There is a difference between being clever and being right.

The constant allegation that urinating on pages of the Koran in Gitmo as being a crime greater than Islamic Terrorists blowing up an Islamic Mosque full of worshippers and the subsequent mixing of pages of the Islamic Holy Book with the blood, guts and URINE of the dismembered men, women, and children, in the mosque is abominable coming from such supposedly intelligent people

If you are looking for a way to beat up on Bush there are two easy ways of doing it. Sue Sean Hannity and Fox News Corp –(repeatedly) for ‘constructive slander and libel’ over the character assassination of Michael Schiavo (assuming Shiavo has clean hands). The government has used the legal theory of “constructive everything” for years to get organized crime figures. The legal theory has a long pedigree. For those not familiar with the concept of ‘Constructive’—in this case, it means that Sean Hannity and Fox did nothing wrong in each individual act taken by itself (and the case would be thrown out because of the First Amendment) -- but everything taken together would form a ‘constructive conspiracy’ (which then becomes a crime). Every time it is thrown out—appeal it up—and keep it in the media constantly until the next election. The Feds would not want to willingly give up one of their best tools against organized crime and would probably encourage Fox to throw Hannity over the side—and to cool it.

The second way to get Bush is the “Dukakis question”. “If one of Bush’s kids came down with a disease that embryonic stem cell research had a solid and proven treatment that would cure her—would Bush refuse treatment for her on religious grounds.

Just repeat the question over and over—mention it as many times as the Koran going down the john at Gitmo and by election time the Republicans would play hell holding onto their majority.

Now, if we could only find a democrat with an IDEA.

Dick Morgan

Who are these people who are making this crazy allegation? Can you provide a single name or quote? Or are you just trying to badmouth anyone who dares suggest the US Government did something wrong?

We can only ever have control over our OWN actions. When we screw up, we need to own up to it and fix it. It doesn't matter if somebody else did something worse. Right is still right, and wrong is still wrong.

I'd like to know who's making these allegations as well.

There is also a difference between the actions of a government and the actions of a random whackjob, or even organized terrorists.

And why do we even need foreign terrorists and whackjobs? Why not just compare the Bush administration to Tim McVeigh, Jeff Dahmer and Operation Rescue? Compared to them, it looks pretty good. Not that this is a sterling recommendation.

It really shouldn't be hard for people to deal with holding government officials, employees and sub-contractors to a higher standard than people who belong in a prison and/or insane asylum.

And why do we even need foreign terrorists and whackjobs? Why not just compare the Bush administration to Tim McVeigh, Jeff Dahmer and Operation Rescue? Compared to them, it looks pretty good


I'm not so sure they even hold up to that standard. While i have zero agreement with Mcveigh or Operation Rscue in either politics or action, I have to admire that they at least opearte according to their own core principles. This adminstration's only principle seems to be "whatever we need to do to get what we want is OK." Look at how quickly they abandoned every baseline principle of the republican party,like strong state's rights, fiscal responsability, small government, and minimal ineterference in citizens lives, in order to further their own ends.




------------------
Essentials:
In Brooklyn i was born;
lived in space before too long

Well--It was in the news the first part of last week about a suicide bomber blowing himself up in a mosque while in prayer service so don't hold me responsible because you only read the news that serves your own political agenda.

How come nobody commented on my way to get Bush and Fox--you guys are so easy to read by what you don't say.

As far as McVeigh is concerned: His picture was drawn from a photograph--so was John Doe #2--(that means there WAS a John Doe #2) Why did the ATF go through this charade to protect the fact he was a SUSPECT BEFORE THE FACT and this was a CYA operation from the beginning. Why did they keep the surviving members of the people killed from sueing and getting "Discovery" on what the ATF and FBI knew?(Remember the 10K documents the FBI agent had forgotten to turn over to the defense.) Why did the Dallas Morning News 'conveniently' crack the defenses computers and get McVeigh's confession while they were selecting a jury.( Gimme a break--the FBI gave them that confession) We've all been through the revelation of who "Deep Throat" is this week--don't think you Evan Thomas of Newsweek had a source that laid out the feds complete case in Newsweek while they were selecting the jury. DOES THE PHRASE JURY TAMPERING mean anything? McVeigh did it--but he had some help the government at the time didn't want us to know about. They wanted it to end right where it did.

Dick Morgan
Text

[This message has been edited by Dick Morgan (edited June 05, 2005).]

Dick, I'm curious about your views on the Kennedy assassination and alien abductions. Please feel free to expound while I wander off elsewhere.

------------------
Steve Schroeder

Steve, I have no opinion on alien abductions but as far as the Kennedy Assassination is concerned any first year physics student can tell you that if you hit somebody’s forehead with a 2000 lb. hammer—his head going to go backwards. If you can get a hold of the Zapruder film before it is has been tampered with—you will find that President Kennedy grasped his throat before the limo went behind the sign. When the limo came out from behind the sign his head snapped BACKWARDS. I don’t know what this means to you but it means TWO SHOOTERS to me. Now you’re welcome to take this piece of information in any direction you choose—but two shooters means a CONSPIRACY.

(The number 2000 ft lbs was arrived at by calculating the foot pounds of energy from a e 220 grain rifle bullet traveling at about 2200 feet per second. These numbers are all generalizations but can be looked up in any reloading manual)

Dick Morgan

Did anybody else notice the sly way Dick Morgan brushed aside alien abductions, and immediately tried to change the subject. Hmmm...

(He won't admit to a thing, of course, but possibly our friends in Egypt can question him more creatively. Does anybody have the Gulfstream reserved yet for early this week?)

Michael, the sophist, I didn't duck alien abductions. I simply said I have no information on them. Why are you ducking how to get Bush? Come on guys, let's get a real fight going here--not change the subject everytime somebody scores a hit. The future of our country is at stake all tho I shudder to think it is in such trembling hands.

Dick Morgan

Dick,

For your clever ways to "get Bush," I think no one commented because of basic flaws in the plans:

1. Unless you're a brain-dead vegetable, cf. Terry Schiavo, people are not allowed to sue on your behalf. For Michael Schiavo to sue Hannity's ass off, he'd have to be willing to do it, when the plain facts on the ground are that the man dearly wants to get on with his life. And as my junior high journalism teacher told me, "Puppies are trained on yesterday's newspapers." Give it a year and few will know or care. Besides which, to sue Hannity you'd need a mint of money, including funds to pay Michael Schiavo to take more time from his life for this nonsense, which would of course immediately call into question his motives for bringing suit.

2. With the "Dukakis question" or any other uncomfortable question, assuming you can sneak a ringer into the White House Press Pool to ask it in the aftermath of Jeff Gannon, what's to keep Bush from waffling, ignoring the question, or blathering some non-answer about his Christian faith that starts with a ritual "Gosh..." and a blank look?

3. Obviously the second shooter was the aliens in the cloaked UFO, cleverly disguised as a grassy knoll. I thought everyone knew that.

Kevin, George Sorros would happily fund the Schiavo law suit--the object of the game is to keep it in the media from now until elections. The polls show Bush took a big hit on that as he did on stem cell. If every dem who comes on the air asks why won't the presedent answer the stem cell question--you keep that in the paper--just the same way the NY Times keeps running Iraq and Gitmo prisoner abuse stories EVERYDAY. By BEING CLEVER and inferring I believe in aliens you have ducked the essential physics question--what made the president's head snap backwards when the limo came around from behind the sign?

Dick Morgan

Dick -

I did not infer you believed in aliens. I simply raised the possibility that you were an alien.

(I hope this doesn't get me abducted. If I disappear, will somebody please make certain that all my unpublished sonnets are submitted to the Nemerov by November 15. Thanks.)

Michael

"The second way to get Bush is the “Dukakis question”. “If one of Bush’s kids came down with a disease that embryonic stem cell research had a solid and proven treatment that would cure her—would Bush refuse treatment for her on religious grounds.”"

I’m not sure I understand how this will “get” Bush, nor do I think the question correctly states what his position is on the stem cell issue. My anticipation and hope is that he would hold to principles which he believes, regardless of how they would affect his family. He believes that it is wrong to kill embryos to do research that may save lives. Consistent with this, he has said Federal money cannot be used for this research. Now, since it is not against the law to kill embryos for research, the research can continue—just not with Federal support. That is my understanding on his position; I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. The research continues--with Federal funding for everything except killing more embryos.

I always applaud a principled stand taken by someone when it appears to be against their best interests. An example is the son of a 911 victim who appeared on the O’Reilly Factor and said he was against our going into Afghanistan and against the war on terror. This was O’Reilly’s worst moment when he told the man to “shut up”—twice! While I disagree with the man’s conclusion, his stand is impressive because it appears to be against what an outsider would think his best interest: revenge on those who killed his father.

In the same way, I would hope Bush would say, “My child is precious to me, and I want everything medically possible done for her. But I will not compromise an ethical stand I have taken because you think it is in my best interest.”

What a terrible world this would be if everyone in positions of power made such decisions based on what was in their best interest, rather than on principles. Should I propose that the government give all engineers who have stupidly assumed the debt of a deadbeat kid tax relief, just because it would result in thousands of dollars in my pocket? Shame on me if I do.

But actually, Dick, I think you make a gross miscalculation by thinking that getting Bush will sink the Republicans next election. The Republicans will rise, maintain, or fall based on their performance in Congress and how it compares to what a majority of the voting public wants done, not based on a single person. You might want to concentrate on revealing what you believe to be Republican lapses there, or on changing public opinion from what it seems to be.

Best Regards,
DAT

Mr. Todd:

The president said he'd rather see hundreds of thousands of fertilized embryos used in invitro firtilization be destroyed as medical waste rather than allocate ANY OF OUR money to do STEM CELL research to help solve some of these desparate diseases. BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGIOUS REASONS HE SAID HE WOULD VETO SUCH A BILL.

And Michael, I confess, I am an illegal alien but I am in the safest country in the world for people like me (perhaps PEOPLE LIKE ME IS an over generalization) I have to go now--my beam of light is waiting and I hate being on the galactic meter.

Steve: Why did the president's head snap BACKWARDS when the limo came out from behind the sign--or are you still wandering about and they haven't found you yet? You introduced the subject into the thread.

p.s. Mr. Tod I commend you on your reasoned approach to this subject even though we disagree.

Dick Morgan

Dick,

Last I checked, Bush will not be able to run for a third term, so asking the "Dukakis question" (and why isn't it the Reagan question?) won't do much for the next Republican candidate other than give them a free opinion poll of what position to take to get the most votes.

With Kennedy, I generally don't concern myself with people who died before I was born. If people who were adults when it happened want to argue it, that's their bag, but if I must participate, I remember someone saying there was a woman with a polka-dot umbrella who everyone was talking about for three days after the shooting and then all talk in the media was squelched. I'll say her umbrella was one of those KGB poison-pellet-shooting specials and she'd just shot him in the throat when Oswald shot him with a regular bullet in a weird bit of synchronicity. In other words, a government assassin and a random nut chose the same moment to shoot him. What are the odds? But history is filled with weird coincidences like that.

As for Soros bankrolling a suit from Michael Shiavo againt Hannity, if the first two parties are willing, we'll see it. But I suspect one or both think it's a bad idea, so we won't.

What's the famous thing Santayana said??? About history?
"Those that do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Ah yeah, that's it!!!

Less famously, but just as interestingly, he also said:
"Before you contradict an old man, my fair friend, you should endeavor to understand him."

You cant argue something convincingly unless you know, and concern yourself, with what it is you're arguing about.... Knowing why you're arguing is just not good enough.
Lo

LO-thank you for that reminder. No one has yet answered the question why the President's head snapped backwards--and one doesn't have to be born during that time to answer it. The History Channel had an excellent exploration of all the various theories called the MEN WHO SHOT KENNEDY. One of the men who took the Zapruder film and enhanced the saturation and constrast of every frame. At the instant Kennedy's head snaps backwards you can see a sonic shock wave coming off his forehead. Normally you'd need polarized light for that to show--but sunlight is polarized. You can't get that shock wave from a bullet from behind. Last time I saw The MEN WHO SHOT KENNEDY THAT SECTION WAS MISSING. And I don't have a theory--just pointing out the evidence of two shooters.

As far as Bush not being able to run again--it's the stranglehold the Republicans have on EVERYTHING. This could knock off a few Republicans--they are already skittish about the stem cell thing. If it were me I'd have a genetically diseased person standing by every Democrat until it is equated in the public's mind everytime they see Bush-Republican Religious control over the sick.
Dick Morgan

Well, I don’t have Bush’s words at hand and so don’t know exactly what he said. From my standpoint, there is a huge difference between those responsible for creating the embryos deciding to trash them and deciding to use them for medical research. The immediate result is the same, of course: the death/destruction of the embryo. The long-term result is what I call the Feedstock Principle.

I first developed and articulated this principle (for myself only) after being the engineer for several solid waste districts. Each day they struggled to dispose of mounds of trash at a reasonable cost to the rate-payers. We designed a new landfill, and my engineering feasibility report became part of the package for issuing revenue bonds. The only way investors would buy such bonds was if all governments having any jurisdiction would pass ordinances stating that all the trash in the district must be disposed of in the landfill financed by those bonds. To potential bondholders, the solid waste was a source of revenue. To let that waste go elsewhere was detrimental to the bondholders. It thus ceased to be waste and became feedstock—raw material in a process of converting farmland to future, undetermined final use. In fact, the potential investors would have opposed efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle had State law not mandated these.

If you use embryos for research, they cease to be surplus, unwanted life forms and become feedstock in the medical research process. Once you have a need for this feedstock, an ‘industry’ will sprout to produce the feedstock. You will find people creating embryos just for the purpose of selling them for stem-cell research. This would likely happen only after the current supply is exhausted. I understand that supply is rather large, and thus the ‘embryo mill industry’ will be a while in coming.

This probably seems like minutia to you, but I find no other way to handle it and be consistent with principles.

I still understand that embryonic stem cell research continues. It continues with Federal funds in strains created before August 2001, and it probably continues without Federal funds in strains created after this. Also, much research is going on with non-embryonic stem cells—with Federal funding. I reject the notion that Federal funding is the only potential source of money for this research. If it is important enough, with demonstrated potential of success, the funds will come regardless of whether the Federal government chooses to participate.

Best Regards,
DAT

DAT:

Your very well thought out response deserves an equal amount of effort on my part. You are treating this as. at minimum, a second order equation. I think in fairness to owning up to one's agenda's I should say I have a close member of my family who is going blind because of Retinitus Pigmentosis--which has already shown promise in early trials of stem cells therapy. Let's not let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good".

Dick Morgan

Dick Morgan

Lo,

There's a difference between forgetting history and refusing to obsess over the previous generation's conspiracy theories. For me, Kennedy was shot, same as Lincoln, and beyond that the various alternate theories are simply the stuff of documentaries and docu-dramas. I'm more interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories, since they involve a defining moment of my adult life, but similarly I'm not going to demand that folk born after it freak out about something that for them is simply old history.

Besides which, even if there was a Kennedy conspiracy, assuming I live to a reasonable age, sometime in my lifetime everyone involved will be dead and so the question will be as relevant theories about John Wilkes Booth.

What did you score a hit of, Dick? My apologies if the question is clever, which you have set over against being right, as if they were polar opposites.

I like the notion of not changing subjects. You believe, then, that it is good professional discipline for American military personnel to take it upon themselves to urinate on the religious symbol not only of the enemy, but of a couple million Americans?

Or are you saying that it good military policy to urinate on that symbol, not something the individual soldiers elected to do?

I do understand the logic, if the object of the military is to continuously replenish the ranks from which these enemies spring. After all, you see the worldwide reaction. We can't very well scratch our heads and wonder where all the anti-Americanism is coming from, if we don't create a few more anti-Americans now and then by blatant acts such as these. Some of those guys just don't have a problem with less provocative (though more substantial) slights. It's like a wake-up call.

If, however, the object of the military is to fight and win the war at hand, these acts - the recent gitmo revelation, and the Abu Ghraib disgraces - are counterproductive. What do you think this does for the legitimacy of the elected Iraqi government (our allies?) How about the insurgents (our enemies - though since we are making recruiting posters for them through actions such as these, you could hardly tell)?

I work daily with career military guys, Dick. They are disgusted by these displays. Not disgusted-for-the-press-but-really-kinda-psyched disgusted, disgusted-in-real-life-conversation-over-a-cigarette disgusted. They wince and stuff when they talk about it.

Have they seen greater obscenities? Of course. So have I. What makes them wince is not that this is the worst our military can do - far from it. It's the whittling away of a code of conduct they had legitimate pride in, a code that says "I don't care what your sick-ass creed tells you to do, Americans don't do that."

I'm sure during the recent Iraq war Qu'rans were spattered with bodily fluids by munitions of all sides. But this is collateral to the actual destruction the munitions were intended to cause. To piss on the holy book of a religion is to say "we fight you because you are Moslem."

Please tell me again why bigotry is good. My fuzzy leftist brain has forgotten already.

Oh, and one for Kevin - you do know Lo is speaking of George Santayana, not Carlos, right?

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited June 07, 2005).]

Excellent post, Dan. Thanks for it.

LOL

Kevin, you;ve just confirmed Lo's remark!

KEB

That's the thing, Kevin...."old" IS "history" and it does tend to repeat itself unless you take steps to prevent it from reoccurring....especially if everyone who knows the truth is dead.

The truth is never irrelevant. It's important to know the truth....not the theory, but the truths behind the theories. What matters is not the death of Lincoln or even the death of Kennedy, what matters is the fact that our government may have conspired to rewrite the how's,and maybe the who's,which would change the why's and thereby, change the histories as well. If a conspiracy theory is true, and I am not saying it is or it isnt because I dont know, think of how that little ripple effects everything that has happened since then......yea, i say unto you - even until your own birth-time.

It's not just obsession with a past incident which drives people to search and to question...it's a desire and a need to know the truth.

Lo



[This message has been edited by Lo (edited June 07, 2005).]

Thank you again, Lo.

Mr. Todd, I didn't have enough time to do the research your comments about creating an industry of embryonic stem cells for research purpose deserved. I think eventually there will be one. The president's "research into stem cells" is all smoke and mirrors. He originally said there was 60 cell lines--then that has shrunk to 22--now, scientist who work in the field, say the 22 cell lines are so contaminated with mouse DNA they are virtually useless, You seem to operate on the premise that human life at any stage is should be regarded as "sacred". Where on this war ridden, murderous planet do you find it is "sacred" What about the entire DNA we share in common with Chimps--is that sacred too?

What about adult stem cells? The number of cell divisions is already fixed in the telemeres attached to the end of each gene. (Dolly the sheep syndrome)

This country cannot survive if it does not stay ahead of other countries technologically. IBM has sold its PC line to China and all the technology that goes with it. China is not threatened by any of its neighbors but it is arming faster than we are according to money spent relative to GDP. Mac computers has broken off with IBM—perhaps because they don’t want to give away their technology to the biggest tech pirates in the world.

We can all sit around and navel gaze over this stem cell research for the “highest moral principals”—but the rest of the world won’t. You want a cure for cancer--don't go to Sloan Kettering--go to Korea--they'll be happy to take your money.

Dan, why do you oppose the notion that we should all play by the same rules and measure things using the same yardsticks? Add up the number of times you’ve hammered the U.S. about our treatment of terrorists in our prisons and compare it with the number of times you hammered the terrorists about beheading Alan Berg on TV. Same number? I doubt it.

By the way, it was Clinton's administration that came up with the idea of flying prisoners to foreign countries for "More Thorough Interrogation." I don’t know where you get your authority to speak for our armed forces. I can speak only for myself. Three times in my life I was faced with a “shoot-don’t shoot” situation where I was an undesignated back-up for a partner. Fortunately I didn’t have to but I can tell you it will concentrate your thinking—or in your case, maybe not.

Dick

Yikes...double post...dont ask me how....all I was doing was "editing" and somehow a whole new space waa created...this was it...now it isnt.

It's a conspiracy, isnt it?

Lo

[This message has been edited by Lo (edited June 07, 2005).]

Have you ever considered that people are sometimes in search of OTHER truths and there are only so many hours in a day?

There's a cartoon I once saw about twenty years ago with two college students sitting in front of the tv with one saying to the other "Do you remember where you were when you saw your first Kennedy assassination documentary?"

There are a lot of things which are the defining moment of a generation, but I think very often the quest for truth gets overshadowed by narcisism. Your bag and hobby horse do not have to be my bag and hobby horse.

Besides which, those who remember history may still be doomed to repeat it too, cf. the recent "Freedom Fries" nonsense. Doesn't that sound an awful lot like "Liberty Cabbage"?

Dick,

The usual explanation I've heard is that his head snapped forward while it was behind the sign and then backward immediately after that -- at the same time that it reappeared in view.

One reason why the head would do the forward then backward thing is that the head is mounted on a shaft (neck) and hinge (where spine dips between shoulders.) There is a mechanical tendency of things so mounted to swivel violently to their forward extreme of motion and then snap back.

Fred

Dick, you really must mind what you say, when it is so likely to directly implicate you.

You have not answered the question, although, as I understand it, you have gotten quite exercised over the notion that I personally speak for the armed forces (something I never claimed, although I did explain the attitude of acquaintances in the armed forces over these disgraces.)

You've also confused my disgust at my military's behaviour - and make no mistake, the military is supposed to work for us, not the other way around, in a democracy - with the attitude of some phantom opponent who believes that the excesses of others must be weighed in order to determine one's own adherence to his own code of conduct.

This is also an error on your part. If you encounter the opponent you are seeking, have that argument with him.

I want to stick the the subject you changed over from, on your flight from the question: Are you or are you not in support of urinating on holy books which serve as the predominant religious symbol of an enemy, notwithstanding that the book in question is also holy to many of your fellow citizens?

If so, is it best undertaken as an individual soldier's perogative, or should it be top-down, United States policy to urinate on holy books?

I will await your answer. In the meantime, let me clear up some more of your misconceptions. You got responses earlier to your specious argument against those who feel the urination issue had been weighed and judged to be worse than the actions of a suicide bomber. Others challenged you on it - since nobody seems to know anyone who makes the argument you claim to refute. Your response: "don't you watch the news?" - presumably, you have missed the point. They are not challenging that either the urination or the bombing happened; they are challenging that anybody makes the argument you purport to refute. Coincidentally, your refutation of the wrong argument sealed your fate regarding the right one. Since both events have garnered recent media attention, it is difficult to argue that the suicide bombing has been ignored in favor of the desecration. Rather, as is fitting, both have been treated as newsworthy.

Now don't forget that answer to the real question, Dick. For or against? As policy or individual soldier's perogative?

Let's skip the ad-homs and the lib-baiting. I don't care about who is president for this answer. I don't care about the parties. I don't care about whether you like Fox or CNN. I don't care about what you think I believe. I care about taking this one point at a time, to guard against the subject-changing you so recently lamented.

So, just answer the question.

Regards,

Dan


[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited June 07, 2005).]

Dan, please forgive me for being so lame brained--but what was the original question you are refering to?

Dick

Fred, not you too! The President's wife and the Secret Service agent on the back of the limo said the president's brains were all over the back of the limo. Mass in motion tends to stay in motion--I think some guy named Newton coined that one.
But Fred, thank you for at least trying to attempt to answer the question in the physics context in which is was phrased. The one you positited was one I believe that is the one that Walter Cronkite tried to fly. Keep in mind there was a second congressional inquiry that arrived at the conclusion there were two shooters.


Dick

[This message has been edited by Dick Morgan (edited June 07, 2005).]

Dan, if the terrorists used the Koran as their justification for cutting off Berge's head on TV I'm all for pissing on their justification.

Dick

What's that peculiar reasoning called again? The one that always tripped me up on IQ tests? The one that goes like this:

David Berkowitz killed many people.
David Berkowitz took his orders from a dog named Sam:
Therefore, all dogs are evil-minded people-killers and it is our civic duty to eradicate them.

Lo

Out here in California, we just call that sort of reasoning "whacked." Thought that's likely not the anwer on the IQ tests.

Of course, common sense seldom enters into such equations. If the neighbor's dog is telling you to kill people, the proper response is "Bad dog!" Though taking him on the Tonight Show is another option. I mean, it may be an evil talking dog, but it's still a talking dog, and that's pretty cool.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, I never saw a dog I didn't like. They are never evil in the truest sense of the word; only possibly bad mannered, like farting while people are trying to eat.

Robert Meyer

Dick, I too disagree with your reasoning, although I understand the emotion behind it.

But that may be condescending of me. Your statement was that if the qu'ran was used by Berg's killers, then it should be desecrated.

The second part of the question posed above is: should it be up to individual soldiers to desecrate the Qu'ran, with U.S. government carte blanche approval, or should the U.S. government actively manage the desecration of the Qu'ran as official policy?

For the moment, we will assume your condition that the Berg beheading was at some point "justified" using the Qu'ran, which you've stipulated as making Qu'ran desecration a social good.

I await your further considered analysis,

Dan

Lo: finally someone says it. Sorry, I've been lurking here because a lot of this is silly, but once and for all:

Suicide bombers are bad.

Suicide bombers are generally Muslim.

Not all Muslims are Suicide bombers.

Not all Muslims are responsible for the actions of some Muslims.

The Koran is a symbol used by ALL Muslims. It is a symbol of Islam.

Therefore urinating on the Koran is holding ALL Muslims responsible. It is holding Islam accountable for the actions of some Muslims.

Someone answer this question for me, please: ARE WE AT WAR WITH TERRORISTS, IRAQ, OR THE MUSLIM FAITH???

Because some people say 'yes' to the first, 'not really' to the second, and 'definitely not!' to the third, but occasionally they slip, little figures of speech give them away, they are forced to backtrack; but those who were paying attention get the distinct impression that we are really at war with all three.

Now if someone believes that there is something wrong with Islam that makes people involved with it cause conflicts, they are at liberty to say so and have the notion debated. What makes me sick to the stomach are all the little cowards hanging on to Bush's chainmail, hoping they'll wake up one morning and he'll have wiped out all the nasty flag burning brown people; because the cowards don't even have the guts to speak for what they believe in.

I am no Taliban supporter. But I am no Dominionist, and they are the ones telling us to cluster into their citadel for protection. But what will they do with us then? Fascism comes in many guises. I do not want to lose my freedom and my country because so many signed up to this bloody protection racket; I would rather die. No, I am not one for forcing Sharia and Hijabs on people, nor am I for creationism and executing gay men.

A plague on both your houses.

[This message has been edited by Alexander Grace (edited June 08, 2005).]

Kevin, IQ tests were banned in the late 60's in California as being racially biased in favor of Asians.

Dick

Dan:

quote
___________________________________________
For the moment, we will assume your condition that the Berg beheading was at some point "justified" using the Qu'ran, which you've stipulated as making Qu'ran desecration a social good.
________________________________
Dick also says:
That goes for every race that that uses their religion as justification for committing all their horrors. And, unfortunately, if you go back through history you will find that they all do this to justify slaying their their enemies. It is the responsibility of Islam to clean out its own bad apples or be assumed to share the same values of the Islamic terrorists towards us.

You will notice the biggest negative reaction to priests molesting little chldren came from the United States and it is here their membership is dropping the fastest. Were it so in muslim countries and I would take their pleas of innocence with more seriousness.

Dick