Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it? (II)

[legoboyvdlp]

Just watch the "kids with Klaschinkovs" don't sever your infidel head from your infidel body...
Possibly they are reading this thread and we are next on the target list?
I hope not.
Sincerely hope not.

[KL-666]

Every country that is invaded is in a complete mess afterwards. No drinking water, no schools, no police, nothing. Open grounds for radicals to nestle and make things even worse.

So in every case you have to weigh: Is such mess worth fighting the threat that goes out from such country?

In my personal opinion that has been sometimes the case, and sometimes not.

Afghanistan harboured al quaida, which was a great threat in terrorism. I think that puts the balance to invading.

Saddam had done some really nasty things in the past. But at the time of invasion he was completely impotent by the sanctions and UN checks. No threat there at that moment, so no invasion justified

Iran, handled magnificent via diplomacy by the American government lately.

Isis, a big threat in mobilizing terrorists in western countries. I fear serious measures are necessary. And by the way they are not a coherent country that is messed up by invasion.

In the news i see happiness about hitting isis with bombs in cities. That saddens me because there ar also normal people living in those cities. Get them when they venture out in the desert for battle. Deprive them from moving. Then their resources will dwindle and probably the city folk themselves will overcome them.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

Hello Skyboat,

In discussions misunderstandings happen, and i can handele some slaps. It is also my doing by being so brief in the first statement. Apologies are not necessary under friends that know the other means well. But thanks anyway. Then i apologise for being too brief.

Kind regards, Vincent

[LesterBoffo]

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here JWocky,

Dr. David was discussing the "Racks of nuclear missiles", in what way could we have use with them in some connection with a measured response?

Your facts 2, and 3 are more assertions. We supplied the precursor chemicals as agricultural aid, along with a large number of other countries, to Iraq, there was little we could do about how they were used, and it wasn't Carter, (who actually cut off aid to Saddam..) https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/09/us-tolerated-chemical-weapon-attacks-saddam

Reagan's admin holds complete responsibility for increasingly destabilizing the whole region. That included the Iran-Contra mess, inconvenient as it may be. The 'ethical reasons' for going into Iraq post Gulf War I was purely done because of Bush and Cheney feeling a need to finish what they saw as Dubya's father not finishing what he started. This was a big mistake. They also remember the many oil wells Saddam torched. That was a 'never again' moment when world oil energy needs can be exploitatively channeled, Cheney had big plans.

Facts 3 and 4 are outright falsehoods, in Fact 3 we had signed an agreement with Iraq to be out of their government and drawing down troops as they took over their own governance, and this was wholly a Bush admin agreement, it's not something Obama signed up more than inherited.

Same with the increasing chaos and the lack of control with the Shi'ite Government's weakness in curbing the ongoing sectarian violence, We had an agreement. It was a perfect storm, the sectarian divide we meant to 'fix' was never healed, the Sunni majority remembered being in power. Al Nusra-ISIS was the former Sunnis' ( now extremely radicalized..) out of power, they took advantage of areas the Shi'ites didn't have the men to control.

Remember we also didn't really win any hearts over with our invasion. When you violently take over an urban area, destroying needed systems and not plan ahead for timely restoring those infrastructures, so the folks whose homes are still there can get back on with their lives... Baghdad was without a functioning water treatment system for many years after the 2003 invasion, among other equally distressing problems. That is a fact.

Fact 5 should also apply in the first years of Gulf War II, we were reluctant to attack in strength on the ground when guided weaponry, drones, and smart bombs could do it 'cheaper' in manpower. I have a nephew who served two tours, he will also concur in this. The chaos caused by insurgency, IED's and the random car bomb made any sort of group ground patrol highly dangerous.

The semantics sword cuts both ways.

[IAHM-COL]

Hi ALL

certainly an entertaining and tense thread.

Again, no opinions from my part.

If you think I'm not contributing to this forum, then certainly, dispose of my presence here.
I have deep convictions.

@Lester

Rest assured Lesbof your convictions are welcomed. I actually like reading each side of the multisided coin here.
Rest assured as well, that in this forum having your own opinion, and voicing it does not grant you banning. Your voice, and post will not start disappearing as per the act of magic of a dissenting moderator. I think that is one certain point here differs largely from "there".

JabberWocky has his view point. You have yours. Feel free to stalemate in "not agreement".

And thus, off course I close by repeating. In Jabberwocky's Free Flight Free Speech Forum, every opinion is personal. Each of us speak for our own.


Everyone. Thanks for sharing.
IH-COL

[jwocky]

Hummm, you see me a little confused, Lester

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here JWocky

Who is we? Certain mental disorders aside none of us can speak for more than exactly one person ... unless of course someone wants wrongfully rise the impression to represent a group or even a majority. I speak for me, so who is this omnious group you pretend to speak for, Lester, I betg for clarification.

Your facts 2, and 3 are more assertions. We supplied the precursor chemicals as agricultural aid, along with a large number of other countries, to Iraq, there was little we could do about how they were used, and it wasn't Carter, (who actually cut off aid to Saddam..) https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink ... cks-saddam

Well, that is funny. You quote from a liberal propaganda site that is known for its very "liberal" treatment of facts and truth and tell me based on this, facts 2 and 3 are assertions?
Lets look at it then, shall we? Here is my #2:

Fact 2: The Bush administration led two wars. Afghanistan was no question. A hostile act had taken it's origin from there when all the 9/11 attackers were trained specifically for that kind of mission there under the auspices of the Taliban which was then the ruling power there. So actually, according to the definitions of the Convention of Geneva, Afghanistan attacked the US, the invasion was a valid counter measure.
The situation is different with Iraq. The Iraqui government had gased some ten thousand of their own people, had some 20000 more in political prisons and had still not paid for the invasion of Kuwait some years earlier. The UN had then prevented any invasion of Iraqi terrain after the liberation of Kuwait. Ssaddam Hussein's regime was actually trying to get WMDs already since the 70s. The ruins of the Tamuz reactors are still about five storeys high and about two city blocks wide. Inside, you can see the foundation for a French built breed reactor ... but the Israelis blew the thing up before it could go hot. More than 10,000 bodies in mass graves near the Kurdish area proved by being killed with C-weapons, that those weapons in Iraq were not "just a CIA lie". But of course, after Chemical Ali had killed those thousands by gas, he ran out of it. They never had an own production, it was still left-overs from what the Carter administration had given them once.
So, there was no clear reason on the legal side that would have forced the US to go to war there. They had a choice. Still, there were some long overdue ethical reasons. Unless you consider men, women, children in whole villages killed in concentric helicopter attacks with WMDs as "no reason to be upset". You know, peace groups are all nice and fine, but if the peace politics consists mere of look the other way when people die, there is a certain lack of ethical credibility to it.

Bush led two wars ... I take it that is undeniable?
The 9/11 terrorists were trained in Afghanistan in Taliban training camps. That at least is what Al-Qaeda (in their video message from January 2002), the FBI (in the investigative report from 2004) and the CIA in their public document from June 18, 2002 claimed. Al-Jezeerah made the same claim since 2002, but I am unable to check on Al-Jazeerah's sources. Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were sent to a refresher (they had visited several camps in the past) to Mes Aynak, ab. 40 mi off of Kabul which was in 1999 the main Taliban training facility.
Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah went for base training also at Mes Aynak, then to special training about infiltration in Westenr countries at a training facility in Kabul. Ramzi bin al-Shibh went through the same training but was later unable to obtain a visa for the US and had been replaced by Hani Hanjour, who was trained in a camp near Kundus for another mission in late 1999 and very early 2000 according to documents found when that camp was taken years later. Now I could continue that, but it is clear where the 9/11 attackers were trained. And since all those facilities were Taliban as in Afghanistan government facilities at the time, there is no question, that the government of Afghanistan was involved in a hostile act against the US. So this is cleared up?
In Iraq, as I said, there was a choice to go or not to go. There were no legal reasons that made an invasion unavoidable. However, there were of course some ethical reasons and some unfinished business and there was a WMD issue. The dead bodies of thousands of Kurds in mass graves, the ruins of the breed reactor Tamuz, that is all proven, everyone can read those things up. So there is actually no doubt that Iraq in the past tried to retain and produce weapons of mass destruction. The point in question is, how much did they have or how near were they at this time, which translates to probably "not much left" and "far away from getting a nuke" (but then that is really my guess that they had not much and were far away). So those poitns for and against an invasion is beyond doubt, those are the facts. What there is dissertation?
So the last point in question is, who delivered C-weaponry to Iraq. Western Germany and the US both sold Iraq dual use pesticides. Those were not fertilizers as you claim, those were already poisons officially labeled against bugs but know to be usable against humans as well. The Carter administration sold also already in late 1980 modified Phoenix missiles in an Air-to-ground version as deployment system.
So when Reagan entered the White House, the damage was already done. So how can you claim, the things that happened before he became President were his sole responsibility?

Now #3:

Fact 3: After the administration change to the Obama administration, The US withdrew from Iraq without establishing a sufficient security system either in form of the Iraqi government or by international security troops. The Obama administration was warned, by NATO, by the own Chiefs of Staff, this is a dangerous game. Still, the cut and run took place. And actually, it worked for a while simply, because no group popped up that was strong and ruthless enough to overpower the other ones.

So you claim, Obama didn't withdraw? Interesting!
Do you claim, there was a sufficient security system?
And we know, the vacuum was finally taken over by ISIS ... so what exactly do you think, is "assertation" in that?

So the only thing left over of your "critique" is unproven claim, the usual use of "Dubya" mean as insult when a liberal runs out of arguments and the abstract claim "Reagan destabilized the region" ... well, it wasn't a stable region to begin with.

And then you claim Fact 3 and 4 are falsehoods ...
Well there was an agreement, but who signed it? When Bush left the White House, there was no time schedule. It was Obama who went down for the whole schedule thing. So actually, you try to sell the falsehood here. And Obama pushed the withdrawal without any consideration for the security situation.
And Fact 4? Well after Obama's "red line" everybody knew. The result was that everyone started to play the strong man. Not only ISIS but for example also the Kim family. And you can't deny, the push of ISIS happened right afterwards. So your claim of falsehood falls back on you.

So, since I never wrote about guided weaponry, I don't see where your claim comes form, I would have said something wrong about them. And of course, any patrol activity was extremely dangerous. And of course, semantic swards, like every kind of sword cuts both ways. Unless, someone is caught twisting the facts, messing up the time lines and trying to sell mere baseless claims as "his personal facts". What I wrote, everybody can check with other sources. So I am clean. Now, bring your sources and please, not just another conspiracy site as sole line ...

[IAHM-COL]

Hi All. I don't have tweeter, and thus I don't retweet. I have a facebook to see my family on the distance and rarely post. Yet, today, one of my facebook friends has posted something I feel so in connection with that I am daring to quote all her statement here. And I align.

IH-COL

One of the many problems I see here in discussions with acts of violence is that everyone thinks that their opinion is the right opinion, that what they believe is true, and it is creating tension and anger. It is human nature to do so. You may believe and think that everyone has a right to own a gun, you may believe that everyone should believe in one god, the same god. You may believe that there is no god and wonder why people believe their prayers will be answered by a god you don’t believe in. You may believe it does not impact and it is of no importance for the good of the people that Nigeria is in a terrible state of religious, economic, violent turbulence. You may believe that the Paris attack means everything to you and now that Paris has been attacked we must retaliate. What you think is right. What you believe is truth. BUT…it is all YOUR truth, it is all YOUR belief system. So in the end, there is no right answer, everyone perceives things differently. Even your own child does not and will not see things the way you do. It is all perspective and we react based on what we have learned or experienced.

What I see here is arguing and people hoping for peace. Everyone is trying to prove what they believe is right will help and it is creating more chaos and more anger. Even when their belief is meant to be for the good and peace of all humanity. I will not label myself when I don’t have to. I am not straight, I am not gay, I am not Christian, or Hindu or Buddhist. I am not blonde, I am not brunette. I have blue eyes, and I am 5’3”, and was born 39 years ago, and those are facts. But I am constantly evolving and changing and constantly questioning what I believe is true. What you see as brown, I call chocolate. So how do we as a society, culture, population, reach a level of acceptable peace without labeling each other and fighting each other for what we choose to be right. How do we prevent those that do not understand the other’s values or belief system from attacking such innocence. We don’t. As long as we continue as we historically have, there will always be bloodshed, there will always be a need for power, there will always be this intense craving to get people to believe what each of us thinks is right. Until our species evolves into another form, we will continue to see this violence. It is simply and sadly growing. Because those that have the power, those that have to act…they fiercely react! And from my experience and education on history, the human species has yet to learn that reacting, retaliating, fighting, killing, is not how you create a peaceful world. It breeds violence, it continues to breed hatred, insecurities, and anger because what one side believes is right, the other side turns around and becomes immediately defensive. Even the simplest current posts about how Thanksgiving and Christmas have come about are breeding anger, we are not educating we are only developing and evolving an advanced system of violence. Please start educating the facts, because nobodies’ opinion really matters in the end. I see a detrimental competition of violence between who has the bigger balls for power and control.

Start educating about acceptance, love, differences, perspectives, health, sustainability and planet earth as one. Those that are posting about simple acts of kindness and love, thank you for that. Because there is no argument there. It will be a rare find for someone to argue a post about treating people kindly. If we can begin to change and share those kinds of stories and educate the facts, rather than argue about who is right or better, we can begin to evolve into another form where these violent atrocities are no longer feared. Of course, that is just my opinion…
‪#‎stoptheviolence‬ ‪#‎stophumantrafficking‬ ‪#‎stopsharkfinning‬ ‪#‎stopmurderingelephants‬ ‪#‎stopthelabels‬ ‪#‎stopblackmarketanimaltrade‬ ‪#‎STOP‬ #STOP #STOP the violence and anger. ‪#‎BREEDEQUALITY‬ ‪#‎TEACHEQUALITY‬
Desperate for equality,
~just me

[MIG29pilot]

I don't agree (

As usual

My view about truth is that whatever the future will bring and whatever the past has brought, and whatever the present is leaving, there are truths which are and were and always are true for their moment, if not for all time. If I lie on my side and you stand on you head and we look at a glass, I think it's sideways and you think it's upside down. In reality it's rightside up. Someone may take it and flip it over but that does not change the fact that it was rightside up a moment before.

Start educating about acceptance, love, differences, perspectives, health, sustainability and planet earth as one. Those that are posting about simple acts of kindness and love, thank you for that. Because there is no argument there. It will be a rare find for someone to argue a post about treating people kindly. If we can begin to change and share those kinds of stories and educate the facts, rather than argue about who is right or better, we can begin to evolve into another form where these violent atrocities are no longer feared. Of course, that is just my opinion…

Oh Come ON! I mean really! What happens when someone ambitious comes along? What happens when someone greedy comes along? What happens when someone isn't satisfied with your views of truth, with your little boxes and categories? What happens when someone thinks they can do better? What happens when human passions--lust, pride, ambition, gluttony, greed, arrogance, burst out and blow you "Love education" to bits?

That is why, even if there is no God, we need a Christian religion. Why? Not only does Catholicism teach your "Love truths," teaches equality, teaches charity, teaches wisdom, teaches kindness, teaches generosity, teaches mercy, teaches fairness, teaches acceptance, teaches humility, teaches moderation, teaches modesty, teaches self-control, teaches patience, teaches chastity and teaches responsibility, but it also teaches that there are just and fair consequences for those who are bad, punishment for evil, in fairness and moderation. What can any secular acceptance, love, etc., do to firmly implant these truths into the minds of its pupils? What impetus can it give to them to love, accept, etc; to not kill, to not rob, to not rape, to not enslave, to not control, to not sin? In this setup, when the person feels he can get away with it he will do it. In Christianity he at least knows that even if he avoids the punishment of man, there is the Almighty punishment of God.

[KL-666]

What i am saying here is probably not very effective, but i believe it is better to have people really (not) want things, than enforce it by fear.

Kind regards, Vincent

[MIG29pilot]

Which is what the ideal of Catholicism is--to not want to do such and such because of its own repulsiveness and because it offends God.