Bible Discussion: Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein

Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein
Posts: 33

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Peter Terry
2004-08-05 17:02:27 EST



http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0401/S00002.htm


Bush, the love child of Americas Christian right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein
By Dr. Bob Fitrakis

Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press , a political science
professor, and author of numerous articles and books.

As the new year unfolds, one unmistakable fact remains unreported in America
's submissive mainstream media: our President George W. Bush is a war
criminal. Any attempt to state this obvious fact is ignored and any
Democratic Presidential hopeful who suggests we repudiate the new Bush
doctrine of American imperialism and instead, work for world peace, is
dismissed as a "vanity" candidate and told to drop out of the race.

The case against President Bush is overwhelming. The nonprofit American
Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars, has laid out
the case against the President in article after article in a dispassionate
fashion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States by the
Al Qaeda terrorist organization, both the United States and Britain
attempted to comply with international law. When Operation Enduring Freedom,
the massive military assault on Afghanistan, began on October 7, 2001, both
countries adhered to the United Nations Charter Article 51 by notifying the
Security Council that they were attacking Afghanistan under the doctrine of
individual and collective self-defense. Most international law scholars
accepted the United States' right to self-defense against terrorist bases in
Afghanistan.

>From legitimate self-defense, the Bush administration suddenly resurrected
the discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive war" with Bush and his
collaborators arguing that in the battle of "good" versus "evil" the United
States had the right to attack any country that might pose a future threat
to our nation.

The Bush administration is using the recent capture of Saddam Hussein for
propaganda purposes to justify its illegal and criminal war against Iraq.
Some newspapers have gone so far to question the practicality of the "Bush
doctrine" without pointing out its illegal and criminal nature. For example,
Matthew Hay Brown of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in a news analysis piece the
day Saddam was captured, that: "By striking at a country that was not
threatening to attack the United States and without hard evidence of weapons
of mass destruction or links to al-Qaeda officials hope to show the length
to which the United States would go to protect itself."

The Columbus Dispatch ran Brown's analysis on its front page. Still there
was no mention of the universal repudiation of the Bush doctrine.

Let's start with the obvious. Any law scholar will tell you that pre-emptive
self-defense is unlawful under international law - from Article VI of the
Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter. In fact, the United States was the
guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the establishment of the
United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the Nazis defeated
and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on the U.S.,
prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section 4. Only the
Security Council has the authority to take measures against "threats to the
peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression."

The only exception to this is the right of individual and collective
self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51. The key, of
course, is that you has to be attacked or that an enemy must be in the
process of attacking you. Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here's
a list of "rogue nations" who may at some undefined time in the near future
pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass destruction,
which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have. Nor is there
anything under international law that says simply developing a weapons
program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true, every
country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the country with
the greatest number of WMD's, at any time.

A few voices in the Democratic Presidential primary have attempted to raise
substantial issues concerning U.S. foreign policy but the mainstream media
is obsessed with its "politics as horse race" mentality focusing mostly on
who is in the lead. So, while the talking heads analyze the post-Saddam
capture "Bush bounce" and predict that no President with a favorable rating
over 60% going into a presidential election year has ever lost, they miss
the point that if they actually reported that world consensus holds their
president to be a war criminal, then maybe his rating wouldn't be so high.

Perhaps the most egregious example of a journalist trying to silence debate
on the Bush doctrine was ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel who suggested that
peace candidates Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun and Rev. Al
Sharpton should drop out of the debate. When Kucinich directly challenged
Koppel suggesting that it wasn't the media's role to define who should be in
or out of a presidential race prior to the people casting votes, ABC
retaliated by pulling the fulltime reporter covering the Kucinich campaign.

Recently the Pope reminded the world that the war against Iraq is illegal.
Perhaps ABC could take the fulltime reporter they pulled from Kucinich and
put him on fulltime research on the illegality of the Bush doctrine and its
eerie parallels to Nazi Germany and its attack on Poland.

And they might want to look into the story Popular Mechanics broke in its
December 2003 issue showing a satellite photo of a pipeline through Kuwait
looting Iraqi oil from the Ramalah oil field.



Peter Terry
2004-08-08 08:38:44 EST

"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0808040903190001@192.168.1.104...
> In article <41134930_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0401/S00002.htm
> >
> >
> > Bush, the love child of Americas Christian right.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > -
> >
> > Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein
> > By Dr. Bob Fitrakis
> >
> > Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press , a political
science
> > professor, and author of numerous articles and books.
>
> Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto and was the author of numerous
> articles and books, what is your point?
>
> >
> > As the new year unfolds, one unmistakable fact remains unreported in
America
> > 's submissive mainstream media: our President George W. Bush is a war
> > criminal. Any attempt to state this obvious fact is ignored and any
> > Democratic Presidential hopeful who suggests we repudiate the new Bush
> > doctrine of American imperialism and instead, work for world peace, is
> > dismissed as a "vanity" candidate and told to drop out of the race.
>
> IOW, when Kerry said that going to war in Iraq was the best decision at
> the time with the information available, Bush was wrong to agree with
> Kerry?
>
>
> >
> > The case against President Bush is overwhelming. The nonprofit American
> > Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars,
>
> Scholars in what?
>
> has laid out
> > the case against the President in article after article in a
dispassionate
> > fashion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States by
the
> > Al Qaeda terrorist organization, both the United States and Britain
> > attempted to comply with international law. When Operation Enduring
Freedom,
> > the massive military assault on Afghanistan, began on October 7, 2001,
both
> > countries adhered to the United Nations Charter Article 51 by notifying
the
> > Security Council that they were attacking Afghanistan under the doctrine
of
> > individual and collective self-defense. Most international law scholars
> > accepted the United States' right to self-defense against terrorist
bases in
> > Afghanistan.
>
> How decent of them. BTW, who cares whether or not the UN supports America
> defending itself because the planes were flown into the World Trade Center
> instead of the UN building a few blocks away?
>
> >
> > From legitimate self-defense, the Bush administration suddenly
resurrected
> > the discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive war"
>
> The taking of Austria was a 'preventive war'? Are you making this stuff
up?
>
> with Bush and his
> > collaborators arguing that in the battle of "good" versus "evil" the
United
> > States had the right to attack any country that might pose a future
threat
> > to our nation.
>
> IOW, you support passive acceptance of countries that might pose a future
> threat to our nation?
>
> >
> > The Bush administration is using the recent capture of Saddam Hussein
for
> > propaganda purposes to justify its illegal and criminal war against
Iraq.
> > Some newspapers have gone so far to question the practicality of the
"Bush
> > doctrine" without pointing out its illegal and criminal nature. For
example,
> > Matthew Hay Brown of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in a news analysis piece
>
> IOW, his opinion.
>
> the
> > day Saddam was captured, that: "By striking at a country that was not
> > threatening to attack the United States and without hard evidence of
weapons
> > of mass destruction or links to al-Qaeda officials hope to show the
length
> > to which the United States would go to protect itself."
>
> Yet supported by Russion intelligence that it was preparing to attack the
> United States of America, the Clinton Adiminstration's belief that it had
> WMD, and the fact that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions
> which apparently didn't bother the UN on the dole with Saddams' kickbacks,
> this was wrong?
>
> >
> > The Columbus Dispatch ran Brown's analysis on its front page. Still
there
> > was no mention of the universal repudiation of the Bush doctrine.
>
> Perhaps because it was not universal?
>
> >
> > Let's start with the obvious. Any law scholar will tell you that
pre-emptive
> > self-defense is unlawful under international law - from Article VI of
the
> > Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter.
>
> Is the United States, a soverign nation, under the UN Charter?
>
> In fact, the United States was the
> > guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the establishment of
the
> > United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the Nazis
defeated
> > and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on the
U.S.,
> > prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section 4. Only
the
> > Security Council has the authority to take measures against "threats to
the
> > peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression."
>
> You mean like Korea (still going on) where the United States provided 95%
> of the men and materials, a far greater percentage than the US provides in
> the current Iraq coalition?
>
> >
> > The only exception to this is the right of individual and collective
> > self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51. The
key, of
> > course, is that you has to be attacked or that an enemy must be in the
> > process of attacking you.
>
> Which Russian intelligence said was in process.
>
> Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here's
> > a list of "rogue nations" who may at some undefined time in the near
future
> > pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass
destruction,
> > which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have. Nor is
there
> > anything under international law that says simply developing a weapons
> > program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true, every
> > country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the country
with
> > the greatest number of WMD's, at any time.
> >
> > A few voices in the Democratic Presidential primary have attempted to
raise
> > substantial issues concerning U.S. foreign policy but the mainstream
media
> > is obsessed with its "politics as horse race" mentality focusing mostly
on
> > who is in the lead. So, while the talking heads analyze the post-Saddam
> > capture "Bush bounce" and predict that no President with a favorable
rating
> > over 60% going into a presidential election year has ever lost, they
miss
> > the point that if they actually reported that world consensus holds
their
> > president to be a war criminal, then maybe his rating wouldn't be so
high.
>
> Americans already know that the French, high executives at the UN et al
> were benefiting from the status quo.
>
> >
> > Perhaps the most egregious example of a journalist trying to silence
debate
> > on the Bush doctrine was ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel who suggested
that
> > peace candidates Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun and Rev.
Al
> > Sharpton should drop out of the debate.
>
> IOW, Kerry is not a peace candidate?
>
> When Kucinich directly challenged
> > Koppel suggesting that it wasn't the media's role to define who should
be in
> > or out of a presidential race prior to the people casting votes, ABC
> > retaliated by pulling the fulltime reporter covering the Kucinich
campaign.
>
> who wouldn't agree with Kucinich, but what does that have to do with your
point?
>
> >
> > Recently the Pope reminded the world that the war against Iraq is
illegal.
>
> Who said that the Pope was infallable?
>
> > Perhaps ABC could take the fulltime reporter they pulled from Kucinich
and
> > put him on fulltime research on the illegality of the Bush doctrine and
its
> > eerie parallels to Nazi Germany and its attack on Poland.
>
> And what are those eerie parallells?
>
> >
> > And they might want to look into the story Popular Mechanics broke in
its
> > December 2003 issue showing a satellite photo of a pipeline through
Kuwait
> > looting Iraqi oil from the Ramalah oil field.
>
You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
peddle the extreme right Christian view which has
become the official US cheer squad for political tyrants.

It's now a question of saving Christ from the
peddlers of Christianity, who will twist the
truth to essentially justify their own emotional
violence.

After all, this has always been the case since the
advent of the Roman Church which essentially
became the reformation of paganism as pioneered
by the murderous St. Paul who victimised Jesus'
original family. And subsequently formed his
own batardised version of the teachings of
Christ.

Jesus predicted the annexation numerous times, including,
"Standing in the Holy place where it should NOT be
YOU WILL SEE the awful horror."

What has stood in the Holy position of representing
Jesus Christ in the past 2000 years, Christianity of course?

Go figure Michael.

PeterT




Michael
2004-08-08 09:03:25 EST
In article <41134930_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
<*a@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0401/S00002.htm
>
>
> Bush, the love child of Americas Christian right.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
> Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein
> By Dr. Bob Fitrakis
>
> Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press , a political science
> professor, and author of numerous articles and books.

Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto and was the author of numerous
articles and books, what is your point?

>
> As the new year unfolds, one unmistakable fact remains unreported in America
> 's submissive mainstream media: our President George W. Bush is a war
> criminal. Any attempt to state this obvious fact is ignored and any
> Democratic Presidential hopeful who suggests we repudiate the new Bush
> doctrine of American imperialism and instead, work for world peace, is
> dismissed as a "vanity" candidate and told to drop out of the race.

IOW, when Kerry said that going to war in Iraq was the best decision at
the time with the information available, Bush was wrong to agree with
Kerry?


>
> The case against President Bush is overwhelming. The nonprofit American
> Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars,

Scholars in what?

has laid out
> the case against the President in article after article in a dispassionate
> fashion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States by the
> Al Qaeda terrorist organization, both the United States and Britain
> attempted to comply with international law. When Operation Enduring Freedom,
> the massive military assault on Afghanistan, began on October 7, 2001, both
> countries adhered to the United Nations Charter Article 51 by notifying the
> Security Council that they were attacking Afghanistan under the doctrine of
> individual and collective self-defense. Most international law scholars
> accepted the United States' right to self-defense against terrorist bases in
> Afghanistan.

How decent of them. BTW, who cares whether or not the UN supports America
defending itself because the planes were flown into the World Trade Center
instead of the UN building a few blocks away?

>
> From legitimate self-defense, the Bush administration suddenly resurrected
> the discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive war"

The taking of Austria was a 'preventive war'? Are you making this stuff up?

with Bush and his
> collaborators arguing that in the battle of "good" versus "evil" the United
> States had the right to attack any country that might pose a future threat
> to our nation.

IOW, you support passive acceptance of countries that might pose a future
threat to our nation?

>
> The Bush administration is using the recent capture of Saddam Hussein for
> propaganda purposes to justify its illegal and criminal war against Iraq.
> Some newspapers have gone so far to question the practicality of the "Bush
> doctrine" without pointing out its illegal and criminal nature. For example,
> Matthew Hay Brown of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in a news analysis piece

IOW, his opinion.

the
> day Saddam was captured, that: "By striking at a country that was not
> threatening to attack the United States and without hard evidence of weapons
> of mass destruction or links to al-Qaeda officials hope to show the length
> to which the United States would go to protect itself."

Yet supported by Russion intelligence that it was preparing to attack the
United States of America, the Clinton Adiminstration's belief that it had
WMD, and the fact that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions
which apparently didn't bother the UN on the dole with Saddams' kickbacks,
this was wrong?

>
> The Columbus Dispatch ran Brown's analysis on its front page. Still there
> was no mention of the universal repudiation of the Bush doctrine.

Perhaps because it was not universal?

>
> Let's start with the obvious. Any law scholar will tell you that pre-emptive
> self-defense is unlawful under international law - from Article VI of the
> Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter.

Is the United States, a soverign nation, under the UN Charter?

In fact, the United States was the
> guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the establishment of the
> United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the Nazis defeated
> and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on the U.S.,
> prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section 4. Only the
> Security Council has the authority to take measures against "threats to the
> peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression."

You mean like Korea (still going on) where the United States provided 95%
of the men and materials, a far greater percentage than the US provides in
the current Iraq coalition?

>
> The only exception to this is the right of individual and collective
> self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51. The key, of
> course, is that you has to be attacked or that an enemy must be in the
> process of attacking you.

Which Russian intelligence said was in process.

Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here's
> a list of "rogue nations" who may at some undefined time in the near future
> pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass destruction,
> which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have. Nor is there
> anything under international law that says simply developing a weapons
> program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true, every
> country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the country with
> the greatest number of WMD's, at any time.
>
> A few voices in the Democratic Presidential primary have attempted to raise
> substantial issues concerning U.S. foreign policy but the mainstream media
> is obsessed with its "politics as horse race" mentality focusing mostly on
> who is in the lead. So, while the talking heads analyze the post-Saddam
> capture "Bush bounce" and predict that no President with a favorable rating
> over 60% going into a presidential election year has ever lost, they miss
> the point that if they actually reported that world consensus holds their
> president to be a war criminal, then maybe his rating wouldn't be so high.

Americans already know that the French, high executives at the UN et al
were benefiting from the status quo.

>
> Perhaps the most egregious example of a journalist trying to silence debate
> on the Bush doctrine was ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel who suggested that
> peace candidates Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun and Rev. Al
> Sharpton should drop out of the debate.

IOW, Kerry is not a peace candidate?

When Kucinich directly challenged
> Koppel suggesting that it wasn't the media's role to define who should be in
> or out of a presidential race prior to the people casting votes, ABC
> retaliated by pulling the fulltime reporter covering the Kucinich campaign.

who wouldn't agree with Kucinich, but what does that have to do with your point?

>
> Recently the Pope reminded the world that the war against Iraq is illegal.

Who said that the Pope was infallable?

> Perhaps ABC could take the fulltime reporter they pulled from Kucinich and
> put him on fulltime research on the illegality of the Bush doctrine and its
> eerie parallels to Nazi Germany and its attack on Poland.

And what are those eerie parallells?

>
> And they might want to look into the story Popular Mechanics broke in its
> December 2003 issue showing a satellite photo of a pipeline through Kuwait
> looting Iraqi oil from the Ramalah oil field.

Meaning?

--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.

Peter Terry
2004-08-08 21:41:44 EST

"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0908040916570001@192.168.1.104...
> In article <4116c79f_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:mikeburt-0808040903190001@192.168.1.104...
> > > In article <41134930_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> > > <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0401/S00002.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bush, the love child of Americas Christian right.
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > > -
> > > >
> > > > Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein
> > > > By Dr. Bob Fitrakis
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press , a political
> > science
> > > > professor, and author of numerous articles and books.
> > >
> > > Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto and was the author of
numerous
> > > articles and books, what is your point?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As the new year unfolds, one unmistakable fact remains unreported in
> > America
> > > > 's submissive mainstream media: our President George W. Bush is a
war
> > > > criminal. Any attempt to state this obvious fact is ignored and any
> > > > Democratic Presidential hopeful who suggests we repudiate the new
Bush
> > > > doctrine of American imperialism and instead, work for world peace,
is
> > > > dismissed as a "vanity" candidate and told to drop out of the race.
> > >
> > > IOW, when Kerry said that going to war in Iraq was the best decision
at
> > > the time with the information available, Bush was wrong to agree with
> > > Kerry?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The case against President Bush is overwhelming. The nonprofit
American
> > > > Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars,
> > >
> > > Scholars in what?
> > >
> > > has laid out
> > > > the case against the President in article after article in a
> > dispassionate
> > > > fashion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the United
States by
> > the
> > > > Al Qaeda terrorist organization, both the United States and Britain
> > > > attempted to comply with international law. When Operation Enduring
> > Freedom,
> > > > the massive military assault on Afghanistan, began on October 7,
2001,
> > both
> > > > countries adhered to the United Nations Charter Article 51 by
notifying
> > the
> > > > Security Council that they were attacking Afghanistan under the
doctrine
> > of
> > > > individual and collective self-defense. Most international law
scholars
> > > > accepted the United States' right to self-defense against terrorist
> > bases in
> > > > Afghanistan.
> > >
> > > How decent of them. BTW, who cares whether or not the UN supports
America
> > > defending itself because the planes were flown into the World Trade
Center
> > > instead of the UN building a few blocks away?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > From legitimate self-defense, the Bush administration suddenly
> > resurrected
> > > > the discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive war"
> > >
> > > The taking of Austria was a 'preventive war'? Are you making this
stuff
> > up?
> > >
> > > with Bush and his
> > > > collaborators arguing that in the battle of "good" versus "evil" the
> > United
> > > > States had the right to attack any country that might pose a future
> > threat
> > > > to our nation.
> > >
> > > IOW, you support passive acceptance of countries that might pose a
future
> > > threat to our nation?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The Bush administration is using the recent capture of Saddam
Hussein
> > for
> > > > propaganda purposes to justify its illegal and criminal war against
> > Iraq.
> > > > Some newspapers have gone so far to question the practicality of the
> > "Bush
> > > > doctrine" without pointing out its illegal and criminal nature. For
> > example,
> > > > Matthew Hay Brown of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in a news analysis
piece
> > >
> > > IOW, his opinion.
> > >
> > > the
> > > > day Saddam was captured, that: "By striking at a country that was
not
> > > > threatening to attack the United States and without hard evidence of
> > weapons
> > > > of mass destruction or links to al-Qaeda officials hope to show the
> > length
> > > > to which the United States would go to protect itself."
> > >
> > > Yet supported by Russion intelligence that it was preparing to attack
the
> > > United States of America, the Clinton Adiminstration's belief that it
had
> > > WMD, and the fact that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions
> > > which apparently didn't bother the UN on the dole with Saddams'
kickbacks,
> > > this was wrong?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The Columbus Dispatch ran Brown's analysis on its front page. Still
> > there
> > > > was no mention of the universal repudiation of the Bush doctrine.
> > >
> > > Perhaps because it was not universal?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Let's start with the obvious. Any law scholar will tell you that
> > pre-emptive
> > > > self-defense is unlawful under international law - from Article VI
of
> > the
> > > > Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter.
> > >
> > > Is the United States, a soverign nation, under the UN Charter?
> > >
> > > In fact, the United States was the
> > > > guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the establishment
of
> > the
> > > > United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the Nazis
> > defeated
> > > > and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on the
> > U.S.,
> > > > prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section 4.
Only
> > the
> > > > Security Council has the authority to take measures against "threats
to
> > the
> > > > peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression."
> > >
> > > You mean like Korea (still going on) where the United States provided
95%
> > > of the men and materials, a far greater percentage than the US
provides in
> > > the current Iraq coalition?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The only exception to this is the right of individual and collective
> > > > self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51. The
> > key, of
> > > > course, is that you has to be attacked or that an enemy must be in
the
> > > > process of attacking you.
> > >
> > > Which Russian intelligence said was in process.
> > >
> > > Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here's
> > > > a list of "rogue nations" who may at some undefined time in the near
> > future
> > > > pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass
> > destruction,
> > > > which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have. Nor is
> > there
> > > > anything under international law that says simply developing a
weapons
> > > > program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true,
every
> > > > country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the
country
> > with
> > > > the greatest number of WMD's, at any time.
> > > >
> > > > A few voices in the Democratic Presidential primary have attempted
to
> > raise
> > > > substantial issues concerning U.S. foreign policy but the mainstream
> > media
> > > > is obsessed with its "politics as horse race" mentality focusing
mostly
> > on
> > > > who is in the lead. So, while the talking heads analyze the
post-Saddam
> > > > capture "Bush bounce" and predict that no President with a favorable
> > rating
> > > > over 60% going into a presidential election year has ever lost, they
> > miss
> > > > the point that if they actually reported that world consensus holds
> > their
> > > > president to be a war criminal, then maybe his rating wouldn't be so
> > high.
> > >
> > > Americans already know that the French, high executives at the UN et
al
> > > were benefiting from the status quo.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the most egregious example of a journalist trying to silence
> > debate
> > > > on the Bush doctrine was ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel who
suggested
> > that
> > > > peace candidates Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun and
Rev.
> > Al
> > > > Sharpton should drop out of the debate.
> > >
> > > IOW, Kerry is not a peace candidate?
> > >
> > > When Kucinich directly challenged
> > > > Koppel suggesting that it wasn't the media's role to define who
should
> > be in
> > > > or out of a presidential race prior to the people casting votes, ABC
> > > > retaliated by pulling the fulltime reporter covering the Kucinich
> > campaign.
> > >
> > > who wouldn't agree with Kucinich, but what does that have to do with
your
> > point?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Recently the Pope reminded the world that the war against Iraq is
> > illegal.
> > >
> > > Who said that the Pope was infallable?
> > >
> > > > Perhaps ABC could take the fulltime reporter they pulled from
Kucinich
> > and
> > > > put him on fulltime research on the illegality of the Bush doctrine
and
> > its
> > > > eerie parallels to Nazi Germany and its attack on Poland.
> > >
> > > And what are those eerie parallells?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And they might want to look into the story Popular Mechanics broke
in
> > its
> > > > December 2003 issue showing a satellite photo of a pipeline through
> > Kuwait
> > > > looting Iraqi oil from the Ramalah oil field.
> > >
> > You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
> > peddle the extreme right Christian view which has
> > become the official US cheer squad for political tyrants.
>
>
> You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
> peddle the extreme left Christopbobe view which has
> become the official politically correct cheer squad for political tyrants.
>
>
> >
> > It's now a question of saving Christ from the
> > peddlers of Christianity, who will twist the
> > truth to essentially justify their own emotional
> > violence.
> >
>
> It's now a question of saving America from the
> peddlers of Christobhobia, who will twist the
> truth to essentially justify their own emotional
> violence.
>
>
> > After all, this has always been the case since the
> > advent of the Roman Church which essentially
> > became the reformation of paganism as pioneered
> > by the murderous St. Paul who victimised Jesus'
> > original family. And subsequently formed his
> > own batardised version of the teachings of
> > Christ.
>
> Spoken like a radical left religious Christophobe.
>
> >
> > Jesus predicted the annexation numerous times, including,
> > "Standing in the Holy place where it should NOT be
> > YOU WILL SEE the awful horror."
>
> Jesus predicted a falling away and the appearance of anti-Christ crying
> peace, peace first-but there will be no peace during his reign.
>
"And they will declare war on heaven"

Sounds much like the complete history of Christian
misrepresentation that your referring to here?
>
> > What has stood in the Holy position of representing
> > Jesus Christ in the past 2000 years, Christianity of course?
>
> Tee hee hee, more Christophobia?
>
So you quietly agree with me, ha?
>
> > Go figure Michael.
>
> Go figure PeterT, the Jesus Seminar loves you.
>
I can't really comment given I don't know a
terribly lot about them.

PeterT

> May God Bless You
> Michael
> GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
> We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.



Michael
2004-08-09 09:17:00 EST
In article <4116c79f_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
<*a@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-0808040903190001@192.168.1.104...
> > In article <41134930_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> > <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0401/S00002.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > Bush, the love child of Americas Christian right.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > > -
> > >
> > > Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein
> > > By Dr. Bob Fitrakis
> > >
> > > Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press , a political
> science
> > > professor, and author of numerous articles and books.
> >
> > Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto and was the author of numerous
> > articles and books, what is your point?
> >
> > >
> > > As the new year unfolds, one unmistakable fact remains unreported in
> America
> > > 's submissive mainstream media: our President George W. Bush is a war
> > > criminal. Any attempt to state this obvious fact is ignored and any
> > > Democratic Presidential hopeful who suggests we repudiate the new Bush
> > > doctrine of American imperialism and instead, work for world peace, is
> > > dismissed as a "vanity" candidate and told to drop out of the race.
> >
> > IOW, when Kerry said that going to war in Iraq was the best decision at
> > the time with the information available, Bush was wrong to agree with
> > Kerry?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The case against President Bush is overwhelming. The nonprofit American
> > > Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars,
> >
> > Scholars in what?
> >
> > has laid out
> > > the case against the President in article after article in a
> dispassionate
> > > fashion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States by
> the
> > > Al Qaeda terrorist organization, both the United States and Britain
> > > attempted to comply with international law. When Operation Enduring
> Freedom,
> > > the massive military assault on Afghanistan, began on October 7, 2001,
> both
> > > countries adhered to the United Nations Charter Article 51 by notifying
> the
> > > Security Council that they were attacking Afghanistan under the doctrine
> of
> > > individual and collective self-defense. Most international law scholars
> > > accepted the United States' right to self-defense against terrorist
> bases in
> > > Afghanistan.
> >
> > How decent of them. BTW, who cares whether or not the UN supports America
> > defending itself because the planes were flown into the World Trade Center
> > instead of the UN building a few blocks away?
> >
> > >
> > > From legitimate self-defense, the Bush administration suddenly
> resurrected
> > > the discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive war"
> >
> > The taking of Austria was a 'preventive war'? Are you making this stuff
> up?
> >
> > with Bush and his
> > > collaborators arguing that in the battle of "good" versus "evil" the
> United
> > > States had the right to attack any country that might pose a future
> threat
> > > to our nation.
> >
> > IOW, you support passive acceptance of countries that might pose a future
> > threat to our nation?
> >
> > >
> > > The Bush administration is using the recent capture of Saddam Hussein
> for
> > > propaganda purposes to justify its illegal and criminal war against
> Iraq.
> > > Some newspapers have gone so far to question the practicality of the
> "Bush
> > > doctrine" without pointing out its illegal and criminal nature. For
> example,
> > > Matthew Hay Brown of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in a news analysis piece
> >
> > IOW, his opinion.
> >
> > the
> > > day Saddam was captured, that: "By striking at a country that was not
> > > threatening to attack the United States and without hard evidence of
> weapons
> > > of mass destruction or links to al-Qaeda officials hope to show the
> length
> > > to which the United States would go to protect itself."
> >
> > Yet supported by Russion intelligence that it was preparing to attack the
> > United States of America, the Clinton Adiminstration's belief that it had
> > WMD, and the fact that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions
> > which apparently didn't bother the UN on the dole with Saddams' kickbacks,
> > this was wrong?
> >
> > >
> > > The Columbus Dispatch ran Brown's analysis on its front page. Still
> there
> > > was no mention of the universal repudiation of the Bush doctrine.
> >
> > Perhaps because it was not universal?
> >
> > >
> > > Let's start with the obvious. Any law scholar will tell you that
> pre-emptive
> > > self-defense is unlawful under international law - from Article VI of
> the
> > > Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter.
> >
> > Is the United States, a soverign nation, under the UN Charter?
> >
> > In fact, the United States was the
> > > guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the establishment of
> the
> > > United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the Nazis
> defeated
> > > and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on the
> U.S.,
> > > prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section 4. Only
> the
> > > Security Council has the authority to take measures against "threats to
> the
> > > peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression."
> >
> > You mean like Korea (still going on) where the United States provided 95%
> > of the men and materials, a far greater percentage than the US provides in
> > the current Iraq coalition?
> >
> > >
> > > The only exception to this is the right of individual and collective
> > > self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51. The
> key, of
> > > course, is that you has to be attacked or that an enemy must be in the
> > > process of attacking you.
> >
> > Which Russian intelligence said was in process.
> >
> > Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here's
> > > a list of "rogue nations" who may at some undefined time in the near
> future
> > > pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass
> destruction,
> > > which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have. Nor is
> there
> > > anything under international law that says simply developing a weapons
> > > program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true, every
> > > country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the country
> with
> > > the greatest number of WMD's, at any time.
> > >
> > > A few voices in the Democratic Presidential primary have attempted to
> raise
> > > substantial issues concerning U.S. foreign policy but the mainstream
> media
> > > is obsessed with its "politics as horse race" mentality focusing mostly
> on
> > > who is in the lead. So, while the talking heads analyze the post-Saddam
> > > capture "Bush bounce" and predict that no President with a favorable
> rating
> > > over 60% going into a presidential election year has ever lost, they
> miss
> > > the point that if they actually reported that world consensus holds
> their
> > > president to be a war criminal, then maybe his rating wouldn't be so
> high.
> >
> > Americans already know that the French, high executives at the UN et al
> > were benefiting from the status quo.
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps the most egregious example of a journalist trying to silence
> debate
> > > on the Bush doctrine was ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel who suggested
> that
> > > peace candidates Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun and Rev.
> Al
> > > Sharpton should drop out of the debate.
> >
> > IOW, Kerry is not a peace candidate?
> >
> > When Kucinich directly challenged
> > > Koppel suggesting that it wasn't the media's role to define who should
> be in
> > > or out of a presidential race prior to the people casting votes, ABC
> > > retaliated by pulling the fulltime reporter covering the Kucinich
> campaign.
> >
> > who wouldn't agree with Kucinich, but what does that have to do with your
> point?
> >
> > >
> > > Recently the Pope reminded the world that the war against Iraq is
> illegal.
> >
> > Who said that the Pope was infallable?
> >
> > > Perhaps ABC could take the fulltime reporter they pulled from Kucinich
> and
> > > put him on fulltime research on the illegality of the Bush doctrine and
> its
> > > eerie parallels to Nazi Germany and its attack on Poland.
> >
> > And what are those eerie parallells?
> >
> > >
> > > And they might want to look into the story Popular Mechanics broke in
> its
> > > December 2003 issue showing a satellite photo of a pipeline through
> Kuwait
> > > looting Iraqi oil from the Ramalah oil field.
> >
> You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
> peddle the extreme right Christian view which has
> become the official US cheer squad for political tyrants.


You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
peddle the extreme left Christopbobe view which has
become the official politically correct cheer squad for political tyrants.


>
> It's now a question of saving Christ from the
> peddlers of Christianity, who will twist the
> truth to essentially justify their own emotional
> violence.
>

It's now a question of saving America from the
peddlers of Christobhobia, who will twist the
truth to essentially justify their own emotional
violence.


> After all, this has always been the case since the
> advent of the Roman Church which essentially
> became the reformation of paganism as pioneered
> by the murderous St. Paul who victimised Jesus'
> original family. And subsequently formed his
> own batardised version of the teachings of
> Christ.

Spoken like a radical left religious Christophobe.

>
> Jesus predicted the annexation numerous times, including,
> "Standing in the Holy place where it should NOT be
> YOU WILL SEE the awful horror."

Jesus predicted a falling away and the appearance of anti-Christ crying
peace, peace first-but there will be no peace during his reign.
>
> What has stood in the Holy position of representing
> Jesus Christ in the past 2000 years, Christianity of course?

Tee hee hee, more Christophobia?

>
> Go figure Michael.

Go figure PeterT, the Jesus Seminar loves you.

--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.

Michael
2004-08-09 17:19:13 EST
In article <41177f21_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
<*a@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-0908040916570001@192.168.1.104...
> > In article <4116c79f_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> > <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:mikeburt-0808040903190001@192.168.1.104...
> > > > In article <41134930_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> > > > <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0401/S00002.htm
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bush, the love child of Americas Christian right.
> > > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > > > -
> > > > >
> > > > > Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein
> > > > > By Dr. Bob Fitrakis
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press , a political
> > > science
> > > > > professor, and author of numerous articles and books.
> > > >
> > > > Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto and was the author of
> numerous
> > > > articles and books, what is your point?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As the new year unfolds, one unmistakable fact remains unreported in
> > > America
> > > > > 's submissive mainstream media: our President George W. Bush is a
> war
> > > > > criminal. Any attempt to state this obvious fact is ignored and any
> > > > > Democratic Presidential hopeful who suggests we repudiate the new
> Bush
> > > > > doctrine of American imperialism and instead, work for world peace,
> is
> > > > > dismissed as a "vanity" candidate and told to drop out of the race.
> > > >
> > > > IOW, when Kerry said that going to war in Iraq was the best decision
> at
> > > > the time with the information available, Bush was wrong to agree with
> > > > Kerry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The case against President Bush is overwhelming. The nonprofit
> American
> > > > > Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars,
> > > >
> > > > Scholars in what?
> > > >
> > > > has laid out
> > > > > the case against the President in article after article in a
> > > dispassionate
> > > > > fashion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the United
> States by
> > > the
> > > > > Al Qaeda terrorist organization, both the United States and Britain
> > > > > attempted to comply with international law. When Operation Enduring
> > > Freedom,
> > > > > the massive military assault on Afghanistan, began on October 7,
> 2001,
> > > both
> > > > > countries adhered to the United Nations Charter Article 51 by
> notifying
> > > the
> > > > > Security Council that they were attacking Afghanistan under the
> doctrine
> > > of
> > > > > individual and collective self-defense. Most international law
> scholars
> > > > > accepted the United States' right to self-defense against terrorist
> > > bases in
> > > > > Afghanistan.
> > > >
> > > > How decent of them. BTW, who cares whether or not the UN supports
> America
> > > > defending itself because the planes were flown into the World Trade
> Center
> > > > instead of the UN building a few blocks away?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From legitimate self-defense, the Bush administration suddenly
> > > resurrected
> > > > > the discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive war"
> > > >
> > > > The taking of Austria was a 'preventive war'? Are you making this
> stuff
> > > up?
> > > >
> > > > with Bush and his
> > > > > collaborators arguing that in the battle of "good" versus "evil" the
> > > United
> > > > > States had the right to attack any country that might pose a future
> > > threat
> > > > > to our nation.
> > > >
> > > > IOW, you support passive acceptance of countries that might pose a
> future
> > > > threat to our nation?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Bush administration is using the recent capture of Saddam
> Hussein
> > > for
> > > > > propaganda purposes to justify its illegal and criminal war against
> > > Iraq.
> > > > > Some newspapers have gone so far to question the practicality of the
> > > "Bush
> > > > > doctrine" without pointing out its illegal and criminal nature. For
> > > example,
> > > > > Matthew Hay Brown of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in a news analysis
> piece
> > > >
> > > > IOW, his opinion.
> > > >
> > > > the
> > > > > day Saddam was captured, that: "By striking at a country that was
> not
> > > > > threatening to attack the United States and without hard evidence of
> > > weapons
> > > > > of mass destruction or links to al-Qaeda officials hope to show the
> > > length
> > > > > to which the United States would go to protect itself."
> > > >
> > > > Yet supported by Russion intelligence that it was preparing to attack
> the
> > > > United States of America, the Clinton Adiminstration's belief that it
> had
> > > > WMD, and the fact that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions
> > > > which apparently didn't bother the UN on the dole with Saddams'
> kickbacks,
> > > > this was wrong?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Columbus Dispatch ran Brown's analysis on its front page. Still
> > > there
> > > > > was no mention of the universal repudiation of the Bush doctrine.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps because it was not universal?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's start with the obvious. Any law scholar will tell you that
> > > pre-emptive
> > > > > self-defense is unlawful under international law - from Article VI
> of
> > > the
> > > > > Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter.
> > > >
> > > > Is the United States, a soverign nation, under the UN Charter?
> > > >
> > > > In fact, the United States was the
> > > > > guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the establishment
> of
> > > the
> > > > > United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the Nazis
> > > defeated
> > > > > and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on the
> > > U.S.,
> > > > > prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section 4.
> Only
> > > the
> > > > > Security Council has the authority to take measures against "threats
> to
> > > the
> > > > > peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression."
> > > >
> > > > You mean like Korea (still going on) where the United States provided
> 95%
> > > > of the men and materials, a far greater percentage than the US
> provides in
> > > > the current Iraq coalition?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The only exception to this is the right of individual and collective
> > > > > self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51. The
> > > key, of
> > > > > course, is that you has to be attacked or that an enemy must be in
> the
> > > > > process of attacking you.
> > > >
> > > > Which Russian intelligence said was in process.
> > > >
> > > > Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here's
> > > > > a list of "rogue nations" who may at some undefined time in the near
> > > future
> > > > > pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass
> > > destruction,
> > > > > which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have. Nor is
> > > there
> > > > > anything under international law that says simply developing a
> weapons
> > > > > program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true,
> every
> > > > > country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the
> country
> > > with
> > > > > the greatest number of WMD's, at any time.
> > > > >
> > > > > A few voices in the Democratic Presidential primary have attempted
> to
> > > raise
> > > > > substantial issues concerning U.S. foreign policy but the mainstream
> > > media
> > > > > is obsessed with its "politics as horse race" mentality focusing
> mostly
> > > on
> > > > > who is in the lead. So, while the talking heads analyze the
> post-Saddam
> > > > > capture "Bush bounce" and predict that no President with a favorable
> > > rating
> > > > > over 60% going into a presidential election year has ever lost, they
> > > miss
> > > > > the point that if they actually reported that world consensus holds
> > > their
> > > > > president to be a war criminal, then maybe his rating wouldn't be so
> > > high.
> > > >
> > > > Americans already know that the French, high executives at the UN et
> al
> > > > were benefiting from the status quo.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps the most egregious example of a journalist trying to silence
> > > debate
> > > > > on the Bush doctrine was ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel who
> suggested
> > > that
> > > > > peace candidates Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun and
> Rev.
> > > Al
> > > > > Sharpton should drop out of the debate.
> > > >
> > > > IOW, Kerry is not a peace candidate?
> > > >
> > > > When Kucinich directly challenged
> > > > > Koppel suggesting that it wasn't the media's role to define who
> should
> > > be in
> > > > > or out of a presidential race prior to the people casting votes, ABC
> > > > > retaliated by pulling the fulltime reporter covering the Kucinich
> > > campaign.
> > > >
> > > > who wouldn't agree with Kucinich, but what does that have to do with
> your
> > > point?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Recently the Pope reminded the world that the war against Iraq is
> > > illegal.
> > > >
> > > > Who said that the Pope was infallable?
> > > >
> > > > > Perhaps ABC could take the fulltime reporter they pulled from
> Kucinich
> > > and
> > > > > put him on fulltime research on the illegality of the Bush doctrine
> and
> > > its
> > > > > eerie parallels to Nazi Germany and its attack on Poland.
> > > >
> > > > And what are those eerie parallells?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And they might want to look into the story Popular Mechanics broke
> in
> > > its
> > > > > December 2003 issue showing a satellite photo of a pipeline through
> > > Kuwait
> > > > > looting Iraqi oil from the Ramalah oil field.
> > > >
> > > You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
> > > peddle the extreme right Christian view which has
> > > become the official US cheer squad for political tyrants.
> >
> >
> > You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
> > peddle the extreme left Christopbobe view which has
> > become the official politically correct cheer squad for political tyrants.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It's now a question of saving Christ from the
> > > peddlers of Christianity, who will twist the
> > > truth to essentially justify their own emotional
> > > violence.
> > >
> >
> > It's now a question of saving America from the
> > peddlers of Christobhobia, who will twist the
> > truth to essentially justify their own emotional
> > violence.
> >
> >
> > > After all, this has always been the case since the
> > > advent of the Roman Church which essentially
> > > became the reformation of paganism as pioneered
> > > by the murderous St. Paul who victimised Jesus'
> > > original family. And subsequently formed his
> > > own batardised version of the teachings of
> > > Christ.
> >
> > Spoken like a radical left religious Christophobe.
> >
> > >
> > > Jesus predicted the annexation numerous times, including,
> > > "Standing in the Holy place where it should NOT be
> > > YOU WILL SEE the awful horror."
> >
> > Jesus predicted a falling away and the appearance of anti-Christ crying
> > peace, peace first-but there will be no peace during his reign.
> >
> "And they will declare war on heaven"

No, they will reconcile heaven and earth, get it? BTW, earth will go
kicking and screaming all of the way.

>
> Sounds much like the complete history of Christian
> misrepresentation that your referring to here?

No, the complete history of Christophobe misrepresentation that you were
referencing.

> >
> > > What has stood in the Holy position of representing
> > > Jesus Christ in the past 2000 years, Christianity of course?
> >
> > Tee hee hee, more Christophobia?
> >
> So you quietly agree with me, ha?

Tee hee hee, what do you think?

> >
> > > Go figure Michael.
> >
> > Go figure PeterT, the Jesus Seminar loves you.
> >
> I can't really comment given I don't know a
> terribly lot about them.

Sounds like you could apply for an internship.

--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.

Peter Terry
2004-08-09 17:36:33 EST

"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-0908041718590001@192.168.1.104...
> In article <41177f21_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:mikeburt-0908040916570001@192.168.1.104...
> > > In article <4116c79f_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> > > <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:mikeburt-0808040903190001@192.168.1.104...
> > > > > In article <41134930_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> > > > > <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0401/S00002.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bush, the love child of Americas Christian right.
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > > > -
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein
> > > > > > By Dr. Bob Fitrakis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press , a
political
> > > > science
> > > > > > professor, and author of numerous articles and books.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto and was the author of
> > numerous
> > > > > articles and books, what is your point?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As the new year unfolds, one unmistakable fact remains
unreported in
> > > > America
> > > > > > 's submissive mainstream media: our President George W. Bush is
a
> > war
> > > > > > criminal. Any attempt to state this obvious fact is ignored and
any
> > > > > > Democratic Presidential hopeful who suggests we repudiate the
new
> > Bush
> > > > > > doctrine of American imperialism and instead, work for world
peace,
> > is
> > > > > > dismissed as a "vanity" candidate and told to drop out of the
race.
> > > > >
> > > > > IOW, when Kerry said that going to war in Iraq was the best
decision
> > at
> > > > > the time with the information available, Bush was wrong to agree
with
> > > > > Kerry?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The case against President Bush is overwhelming. The nonprofit
> > American
> > > > > > Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars,
> > > > >
> > > > > Scholars in what?
> > > > >
> > > > > has laid out
> > > > > > the case against the President in article after article in a
> > > > dispassionate
> > > > > > fashion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the United
> > States by
> > > > the
> > > > > > Al Qaeda terrorist organization, both the United States and
Britain
> > > > > > attempted to comply with international law. When Operation
Enduring
> > > > Freedom,
> > > > > > the massive military assault on Afghanistan, began on October 7,
> > 2001,
> > > > both
> > > > > > countries adhered to the United Nations Charter Article 51 by
> > notifying
> > > > the
> > > > > > Security Council that they were attacking Afghanistan under the
> > doctrine
> > > > of
> > > > > > individual and collective self-defense. Most international law
> > scholars
> > > > > > accepted the United States' right to self-defense against
terrorist
> > > > bases in
> > > > > > Afghanistan.
> > > > >
> > > > > How decent of them. BTW, who cares whether or not the UN supports
> > America
> > > > > defending itself because the planes were flown into the World
Trade
> > Center
> > > > > instead of the UN building a few blocks away?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From legitimate self-defense, the Bush administration suddenly
> > > > resurrected
> > > > > > the discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive war"
> > > > >
> > > > > The taking of Austria was a 'preventive war'? Are you making this
> > stuff
> > > > up?
> > > > >
> > > > > with Bush and his
> > > > > > collaborators arguing that in the battle of "good" versus "evil"
the
> > > > United
> > > > > > States had the right to attack any country that might pose a
future
> > > > threat
> > > > > > to our nation.
> > > > >
> > > > > IOW, you support passive acceptance of countries that might pose a
> > future
> > > > > threat to our nation?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Bush administration is using the recent capture of Saddam
> > Hussein
> > > > for
> > > > > > propaganda purposes to justify its illegal and criminal war
against
> > > > Iraq.
> > > > > > Some newspapers have gone so far to question the practicality of
the
> > > > "Bush
> > > > > > doctrine" without pointing out its illegal and criminal nature.
For
> > > > example,
> > > > > > Matthew Hay Brown of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in a news
analysis
> > piece
> > > > >
> > > > > IOW, his opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > the
> > > > > > day Saddam was captured, that: "By striking at a country that
was
> > not
> > > > > > threatening to attack the United States and without hard
evidence of
> > > > weapons
> > > > > > of mass destruction or links to al-Qaeda officials hope to show
the
> > > > length
> > > > > > to which the United States would go to protect itself."
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet supported by Russion intelligence that it was preparing to
attack
> > the
> > > > > United States of America, the Clinton Adiminstration's belief that
it
> > had
> > > > > WMD, and the fact that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN
sanctions
> > > > > which apparently didn't bother the UN on the dole with Saddams'
> > kickbacks,
> > > > > this was wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Columbus Dispatch ran Brown's analysis on its front page.
Still
> > > > there
> > > > > > was no mention of the universal repudiation of the Bush
doctrine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps because it was not universal?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's start with the obvious. Any law scholar will tell you that
> > > > pre-emptive
> > > > > > self-defense is unlawful under international law - from Article
VI
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the United States, a soverign nation, under the UN Charter?
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, the United States was the
> > > > > > guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the
establishment
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the
Nazis
> > > > defeated
> > > > > > and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on
the
> > > > U.S.,
> > > > > > prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section
4.
> > Only
> > > > the
> > > > > > Security Council has the authority to take measures against
"threats
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression."
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean like Korea (still going on) where the United States
provided
> > 95%
> > > > > of the men and materials, a far greater percentage than the US
> > provides in
> > > > > the current Iraq coalition?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only exception to this is the right of individual and
collective
> > > > > > self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51.
The
> > > > key, of
> > > > > > course, is that you has to be attacked or that an enemy must be
in
> > the
> > > > > > process of attacking you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which Russian intelligence said was in process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here's
> > > > > > a list of "rogue nations" who may at some undefined time in the
near
> > > > future
> > > > > > pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass
> > > > destruction,
> > > > > > which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have.
Nor is
> > > > there
> > > > > > anything under international law that says simply developing a
> > weapons
> > > > > > program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true,
> > every
> > > > > > country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the
> > country
> > > > with
> > > > > > the greatest number of WMD's, at any time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A few voices in the Democratic Presidential primary have
attempted
> > to
> > > > raise
> > > > > > substantial issues concerning U.S. foreign policy but the
mainstream
> > > > media
> > > > > > is obsessed with its "politics as horse race" mentality focusing
> > mostly
> > > > on
> > > > > > who is in the lead. So, while the talking heads analyze the
> > post-Saddam
> > > > > > capture "Bush bounce" and predict that no President with a
favorable
> > > > rating
> > > > > > over 60% going into a presidential election year has ever lost,
they
> > > > miss
> > > > > > the point that if they actually reported that world consensus
holds
> > > > their
> > > > > > president to be a war criminal, then maybe his rating wouldn't
be so
> > > > high.
> > > > >
> > > > > Americans already know that the French, high executives at the UN
et
> > al
> > > > > were benefiting from the status quo.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps the most egregious example of a journalist trying to
silence
> > > > debate
> > > > > > on the Bush doctrine was ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel who
> > suggested
> > > > that
> > > > > > peace candidates Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun
and
> > Rev.
> > > > Al
> > > > > > Sharpton should drop out of the debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > IOW, Kerry is not a peace candidate?
> > > > >
> > > > > When Kucinich directly challenged
> > > > > > Koppel suggesting that it wasn't the media's role to define who
> > should
> > > > be in
> > > > > > or out of a presidential race prior to the people casting votes,
ABC
> > > > > > retaliated by pulling the fulltime reporter covering the
Kucinich
> > > > campaign.
> > > > >
> > > > > who wouldn't agree with Kucinich, but what does that have to do
with
> > your
> > > > point?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Recently the Pope reminded the world that the war against Iraq
is
> > > > illegal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who said that the Pope was infallable?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps ABC could take the fulltime reporter they pulled from
> > Kucinich
> > > > and
> > > > > > put him on fulltime research on the illegality of the Bush
doctrine
> > and
> > > > its
> > > > > > eerie parallels to Nazi Germany and its attack on Poland.
> > > > >
> > > > > And what are those eerie parallells?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And they might want to look into the story Popular Mechanics
broke
> > in
> > > > its
> > > > > > December 2003 issue showing a satellite photo of a pipeline
through
> > > > Kuwait
> > > > > > looting Iraqi oil from the Ramalah oil field.
> > > > >
> > > > You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
> > > > peddle the extreme right Christian view which has
> > > > become the official US cheer squad for political tyrants.
> > >
> > >
> > > You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
> > > peddle the extreme left Christopbobe view which has
> > > become the official politically correct cheer squad for political
tyrants.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It's now a question of saving Christ from the
> > > > peddlers of Christianity, who will twist the
> > > > truth to essentially justify their own emotional
> > > > violence.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's now a question of saving America from the
> > > peddlers of Christobhobia, who will twist the
> > > truth to essentially justify their own emotional
> > > violence.
> > >
> > >
> > > > After all, this has always been the case since the
> > > > advent of the Roman Church which essentially
> > > > became the reformation of paganism as pioneered
> > > > by the murderous St. Paul who victimised Jesus'
> > > > original family. And subsequently formed his
> > > > own batardised version of the teachings of
> > > > Christ.
> > >
> > > Spoken like a radical left religious Christophobe.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jesus predicted the annexation numerous times, including,
> > > > "Standing in the Holy place where it should NOT be
> > > > YOU WILL SEE the awful horror."
> > >
> > > Jesus predicted a falling away and the appearance of anti-Christ
crying
> > > peace, peace first-but there will be no peace during his reign.
> > >
> > "And they will declare war on heaven"
>
> No, they will reconcile heaven and earth, get it? BTW, earth will go
> kicking and screaming all of the way.
>
> >
> > Sounds much like the complete history of Christian
> > misrepresentation that your referring to here?
>
> No, the complete history of Christophobe misrepresentation that you were
> referencing.
>
> > >
> > > > What has stood in the Holy position of representing
> > > > Jesus Christ in the past 2000 years, Christianity of course?
> > >
> > > Tee hee hee, more Christophobia?
> > >
> > So you quietly agree with me, ha?
>
> Tee hee hee, what do you think?
>
> > >
> > > > Go figure Michael.
> > >
> > > Go figure PeterT, the Jesus Seminar loves you.
> > >
> > I can't really comment given I don't know a
> > terribly lot about them.
>
> Sounds like you could apply for an internship.
>
What I do know is that their research is based upon
historical fact, rather than emotionally driven
mumbojumbo. And the kinds of nonsense like
JC popping out of the ether with an army
looking to kill anything that's not extreeme
right wing and fundy.

Get the drift fella.

PeterT




Gaffo
2004-08-09 20:24:57 EST
Michael wrote:

> In article <4116c79f_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>news:mikeburt-0808040903190001@192.168.1.104...
>>
>>>In article <41134930_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
>>><mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0401/S00002.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bush, the love child of Americas Christian right.
>>>
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>--
>>
>>>>-
>>>>
>>>>Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein
>>>>By Dr. Bob Fitrakis
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press , a political
>>
>>science
>>
>>>>professor, and author of numerous articles and books.
>>>
>>>Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto and was the author of numerous
>>>articles and books, what is your point?
>>>
>>>
>>>>As the new year unfolds, one unmistakable fact remains unreported in
>>
>>America
>>
>>>>'s submissive mainstream media: our President George W. Bush is a war
>>>>criminal. Any attempt to state this obvious fact is ignored and any
>>>>Democratic Presidential hopeful who suggests we repudiate the new Bush
>>>>doctrine of American imperialism and instead, work for world peace, is
>>>>dismissed as a "vanity" candidate and told to drop out of the race.
>>>
>>>IOW, when Kerry said that going to war in Iraq was the best decision at
>>>the time with the information available, Bush was wrong to agree with
>>>Kerry?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The case against President Bush is overwhelming. The nonprofit American
>>>>Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars,
>>>
>>>Scholars in what?
>>>
>>>has laid out
>>>
>>>>the case against the President in article after article in a
>>
>>dispassionate
>>
>>>>fashion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States by
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>Al Qaeda terrorist organization, both the United States and Britain
>>>>attempted to comply with international law. When Operation Enduring
>>
>>Freedom,
>>
>>>>the massive military assault on Afghanistan, began on October 7, 2001,
>>
>>both
>>
>>>>countries adhered to the United Nations Charter Article 51 by notifying
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>Security Council that they were attacking Afghanistan under the doctrine
>>
>>of
>>
>>>>individual and collective self-defense. Most international law scholars
>>>>accepted the United States' right to self-defense against terrorist
>>
>>bases in
>>
>>>>Afghanistan.
>>>
>>>How decent of them. BTW, who cares whether or not the UN supports America
>>>defending itself because the planes were flown into the World Trade Center
>>>instead of the UN building a few blocks away?
>>>
>>>
>>>>From legitimate self-defense, the Bush administration suddenly
>>
>>resurrected
>>
>>>>the discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive war"
>>>
>>>The taking of Austria was a 'preventive war'? Are you making this stuff
>>
>>up?
>>
>>>with Bush and his
>>>
>>>>collaborators arguing that in the battle of "good" versus "evil" the
>>
>>United
>>
>>>>States had the right to attack any country that might pose a future
>>
>>threat
>>
>>>>to our nation.
>>>
>>>IOW, you support passive acceptance of countries that might pose a future
>>>threat to our nation?
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Bush administration is using the recent capture of Saddam Hussein
>>
>>for
>>
>>>>propaganda purposes to justify its illegal and criminal war against
>>
>>Iraq.
>>
>>>>Some newspapers have gone so far to question the practicality of the
>>
>>"Bush
>>
>>>>doctrine" without pointing out its illegal and criminal nature. For
>>
>>example,
>>
>>>>Matthew Hay Brown of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in a news analysis piece
>>>
>>>IOW, his opinion.
>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>day Saddam was captured, that: "By striking at a country that was not
>>>>threatening to attack the United States and without hard evidence of
>>
>>weapons
>>
>>>>of mass destruction or links to al-Qaeda officials hope to show the
>>
>>length
>>
>>>>to which the United States would go to protect itself."
>>>
>>>Yet supported by Russion intelligence that it was preparing to attack the
>>>United States of America, the Clinton Adiminstration's belief that it had
>>>WMD, and the fact that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions
>>>which apparently didn't bother the UN on the dole with Saddams' kickbacks,
>>>this was wrong?
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Columbus Dispatch ran Brown's analysis on its front page. Still
>>
>>there
>>
>>>>was no mention of the universal repudiation of the Bush doctrine.
>>>
>>>Perhaps because it was not universal?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Let's start with the obvious. Any law scholar will tell you that
>>
>>pre-emptive
>>
>>>>self-defense is unlawful under international law - from Article VI of
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter.
>>>
>>>Is the United States, a soverign nation, under the UN Charter?
>>>
>>>In fact, the United States was the
>>>
>>>>guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the establishment of
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the Nazis
>>
>>defeated
>>
>>>>and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on the
>>
>>U.S.,
>>
>>>>prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section 4. Only
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>Security Council has the authority to take measures against "threats to
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression."
>>>
>>>You mean like Korea (still going on) where the United States provided 95%
>>>of the men and materials, a far greater percentage than the US provides in
>>>the current Iraq coalition?
>>>
>>>
>>>>The only exception to this is the right of individual and collective
>>>>self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51. The
>>
>>key, of
>>
>>>>course, is that you has to be attacked or that an enemy must be in the
>>>>process of attacking you.
>>>
>>>Which Russian intelligence said was in process.
>>>
>>>Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here's
>>>
>>>>a list of "rogue nations" who may at some undefined time in the near
>>
>>future
>>
>>>>pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass
>>
>>destruction,
>>
>>>>which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have. Nor is
>>
>>there
>>
>>>>anything under international law that says simply developing a weapons
>>>>program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true, every
>>>>country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the country
>>
>>with
>>
>>>>the greatest number of WMD's, at any time.
>>>>
>>>>A few voices in the Democratic Presidential primary have attempted to
>>
>>raise
>>
>>>>substantial issues concerning U.S. foreign policy but the mainstream
>>
>>media
>>
>>>>is obsessed with its "politics as horse race" mentality focusing mostly
>>
>>on
>>
>>>>who is in the lead. So, while the talking heads analyze the post-Saddam
>>>>capture "Bush bounce" and predict that no President with a favorable
>>
>>rating
>>
>>>>over 60% going into a presidential election year has ever lost, they
>>
>>miss
>>
>>>>the point that if they actually reported that world consensus holds
>>
>>their
>>
>>>>president to be a war criminal, then maybe his rating wouldn't be so
>>
>>high.
>>
>>>Americans already know that the French, high executives at the UN et al
>>>were benefiting from the status quo.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Perhaps the most egregious example of a journalist trying to silence
>>
>>debate
>>
>>>>on the Bush doctrine was ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel who suggested
>>
>>that
>>
>>>>peace candidates Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun and Rev.
>>
>>Al
>>
>>>>Sharpton should drop out of the debate.
>>>
>>>IOW, Kerry is not a peace candidate?
>>>
>>>When Kucinich directly challenged
>>>
>>>>Koppel suggesting that it wasn't the media's role to define who should
>>
>>be in
>>
>>>>or out of a presidential race prior to the people casting votes, ABC
>>>>retaliated by pulling the fulltime reporter covering the Kucinich
>>
>>campaign.
>>
>>>who wouldn't agree with Kucinich, but what does that have to do with your
>>
>>point?
>>
>>>>Recently the Pope reminded the world that the war against Iraq is
>>
>>illegal.
>>
>>>Who said that the Pope was infallable?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Perhaps ABC could take the fulltime reporter they pulled from Kucinich
>>
>>and
>>
>>>>put him on fulltime research on the illegality of the Bush doctrine and
>>
>>its
>>
>>>>eerie parallels to Nazi Germany and its attack on Poland.
>>>
>>>And what are those eerie parallells?
>>>
>>>
>>>>And they might want to look into the story Popular Mechanics broke in
>>
>>its
>>
>>>>December 2003 issue showing a satellite photo of a pipeline through
>>
>>Kuwait
>>
>>>>looting Iraqi oil from the Ramalah oil field.
>>>
>>You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
>>peddle the extreme right Christian view which has
>>become the official US cheer squad for political tyrants.
>
>
>
> You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
> peddle the extreme left Christopbobe view which has
> become the official politically correct cheer squad for political tyrants.
>
>
>
>>It's now a question of saving Christ from the
>>peddlers of Christianity, who will twist the
>>truth to essentially justify their own emotional
>>violence.
>>
>
>
> It's now a question of saving America from the
> peddlers of Christobhobia, who will twist the
> truth to essentially justify their own emotional
> violence.
>
>
>
>>After all, this has always been the case since the
>>advent of the Roman Church which essentially
>>became the reformation of paganism as pioneered
>>by the murderous St. Paul who victimised Jesus'
>>original family. And subsequently formed his
>>own batardised version of the teachings of
>>Christ.
>
>
> Spoken like a radical left religious Christophobe.
>
>
>>Jesus predicted the annexation numerous times, including,
>>"Standing in the Holy place where it should NOT be
>>YOU WILL SEE the awful horror."
>
>
> Jesus predicted a falling away and the appearance of anti-Christ crying
> peace, peace first-but there will be no peace during his reign.
>
>>What has stood in the Holy position of representing
>>Jesus Christ in the past 2000 years, Christianity of course?
>
>
> Tee hee hee, more Christophobia?
>
>
>>Go figure Michael.
>
>
> Go figure PeterT, the Jesus Seminar loves you.
>


those who promote war in the name of Christ are truly anit-Christian.
Their cancer must be removed from those of goodwill and true faith.

zieg Heil!


--
http://baltimorechronicle.com/041704reTreason.shtml

http://www.truthinaction.net/iraq/illegaljayne.htm


As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both
instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged.
And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air
-- however slight -lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75)

"It shows us that there were senior people in the Bush administration who
were seriously contemplating the use of torture, and trying to figure out
whether there were any legal loopholes that might allow them to commit
criminal acts, They seem to be putting forward a theory that the president
in wartime can essentially do what he wants regardless of what the law
may say,"
Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch - commenting upon Defense
Department Lawyer
Will Dunham's 56-page legalization of torture memo.

If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion against
the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being named
George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate
Democrats and told, "You got nowhere to go other than to stay home or
vote for
the Democrats", this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the
Republican Party.
Ralph Nader - June 2004 - The American Conservative Magazine

"But I believe in torture and I will torture you."
-An American soldier shares the joys of Democracy with
an Iraqi prisoner.

"My mother praises me for fighting the Americans. If we are killed,
our wives and mothers will rejoice that we died defending the
freedom of our country.
-Iraqi Mahdi fighter

"We were bleeding from 3 a.m. until sunrise, soon American soldiers came.
One of them kicked me to see if I was alive. I pretended I was dead
so he wouldn't kill me. The soldier was laughing, when Yousef cried,
the soldier said: "'No, stop,"
-Shihab, survivor of USSA bombing of Iraqi wedding.

"the absolute convergence of the neoconservatives with the Christian
Zionists
and the pro-Israel lobby, driving U.S. Mideast policy."
-Don Wagner, an evangelical South Carolina minister

"Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton's administration for
the Kosovo military action.'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important
for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,' Bush said."
Houston Chronicle 4/9/99

"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to
destabilize their country."
Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004

"The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem
of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major
incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized
to deal with this?'"
- Paul Bremer, speaking to a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference
on terrorism in Wheaton, Ill. on Feb. 26, 2001.

"On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use
his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein's regime
the "aim of American foreign policy" and to use military action because
"diplomacy is failing." Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they
would "offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor."
Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert
Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Richard L. Armitage, Jeffrey
Bergner,
Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter W. Rodman,
William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, R. James Woolsey and Robert B. Zoellick,
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had
Baghdad on their minds."
-philip (usenet)

"I had better things to do in the 60s than fight in Vietnam,"
-Richard Cheney, Kerry critic.

"I hope they will understand that in order for this government to get up
and running
- to be effective - some of its sovereignty will have to be given
back, if I can put it that way,
or limited by them, It's sovereignty but [some] of that sovereignty they
are going to allow us to exercise
on their behalf and with their permission."
- Powell 4/27/04

"We're trying to explain how things are going, and they are going as they
are going," he said, adding: "Some things are going well and some things
obviously are not going well. You're going to have good days and bad days."
On the road to democracy, this "is one moment, and there will be other
moments. And there will be good moments and there will be less good
moments."
- Rumsfeld 4/6/04

"I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this
country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to
every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on
the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread
of freedom."
~ Bush the Crusader


RUSSERT: Are you prepared to lose?

BUSH: No, I'm not going to lose.

RUSSERT: If you did, what would you do?

BUSH: Well, I don't plan on losing. I've got a vision for what I want to
do for the country.
See, I know exactly where I want to lead.................And we got
changing times
here in America, too., 2/8/04


"And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where
I'm coming from,
to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't. I'm a war
president.
I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with
war on my mind.
- pResident of the United State of America, 2/8/04


"Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that
based on intelligence, that he has been very, very good at hiding
these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know
he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, on "Meet the Press", 3/16/03


"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the
Iraqis had nuclear weapons."
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 6/24/03


"I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
- Richard Perle


"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbours."
- Colin Powell February 24 2001


"We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping
him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."

"He threatens not the United States."

"But I also thought that we had pretty
much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."

'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying
"look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
- Colin Powell February 26 2001

Peter Terry
2004-08-10 01:22:13 EST

"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:tBURc.1283$0r7.879@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
>
> those who promote war in the name of Christ are truly anit-Christian.
> Their cancer must be removed from those of goodwill and true faith.
>
> zieg Heil!
>
>
> --
> http://baltimorechronicle.com/041704reTreason.shtml
>
> http://www.truthinaction.net/iraq/illegaljayne.htm
>
>
> As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both
> instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly
unchanged.
> And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air
> -- however slight -lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
> Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75)
>
> "It shows us that there were senior people in the Bush administration who
> were seriously contemplating the use of torture, and trying to figure out
> whether there were any legal loopholes that might allow them to commit
> criminal acts, They seem to be putting forward a theory that the president
> in wartime can essentially do what he wants regardless of what the law
> may say,"
> Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch - commenting upon Defense
> Department Lawyer
> Will Dunham's 56-page legalization of torture memo.
>
> If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion
against
> the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being
named
> George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate
> Democrats and told, "You got nowhere to go other than to stay home or
> vote for
> the Democrats", this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the
> Republican Party.
> Ralph Nader - June 2004 - The American Conservative Magazine
>
> "But I believe in torture and I will torture you."
> -An American soldier shares the joys of Democracy with
> an Iraqi prisoner.
>
> "My mother praises me for fighting the Americans. If we are killed,
> our wives and mothers will rejoice that we died defending the
> freedom of our country.
> -Iraqi Mahdi fighter
>
> "We were bleeding from 3 a.m. until sunrise, soon American soldiers came.
> One of them kicked me to see if I was alive. I pretended I was dead
> so he wouldn't kill me. The soldier was laughing, when Yousef cried,
> the soldier said: "'No, stop,"
> -Shihab, survivor of USSA bombing of Iraqi wedding.
>
> "the absolute convergence of the neoconservatives with the Christian
> Zionists
> and the pro-Israel lobby, driving U.S. Mideast policy."
> -Don Wagner, an evangelical South Carolina minister
>
> "Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton's administration for
> the Kosovo military action.'Victory means exit strategy, and it's
important
> for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,' Bush said."
> Houston Chronicle 4/9/99
>
> "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to
> destabilize their country."
> Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004
>
> "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem
> of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major
> incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized
> to deal with this?'"
> - Paul Bremer, speaking to a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference
> on terrorism in Wheaton, Ill. on Feb. 26, 2001.
>
> "On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to
use
> his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein's regime
> the "aim of American foreign policy" and to use military action because
> "diplomacy is failing." Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they
> would "offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor."
> Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert
> Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Richard L. Armitage, Jeffrey
> Bergner,
> Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter W. Rodman,
> William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, R. James Woolsey and Robert B.
Zoellick,
> Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons
had
> Baghdad on their minds."
> -philip (usenet)
>
> "I had better things to do in the 60s than fight in Vietnam,"
> -Richard Cheney, Kerry critic.
>
> "I hope they will understand that in order for this government to get up
> and running
> - to be effective - some of its sovereignty will have to be given
> back, if I can put it that way,
> or limited by them, It's sovereignty but [some] of that sovereignty they
> are going to allow us to exercise
> on their behalf and with their permission."
> - Powell 4/27/04
>
> "We're trying to explain how things are going, and they are going as they
> are going," he said, adding: "Some things are going well and some things
> obviously are not going well. You're going to have good days and bad
days."
> On the road to democracy, this "is one moment, and there will be other
> moments. And there will be good moments and there will be less good
> moments."
> - Rumsfeld 4/6/04
>
> "I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this
> country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to
> every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on
> the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread
> of freedom."
> ~ Bush the Crusader
>
>
> RUSSERT: Are you prepared to lose?
>
> BUSH: No, I'm not going to lose.
>
> RUSSERT: If you did, what would you do?
>
> BUSH: Well, I don't plan on losing. I've got a vision for what I want to
> do for the country.
> See, I know exactly where I want to lead.................And we got
> changing times
> here in America, too., 2/8/04
>
>
> "And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where
> I'm coming from,
> to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't. I'm a war
> president.
> I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with
> war on my mind.
> - pResident of the United State of America, 2/8/04
>
>
> "Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that
> based on intelligence, that he has been very, very good at hiding
> these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know
> he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
> And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
> - Vice President Dick Cheney, on "Meet the Press", 3/16/03
>
>
> "I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the
> Iraqis had nuclear weapons."
> - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 6/24/03
>
>
> "I think in this case international law
> stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
> - Richard Perle
>
>
> "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with
> respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
> conventional power against his neighbours."
> - Colin Powell February 24 2001
>
>
> "We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping
> him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."
>
> "He threatens not the United States."
>
> "But I also thought that we had pretty
> much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."
>
> 'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
> for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
> keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying
> "look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
> - Colin Powell February 26 2001
>
Right on ;-)

PeterT



Michael
2004-08-10 12:57:57 EST
In article <4117ee66_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
<*a@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-0908041718590001@192.168.1.104...
> > In article <41177f21_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> > <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:mikeburt-0908040916570001@192.168.1.104...
> > > > In article <4116c79f_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> > > > <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:mikeburt-0808040903190001@192.168.1.104...
> > > > > > In article <41134930_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, "Peter Terry"
> > > > > > <mombassa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0401/S00002.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bush, the love child of Americas Christian right.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why Bush Must Be Captured And Tried Alongside Saddam Hussein
> > > > > > > By Dr. Bob Fitrakis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press , a
> political
> > > > > science
> > > > > > > professor, and author of numerous articles and books.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto and was the author of
> > > numerous
> > > > > > articles and books, what is your point?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As the new year unfolds, one unmistakable fact remains
> unreported in
> > > > > America
> > > > > > > 's submissive mainstream media: our President George W. Bush is
> a
> > > war
> > > > > > > criminal. Any attempt to state this obvious fact is ignored and
> any
> > > > > > > Democratic Presidential hopeful who suggests we repudiate the
> new
> > > Bush
> > > > > > > doctrine of American imperialism and instead, work for world
> peace,
> > > is
> > > > > > > dismissed as a "vanity" candidate and told to drop out of the
> race.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IOW, when Kerry said that going to war in Iraq was the best
> decision
> > > at
> > > > > > the time with the information available, Bush was wrong to agree
> with
> > > > > > Kerry?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The case against President Bush is overwhelming. The nonprofit
> > > American
> > > > > > > Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scholars in what?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > has laid out
> > > > > > > the case against the President in article after article in a
> > > > > dispassionate
> > > > > > > fashion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the United
> > > States by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > Al Qaeda terrorist organization, both the United States and
> Britain
> > > > > > > attempted to comply with international law. When Operation
> Enduring
> > > > > Freedom,
> > > > > > > the massive military assault on Afghanistan, began on October 7,
> > > 2001,
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > countries adhered to the United Nations Charter Article 51 by
> > > notifying
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > Security Council that they were attacking Afghanistan under the
> > > doctrine
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > individual and collective self-defense. Most international law
> > > scholars
> > > > > > > accepted the United States' right to self-defense against
> terrorist
> > > > > bases in
> > > > > > > Afghanistan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How decent of them. BTW, who cares whether or not the UN supports
> > > America
> > > > > > defending itself because the planes were flown into the World
> Trade
> > > Center
> > > > > > instead of the UN building a few blocks away?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From legitimate self-defense, the Bush administration suddenly
> > > > > resurrected
> > > > > > > the discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive war"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The taking of Austria was a 'preventive war'? Are you making this
> > > stuff
> > > > > up?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > with Bush and his
> > > > > > > collaborators arguing that in the battle of "good" versus "evil"
> the
> > > > > United
> > > > > > > States had the right to attack any country that might pose a
> future
> > > > > threat
> > > > > > > to our nation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IOW, you support passive acceptance of countries that might pose a
> > > future
> > > > > > threat to our nation?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Bush administration is using the recent capture of Saddam
> > > Hussein
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > propaganda purposes to justify its illegal and criminal war
> against
> > > > > Iraq.
> > > > > > > Some newspapers have gone so far to question the practicality of
> the
> > > > > "Bush
> > > > > > > doctrine" without pointing out its illegal and criminal nature.
> For
> > > > > example,
> > > > > > > Matthew Hay Brown of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in a news
> analysis
> > > piece
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IOW, his opinion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > day Saddam was captured, that: "By striking at a country that
> was
> > > not
> > > > > > > threatening to attack the United States and without hard
> evidence of
> > > > > weapons
> > > > > > > of mass destruction or links to al-Qaeda officials hope to show
> the
> > > > > length
> > > > > > > to which the United States would go to protect itself."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet supported by Russion intelligence that it was preparing to
> attack
> > > the
> > > > > > United States of America, the Clinton Adiminstration's belief that
> it
> > > had
> > > > > > WMD, and the fact that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN
> sanctions
> > > > > > which apparently didn't bother the UN on the dole with Saddams'
> > > kickbacks,
> > > > > > this was wrong?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Columbus Dispatch ran Brown's analysis on its front page.
> Still
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > was no mention of the universal repudiation of the Bush
> doctrine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps because it was not universal?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's start with the obvious. Any law scholar will tell you that
> > > > > pre-emptive
> > > > > > > self-defense is unlawful under international law - from Article
> VI
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the United States, a soverign nation, under the UN Charter?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact, the United States was the
> > > > > > > guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the
> establishment
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the
> Nazis
> > > > > defeated
> > > > > > > and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on
> the
> > > > > U.S.,
> > > > > > > prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section
> 4.
> > > Only
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > Security Council has the authority to take measures against
> "threats
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean like Korea (still going on) where the United States
> provided
> > > 95%
> > > > > > of the men and materials, a far greater percentage than the US
> > > provides in
> > > > > > the current Iraq coalition?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only exception to this is the right of individual and
> collective
> > > > > > > self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51.
> The
> > > > > key, of
> > > > > > > course, is that you has to be attacked or that an enemy must be
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > process of attacking you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which Russian intelligence said was in process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here's
> > > > > > > a list of "rogue nations" who may at some undefined time in the
> near
> > > > > future
> > > > > > > pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass
> > > > > destruction,
> > > > > > > which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have.
> Nor is
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > anything under international law that says simply developing a
> > > weapons
> > > > > > > program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true,
> > > every
> > > > > > > country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the
> > > country
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the greatest number of WMD's, at any time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A few voices in the Democratic Presidential primary have
> attempted
> > > to
> > > > > raise
> > > > > > > substantial issues concerning U.S. foreign policy but the
> mainstream
> > > > > media
> > > > > > > is obsessed with its "politics as horse race" mentality focusing
> > > mostly
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > who is in the lead. So, while the talking heads analyze the
> > > post-Saddam
> > > > > > > capture "Bush bounce" and predict that no President with a
> favorable
> > > > > rating
> > > > > > > over 60% going into a presidential election year has ever lost,
> they
> > > > > miss
> > > > > > > the point that if they actually reported that world consensus
> holds
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > president to be a war criminal, then maybe his rating wouldn't
> be so
> > > > > high.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Americans already know that the French, high executives at the UN
> et
> > > al
> > > > > > were benefiting from the status quo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps the most egregious example of a journalist trying to
> silence
> > > > > debate
> > > > > > > on the Bush doctrine was ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel who
> > > suggested
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > peace candidates Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun
> and
> > > Rev.
> > > > > Al
> > > > > > > Sharpton should drop out of the debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IOW, Kerry is not a peace candidate?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When Kucinich directly challenged
> > > > > > > Koppel suggesting that it wasn't the media's role to define who
> > > should
> > > > > be in
> > > > > > > or out of a presidential race prior to the people casting votes,
> ABC
> > > > > > > retaliated by pulling the fulltime reporter covering the
> Kucinich
> > > > > campaign.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > who wouldn't agree with Kucinich, but what does that have to do
> with
> > > your
> > > > > point?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Recently the Pope reminded the world that the war against Iraq
> is
> > > > > illegal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who said that the Pope was infallable?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps ABC could take the fulltime reporter they pulled from
> > > Kucinich
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > put him on fulltime research on the illegality of the Bush
> doctrine
> > > and
> > > > > its
> > > > > > > eerie parallels to Nazi Germany and its attack on Poland.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And what are those eerie parallells?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And they might want to look into the story Popular Mechanics
> broke
> > > in
> > > > > its
> > > > > > > December 2003 issue showing a satellite photo of a pipeline
> through
> > > > > Kuwait
> > > > > > > looting Iraqi oil from the Ramalah oil field.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
> > > > > peddle the extreme right Christian view which has
> > > > > become the official US cheer squad for political tyrants.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't really seem to have an opinion other than to
> > > > peddle the extreme left Christopbobe view which has
> > > > become the official politically correct cheer squad for political
> tyrants.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's now a question of saving Christ from the
> > > > > peddlers of Christianity, who will twist the
> > > > > truth to essentially justify their own emotional
> > > > > violence.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's now a question of saving America from the
> > > > peddlers of Christobhobia, who will twist the
> > > > truth to essentially justify their own emotional
> > > > violence.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > After all, this has always been the case since the
> > > > > advent of the Roman Church which essentially
> > > > > became the reformation of paganism as pioneered
> > > > > by the murderous St. Paul who victimised Jesus'
> > > > > original family. And subsequently formed his
> > > > > own batardised version of the teachings of
> > > > > Christ.
> > > >
> > > > Spoken like a radical left religious Christophobe.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jesus predicted the annexation numerous times, including,
> > > > > "Standing in the Holy place where it should NOT be
> > > > > YOU WILL SEE the awful horror."
> > > >
> > > > Jesus predicted a falling away and the appearance of anti-Christ
> crying
> > > > peace, peace first-but there will be no peace during his reign.
> > > >
> > > "And they will declare war on heaven"
> >
> > No, they will reconcile heaven and earth, get it? BTW, earth will go
> > kicking and screaming all of the way.
> >
> > >
> > > Sounds much like the complete history of Christian
> > > misrepresentation that your referring to here?
> >
> > No, the complete history of Christophobe misrepresentation that you were
> > referencing.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > What has stood in the Holy position of representing
> > > > > Jesus Christ in the past 2000 years, Christianity of course?
> > > >
> > > > Tee hee hee, more Christophobia?
> > > >
> > > So you quietly agree with me, ha?
> >
> > Tee hee hee, what do you think?
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Go figure Michael.
> > > >
> > > > Go figure PeterT, the Jesus Seminar loves you.
> > > >
> > > I can't really comment given I don't know a
> > > terribly lot about them.
> >
> > Sounds like you could apply for an internship.
> >
> What I do know is that their research is based upon
> historical fact, rather than emotionally driven
> mumbojumbo. And the kinds of nonsense like
> JC popping out of the ether with an army
> looking to kill anything that's not extreeme
> right wing and fundy.
>
> Get the drift fella.

Sure do, more radical religious left wing Christophobic conspiracy theories.

--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron