies is not debating, it’s ranting.
If you want to debate, that’s fine, but please stick to the facts when doing so. So far, all you’ve done is provide rumor and innuendo.
It is my understanding that apostasy from Islam is a crime punishable by death in some of the really conservative Muslim nations. If you’re born into another religion, you’re free to practice it. Somebody will correct me if I’m wrong.
Meanwhile, I think I’ll head over to Neurotik’s Pit thread about the OP. Should be a good time.
Well you can see it like that, yet it is not.
I bring fact. If you like me to wave more sentences around them, well that is a hopeless quest.
Ah yes, I’m confrontational and occasionally provocative too. Why not? You can’t have any debate if people all agree, or can you?
This doesn’t mean that one can’t debate polite and if necessary at the end agree on disagreement, no?
By the way: where do you see me placing “ad hominem attacks”. I’ve been on the receiving end… I have the impression you discover ad hominem attacks where you dream them and overlook them where they are.
Apostasy is in Al Qur’an nowhere mentioned as leading to death penalty. You musn’t mix up the teachings of that religion with particular, sectarian inspired practices who place certain unreliable hadith before the first source of Islam.
I call such people Hadith worshippers. They are out of touch with the core of the religion. They are a scandal for the whole Muslim world.
Aldebaran.
My understanding was that of cuauhtemoc. Is the constitution under Saddam on the Internet anywhere? That could easily clear it up. At any rate, even if conversion was freely allowed in Saddam’s Iraq, operating under the assumption that it was not allowed it would make sense for Christian evangelics to be happy. I submit this as a possibliity only, and not as fact.
tracer, well you name it “kiling pregnant women”, and I name it “killing unborn babies”.
Does that make a difference about the death of the child? Maybe in your opinion it sounds less life that is lost or something? Yet: a child is a child and a baby is a baby.
Super Gnat,
Why should Christians “be happy” to invade Iraq with their Bibles? They wont even be welcomed by the Christians there and of course they are also out on “converting” those to their brand of the Christian religion.
Do you think the Iraqis will be happy? It is their country, you know. They don’t invite those Bible Wavers. They just have the incredible rudiness and arrogance to invade and impose themselves univited and unwanted.
Reeder, both of Graham’s article describe GIs shooting at people in the midst of combat. There is no mention of any “butchering” “women, children, men, babies, unborn babies.”
I will not be surprised to discover that there were instances of serious errors in judgment and even battle rage. (I will also suspend judgment that the events that Graham described happened as he described them until I see some confirmation from other sources.) However, the claim, for which Aldebaran has provided no evidence, is that the soldiers were wantonly butchering civilians. Nothing in Graham’s report supports that claim.
Volumes have been written on the subject of When Life Begins. Suffice it to say that it is not a definitively decided issue. Hence, it is preferred that when one is discussing civilian casualties, one refers to “killing pregnant women” instead of “killing unborn babies” so the whole thing doesn’t degenerate into yet another abortion debate.
Well you must have missed among others the article where an interviewed US soldier replied on the question why on earth he killed a woman:
" I don’t know…That chick got in my way."
Oh wait… I think that was at the BBC website. With name and rank of that soldier.
And so sorry I don’t come up immediately with things you ask for. You’ll get them when I remember or find where I stored them, ok?
We are not talking about “abortion”. We are talking about children who were babies in their mother’s womb. You know, that secret place where little babies grow, protected from the dangers of the outside world?
And a baby that has been there six months and is born has survival chances. So are you going to divide between “non viable yet wanted and expected to devellop to fulgrown baby” expecting women and “viable babies expecting women”. Or how do you plan to do it?