Christians in Iraq

bump

 

Jim,

He was there. You were not. I think he knows more about what is going on than you do. Just my opinion.

Joseph Botwinick

 

There is clear evidence that they were in pursuit of it. They led everyone to believe that they were close to it, in violations of the UN resolutions. If they weren't close, Saddam is a very stupid man. He bluffed and now is paying for it. He could have stopped this by coming clean. He gambled that the will of the international community would be like yours ... unwilling to stand for life and freedom when it is somewhere else. He found out the hard way that some people mean what they say.

 

Thanks, Joseph.

 

You're most welcome, LE. When we can agree, I do like to focus on the positive when I can.

Joseph Botwinick

 

There is clear evidence that they were in pursuit of it. They led everyone to believe that they were close to it, in violations of the UN resolutions. If they weren't close, Saddam is a very stupid man. He bluffed and now is paying for it. He could have stopped this by coming clean. He gambled that the will of the international community would be like yours ... unwilling to stand for life and freedom when it is somewhere else. He found out the hard way that some people mean what they say. </font>[/QUOTE]Pastor,

How many other countries now are in pursuit of Nukes? Are we going to invade them? So what they are in pursuit of weapons, if you ask me most nation that have them used them as leverage. Name one coutry that has used a nuke like bomb on it's people or another nation.

Everyone continues to try to justify this war, now I for one do not like war even if it is justified, &lt;snipped&gt;, what Black people went through in this country and did not bear arms against it, I think other nations can go through it as well and find a peaceful way to do it. But Saddam had nothing to do with 911, and we did not know that he did then, so the big excuse was that Saddam could launch at us withing 48 hours, and the facts were known to the world and not just the military world, that Saddam had no rockets that could reach the USA! Saddam came clean and Hans blitz said that he was clean and was not a threat and had no weapons on mass destrutions, but Bush and His admins, and those who follow him, dragged Blitz and his team over hot coals, and deceitfully so! So don't blame Saddam, but they blame where it belongs, on your lying President and his lying Administration!

WHERE IS OSAMA??????????????????????????????????

Ron

[ December 22, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Do you know ?

 

Do you know ? </font>[/QUOTE]Nope! But I know where he was when YOUR president said that "he was not concerned about OSAMA", after he (OSAMA) admitted to 911: he was in AFGHANISTAN, man!

Get real!

Ron

 

Several, and some already have them.

Probably not ... at least until they are in violation of 17 UN resolutions over 12 years.

None of us like War.

Completely inappropriate to use profanity on this board. This is at least the second time you have done it. You are out of line and need to apologize and change your habits.

No one says that he did. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN resolutions over 12 years.

No, he didn't. He presented a flawed weapons report to the UN.

No, his name is Blix and he said that he didn't know for sure, but that it was possible he had them. You are late to this discussion. I have provided quotes from Blix and Kay both who said that they believed Saddam was in violation, just as Bush did.

Somewhere in Pakistan probably. There are many people looking for him. He has been rendered ineffective by the military power at work. He will eventually be caught, but for now, he can't really do anything. The search continues for him, and in the meantime millions of people have been freed from a tyrannical dictator who murdered innocent people. Why is that not good? Do you really want another Hitler? Do you really want another Rwanda or Sudan? That is what was going on under Saddam in Iraq to the tunes of hundreds of thousands of people murdered by him.

And BTW, Bush is your president too.

 

I guess even the destruction of a 2000-year-old Christian community in Iraq can be a "positive" thing, if Bush does it.

Besides, Joseph suggests, there must have been something wrong with them. Maybe they deserve what Bush did to them.

Larry suggests that if the terrorists kill them, they will be in heaven with God, and that is a good result, too.

So Bush actually did them a favor. For some reason the Iraqi Christians don't see it that way.

I suspect that Larry, if it was to happen to him and his church, might share their opinion.

 

Galatian,

Do you think there might have been something wrong with this Church if they weren't causing any problems under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein? As a matter of fact, one of Saddam's top officials was a member of the Church. As much as you would like to paint them as the poor, persecuted martyred church under the rule of the evil Bush Administration, I am just putting forward the possibility that they weren't as innocent and admirable as you seem to think they were. Are you open to that possibility?

Joseph Botwinick

 

What kind of problems do you think they should have caused? Saddam slaughtered hundered of Islamic extremists for opposing him.

You think that one Christian going bad means that all Christians are bad and should be destroyed?

Bush isn't evil. He's venial. Caring what happens to these people is just too much trouble. Do you not consider Christians being murdered for their faith to be martyrs? Why not?

I figure they are like Christians everywhere. Sinners like everyone else. Unfortunately, they happen to be in the way now, and GOP political correctness demands that they must somehow deserve the killings, bombings, murders and oppression. You're a much better republican than anything else, Joseph.

If you're suggesting that they deserve what they are getting, I'd say I was appalled by your indifference to fellow Christians.

 

I think I would be questioning whether they really are Christians or not. So I guess you are just going to have to be appalled.

As to your question about what kind of trouble they should have caused, it seems to me that if they were preaching the Gospel of Christ and advocating human rights in Iraq, that this message would have been in direct opposition to Saddam's tyranny. Christians all over the world are persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by tyrannical governments for merely preaching the Gospel and advocating for human rights, and yet this Church is left alone by Saddam? Something doesn't seem right to me.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Great. You and Lady Eagle will both get checks for a million dollars for Christmas this year.

That's positive, even though it's probablhy not true. </font>[/QUOTE]Rats! And I was hoping to get the MOY prize money, LOL.

 

It's a conspiracy, I tell you.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Ah, the all-purpose escape. "Well, they aren't really Christians, so it's O.K. if Muslims kill them, kidnap their children, and bomb their churches."

You're really republican, Joseph, I'll give you that.

They do preach the Gospel of Christ, but that didn't seem to bother Saddam. However, if they had agitated for human rights, they would have been quickly removed to his prisons and torture rooms.

He didn't seem to think Christianity per se was. As you learned earlier, unless someone caused him trouble with keeping power, he didn't seem to care about religion at all. Baathism is officially secular; the ideology doesn't concern itself with religion, except where it becomes a rival for power.

That's the way Baathism works. You don't see religious persecutions unless the religion is perceived as a political threat. There are Christians who are free to worship in Syria, too.

And the Maronite Christians in Lebanon are actually safer now that Assad runs things instead of the Muslim gangs.

Not because any of these people are nice or democratic. They just don't care about religion.