Bush Wins!!!!!

[okoj]

Rhetoric is a two-way street, okoj.

Yes, but I'm not the one carping on about propaganda.

 

[ledhed]

Why would he have avoided the use of crusade..unless your dictionary gives it only one meaning and a wrong one at that ? Even the martyr idiots know it.

 

[Solid Fro]

The word crusade doesn't necessarily mean a religious war or done in a religious context. A crusade is a movement for a certain cause or against an abuse.

You could say the Civil Rights movement was a crusade for equal rights for African Americans.

 

[okoj]

The word crusade doesn't necessarily mean a religious war or done in a religious context. A crusade is a movement for a certain cause or against an abuse.

You could say the Civil Rights movement was a crusade for equal rights for African Americans.

All true, but when it is used to describe the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq it is in a religious context. This is a war between a Christian state and Muslim states.

 

[Solid Fro]

Is it a religious war? Absolutely not.

I don't see Christian churches popping up all over Iraq. Now, because of Bush's "Crusade", Iraqi citizens can practice any religion they so choose. This is not a Christian crusade, but a crusade for freedom.

Where is my giant rolleyes smiley when I need it?

 

[Ghost C]

All true, but when it is used to describe the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq it is in a religious context. This is a war between a Christian state and Muslim states.

Right, because let's face it, the president hates Muslims. And Jews, and Mexicans, and black people, and Chinese people, and Japanese people, and Korean people...

If you're going to make bull**** generalizations based on absolutely nothing, why not just go all the way?

 

[milefile]

All true, but when it is used to describe the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq it is in a religious context. This is a war between a Christian state and Muslim states.

That's because Muslim states sponsor the enemy: Radical Millitant Islam.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

All true, but when it is used to describe the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq it is in a religious context. This is a war between a Christian state and Muslim states.

Viper already explained that crusade does not have to be religious. Is terrorism a religion??

Are the US armed forces all Christian...no...they are Muslim, Hindu, Taoist, Catholic and probably many others.

You seem to like to over simplify things and see only in Black and White.

Its a war on terrorism, an asymmetrical war, not a religious crusade. Where do you get this stuff from

Muslim's are angered and embarrassed by the terrorists use of their noble religion to recruit fanatical lunatics for acts of terror. Yet people like you continue to associate them with those idiots. The vast majority of Muslims, are peace loving.

 

[okoj]

Its a war on terrorism, an asymmetrical war, not a religious crusade. Where do you get this stuff from

From George W. Bush, he was the one quoted. Now it may well have been his script writer who wrote it but are you telling me that they knew nothing of the connotations that the word crusade has in relation to east-west conflicts?

Therefore, it is Bush who is linking Muslims to the terrorist threat not myself.

 

[milefile]

From George W. Bush, he was the one quoted. Now it may well have been his script writer who wrote it but are you telling me that they knew nothing of the connotations that the word crusade has in relation to east-west conflicts?

Therefore, it is Bush who is linking Muslims to the terrorist threat not myself.

Wrong. Radical Millitant Islam links terrorism with Muslims.

 

[87chevy]

All true, but when it is used to describe the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq it is in a religious context. This is a war between a Christian state and Muslim states.

I'm sorry, who else has said this? Your the first I've heard. And since when are you the one to tell the POTUS what his words mean? What's your expert qualifications?

 

[FozzyFan116]

The anti-Bush arrogance is as amazingly prevelant as ever it would seem.

 

[Delphic Reason]

The anti-Bush arrogance is as amazingly prevelant as ever it would seem.

Well, I would agree that "okoj" does not present a valid point, and comes off as a bit arrogant... It is no different than the arrogance prevalent in pro Bush circles... Over generalizations generally do not apply to many...

 

[Danoff]

Over generalizations generally do not apply to many

Is than an over generalization?

 

[Delphic Reason]

Is than an over generalization?

I'm assuming you meant to type "that" instead of "than", and I know your just trying to be cute, so I won't bite...

 

[Arwin]

Hmmm. I'm amazed that people here don't realise 'crusade' was a lousy choice of words here. Many opposed to Western interference in the Middle East link the issue back to the Crusades. Also, it shouldn't be all that hard to realise that for many believers this appears as a Christian vs Muslim state war.

I don't agree with many things okoj says and think the way he makes his points harms his side of the debate more than helps it, but I felt compelled to point out the above. I can understand that you all start considering everything he says must be nonsense, but sometimes it isn't.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Hmmm. I'm amazed that people here don't realise 'crusade' was a lousy choice of words here. Many opposed to Western interference in the Middle East link the issue back to the Crusades. Also, it shouldn't be all that hard to realise that for many believers this appears as a Christian vs Muslim state war.

It was a bad choice of words, as crusade has much more significance in the Middle East as it does in the west (mostly down to the British and what we did)

But the insinuation that Christians are now trying to wipe out Muslims is grossly inaccurate. The US armed forces are of mixed religion, the main action in Iraq at the moment is in Fallujah, and Iraqi nationals are fighting alongside allied troops. They are Muslim.

The Christian vs Muslim rhetoric is designed to stir up hatred for the west in the Middle East and encourage a Jihad.

 

[Danoff]

I don't agree with many things okoj says and think the way he makes his points harms his side of the debate more than helps it, but I felt compelled to point out the above. I can understand that you all start considering everything he says must be nonsense, but sometimes it isn't.

okoj has had no points here. So far his posts have been complete nonsense. When I try to pin him down on any of it he has either changed the subject or run away.

Which of okoj's points are not nonsense? Post them here and back them up.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Yes...a Holy Crusade, thats it, oh and don't forget the oil...the Holy Oil.

The "holy oil" is in fact probably a big part of the reason Bush is "liberating" Irak. Why aren't there any American troops in Darfur, or other African hotspots that are terrorised by an oppressive leader? Because there is no profit to get from those poor sons of b*tches.

And to say that he is organising a religious crusade is indeed somewhat farfetched in my opinion. But it can't be denied that many of Bush's decisions are made on religious grounds. The whole anti gay marriage lobby is an example of that. It is based on an old fashion christian believe of what marriage should be.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

The "holy oil" is in fact probably a big part of the reason Bush is "liberating" Irak. Why aren't there any American troops in Darfur, or other African hotspots that are terrorised by an oppressive leader? Because there is no profit to get from those poor sons of b*tches.

And to say that he is organising a religious crusade is indeed somewhat farfetched in my opinion. But it can't be denied that many of Bush's decisions are made on religious grounds. The whole anti gay marriage lobby is an example of that. It is based on an old fashion christian believe of what marriage should be.

yes mate...its all about money...

Maybe the US should just seize Iraq and keep its oil wealth, that might make all you conspiracy theorist's happy as it would prove you right after all. Its just plain stupid that they are going to hand it over after all that effort...crazy US

On one hand you say American troops should not be in Iraq, and then on the other you say they should be in other countries...hmmm.

btw its spelt Iraq...you'll find it on a map near Iran, and just north of Saudi Arabia

I reserve the right to use rule 5 here

 

[PjotrStroganov]

I'm sorry that I don't use your language when spelling Iraq. But please tell your president to pronounce it right at least once. I am guessing you are American right?

On one hand you say American troops should not be in Iraq, and then on the other you say they should be in other countries...hmmm.

I was just pointing out that Bush is not very consistant by invading Irak, but not other countries and liberating those people. An inconsistancy that probably is caused by the reason I already mentioned.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

I'm sorry that I don't use your language when spelling Iraq. But please tell your president to pronounce it right at least once.

Are you referring to Bush saying "Eye- Rack"

Everyone expects the US to do the worlds dirty work, and then complains when they do...

btw I don't have a President, I have a Prime Minister

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Ah a Brit?

 

[Danoff]

I was just pointing out that Bush is not very consistant by invading Irak, but not other countries and liberating those people. An inconsistancy that probably is caused by the reason I already mentioned.

We've been through this before. There are plenty of diplomatic reasons that distinguish Iraq from other countries in this respect.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Okay if you say so it must be true.

 

[Danoff]

Okay if you say so it must be true.

Not at all. I've been known to make mistakes.

Can you name a single country in which the diplomatic situation was parallel to Iraq?

 

[milefile]

Why aren't there any American troops in Darfur

Why isn't the UN in Darfur?

Better yet, why are Arab Muslim gangs roaming the countryside mass-murdering black Africans in Darfur? Is that Bush's fault, too?

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Not at all. I've been known to make mistakes.

Can you name a single country in which the diplomatic situation was parallel to Iraq?

A country that has an oppressive leader that terrorises his people? Zimbabwe for instance. With Mugabe as president.

Why isn't the UN in Darfur?

Better yet, why are Arab Muslim gangs roaming the countryside mass-murdering black Africans in Darfur? Is that Bush's fault, too?

Dunno why the UN isn't taking any actions. They should be.

It isn't Bush's fault, but he seems to be compelled to save the world of Terrrrrrr and Evil. So why is he so selective about it?

 

[milefile]

Because Darfur has little, if any, bearing on US security. Iraq does.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Why, because of the weapons of mass destruction that are not there? Or the terrorists which Hussein had few to no connections with?