OT John Murtha Democrat from Pennsylvania

"Larry L snip

Afganistan was justified, imho, and it's mission should have actually been
finished. But when the ratings started to dwindle because the mission
wasn't going well ( where is Bin Laden, btw ? ) we were all told "time for
a new war." Out came the flags and the bibles and soon the gullible
and the fearful were goosestepping off to the mid-term elections to give
Bush the support he needed to start ruining many things in this country
and around the world.
snip

I had a lot of problems with Afghanistan. Technically, it was unnecessary.
As a Moslem, when Osama went to Afghan and asked to come in, he was a guest
of Afghan. Not to put too fine a point on it, but when a Moslem accepts you
or invites you as his guest he is more or less obligated, you are under his
protection.

As I recall, all along the Taliban said, "No, we can't give him up, he is
our guest. Can you give us any proof?" Of course we would not divulge 'our
sources.'
Had we given proof, the Taliban would have been more or less obligated to
give Osama up. The Taliban knew definitely that we would blow the hell out
of them. We wanted to, regardless, so we used their religion against them ,
religious discrimination. Which is patently obvious to any Mid Eastern
dweller.


I just can't figure out why 'they' hate us.

john

"asadi" wrote in news:Jurff.698
:

We wanted to, regardless, so we used their religion against them ,
religious discrimination. Which is patently obvious to any Mid Eastern
dweller.



I don't know. A religion that can call for the death of a man who rights a
fictional book that expresses ideas it doesn't like can surely call for the
death of a man who kills thousands of innocents. One would think that
would void all protective agreements.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

* John P. Murtha: US Marines, 1952-55, 1966-67.

Ken, his web site says he retired from the USMC Reserves in 1990, as a
colonel. Doesn't specify whether a bird or a "telephone colonel."

vince

A religion that can call for the death of a man who rights a
fictional book that expresses ideas it doesn't like...

Was it the "religion" that did the calling, or an extremist who
happened to profess that religion?

Recall what Pat Roberson called for just a couple of weeks ago?
What that Christianity talking, or Loony Pat?

vince

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
A religion that can call for the death of a man who rights a
fictional book that expresses ideas it doesn't like...

Was it the "religion" that did the calling, or an extremist who
happened to profess that religion?

Recall what Pat Roberson called for just a couple of weeks ago?
What that Christianity talking, or Loony Pat?


Quite right to point out the distinction between any institution and some of
its more extreme adherents......or professed adherents, anyway.....but it's
also a good idea to remember that institutional philosophies change over
time. It wasn't so very long ago that the mainstream of both Christianity
and Islam, at least in some of their strongholds, were responsible for
carnage on a vast scale, both at home and abroad. And it's no mere accident
that their canonical writings are littered with martial themes. If the bulk
of Christians and Muslims today are peaceable (arguable, but by no means a
foregone conclusion) it's tough to see in what is done in their name, or in
words and actions of their spiritual leaders.......or in their own, for that
matter.

Wolfgang
who knows at least that he will never be butchered by an atheist acting on
orders from the highest authority.

It wasn't so very long ago that the mainstream of both Christianity
and Islam, at least in some of their strongholds, were responsible for
carnage on a vast scale, both at home and abroad.

Aww, Wolfgang, you've been watching that TV series on teh Crusades,
haven't you!

Wolfgang
who knows at least that he will never be butchered by an atheist acting on
orders from the highest authority.

No, but "It wasn't so very long ago that" an atheist ordered the
killing of millions of innocent people.

vince

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
It wasn't so very long ago that the mainstream of both Christianity
and Islam, at least in some of their strongholds, were responsible for
carnage on a vast scale, both at home and abroad.

Aww, Wolfgang, you've been watching that TV series on teh Crusades,
haven't you!

Nope. But it sounds interesting. What show is that?

Wolfgang
who knows at least that he will never be butchered by an atheist acting on
orders from the highest authority.

No, but "It wasn't so very long ago that" an atheist ordered the
killing of millions of innocent people.

There have been several candidates in recent history......I won't try to
guess which one you're alluding to. Nor will I try to guess what the score
is at the moment. One thing is certain, though......if we include the FIRST
atheists in the tally, it's no contest.

Wolfgang
who knows that the principle difference between history and current events
is a simple matter of orthography.

What were the dates of the survey you are referencing? Were all the "ghost"
members and "colonels"on the payroll of the Mississippi and Texas Guard
included in your survey(s)? I think there is a propensity of active duty,
especially officer corp to vote "R." But in my experience it is very rare
for combat vets and enlisted, except airforce, to be oriented to the
republican persuasion, and I have never met a visibly disabled vet, or a
homeless vet who echoed any of the views you so often express. And the only
Congressional Medal of Honor, and 3 of the 4 people I have known who won the
Silver Star were/are all Democrats. Of the active duty people on either
side of my family, not one is a Warhawk; all are thoughtful people,
patriotic, and absent the bull**** rhetoric your flock of chicken hawks are
so fond of retailing.

Dave

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:48:26 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Well, here we go again. The Republicans will crank up their
usual smear campaign now that John Murtha has embarrassed
Cheney and Shrub from the floor of the U.S. House.

So here's a little reminder.

Democrats:

* John P. Murtha: US Marines, 1952-55, 1966-67.
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Go Army 1969-1972.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII.

Republicans

* Dick Cheney: did not serve.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: Navy, 1954-57.
* George W. Bush: National Guard.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Navy, 1958-81.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.


Hope this helps.

While exact figures are impossible to obtain (it's illegal), the most
tend to agree that the military votes about 2 to 1 Republican and some
have opined using what little data is available that it was more
lop-sided for Bush, v. Gore and perhaps more telling, more lop-sided
still for Bush, v. Kerry.

Aww, Wolfgang, you've been watching that TV series on teh Crusades,
haven't you!

Nope. But it sounds interesting. What show is that?

It was on the History Channel last week. Perhaps it hasn't reached the
Great Heartland yet. Check your teevee schedule if you're interested.

"It wasn't so very long ago that" an atheist ordered the
killing of millions of innocent people.

There have been several candidates in recent history......I won't try to
guess which one you're alluding to.

Visarionovich Djugasvili, if I remember the spelling. AKA Joe Stalin.

His score has been guesstimated at ten million (give or take a few
hundred thousand).

Not sure whether Alois Schickelgruber was an athiest.

One thing is certain, though......if we include the FIRST
atheists in the tally, it's no contest.

My impression, based on my limited reading of anthropology and
history, is that human beans, going back at least as far as the
neolithic revolution, have believed in gods, goddesses, spirits,
monotheism, or whatever; so it follows that in all probability, most
of the kiling has been done by those who "believe."

How much has been done *because* they believe, I have no idea.

vince

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Aww, Wolfgang, you've been watching that TV series on teh Crusades,
haven't you!

Nope. But it sounds interesting. What show is that?

It was on the History Channel last week. Perhaps it hasn't reached the
Great Heartland yet. Check your teevee schedule if you're interested.

Thanks.

"It wasn't so very long ago that" an atheist ordered the
killing of millions of innocent people.

There have been several candidates in recent history......I won't try to
guess which one you're alluding to.

Visarionovich Djugasvili, if I remember the spelling. AKA Joe Stalin.

His score has been guesstimated at ten million (give or take a few
hundred thousand).

Not sure whether Alois Schickelgruber was an athiest.

Well, I believe most people today would agree that Uncle Joe and Adolph (not
Alois, I think, despite the lingering controversy over paternity) were both
sociopaths and/or psychopaths on a scale that would dwarf the effects of any
spiritual leanings they may have had. Nevertheless, I can hardly deny that
their scores count......but the question of which side they count FOR
remains unsettled.....as we shall soon see.

One thing is certain, though......if we include the FIRST
atheists in the tally, it's no contest.

My impression, based on my limited reading of anthropology and
history, is that human beans, going back at least as far as the
neolithic revolution, have believed in gods, goddesses, spirits,
monotheism, or whatever; so it follows that in all probability, most
of the kiling has been done by those who "believe."

Exactly, and so the critical issue in scorekeeping turns out to be a matter
of who believes just what:

"The offense that the Christians committed against Roman Law and tradition
was not called or punished as heresy--the whole vocabulary of true belief
was alien to paganism. Rather, the Christians were suspected of subversion
and treason, and they were accused of acts against public order and civic
virtue. A Christian could escape arrest and punishment by turning over his
Bible and offering a sacrifice to the gods, thus demonstrating his loyalty
and good citizenship. Still, the most pious pagans were outraged by the
theological rationale of Christianity, and they roused themselves to a
certain rigorism of their own in defense of the Pax Deorum. Like true
believers in monotheism, the persecutors of the Christians coined a new word
to describe those who denied the very existence of the old gods and
goddesses--the Christians were condemned as 'atheists'."*

Thus, Christians are no longer widely recognized as atheists today only
through a simple accident of history......there just aren't many old school
rigorous Roman polytheists around these days. But one man's deist is still
another's devil spawn. Clearly, we are surrounded by atheists, infidels,
heretics, pagans, and apostates of many stripes. The one thing they all
have in common is that each sect is the sole repository of true believers
while all the others are damned.

The upshot is that ALL mass murders have been committed.....and continue to
be committed.....by atheists, a conclusion with which I cannot disagree, and
that by far the vast majority of them have been....and continue to
be....godly and sanctified, a tradition that appears to be as entrenched and
immutable as it is disgusting.

How much has been done *because* they believe, I have no idea.

All of it.

Wolfgang
*from "God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and
Polytheism", Jonathon Kirsch, Viking Compass, 2004, p. 109.