« Sderot Has the Best Cocktails in Israel | Main | The 3 a.m. Call Finally Comes »

September 08, 2008


Just commentating on your assertion (or whoever said it) that 80 % of the US is Christian and the Christian/Muslim/whatever topic in general:-

I can see your point and understand it.

I also think that if you asked God, He doesn't worry about that! He only cares about the heart and whether we loved on this earth - not whether we were Christian, Muslim or otherwise.

In my opinion - which I know has little bearing on the topic (!) - I think that we will judge ourselves when we die and it will have nothing to do with any man-made religions.

As far as I know all religious books have been written by men/women that walked this earth, including the bible.

I do believe that God tries to point us in the right direction often, but mankind just does goes his own way and then says it's in the name of Allah/Jesus/God/etc.

What suprises me most of all about Christians is that they do not 'see' that they are just as fanatical as Muslim's.

You could say that is ok, but just as a fanatical Muslim does does not 'see' the 'error' of his ways, which seems obvious to the rest of us, so too many fanatical Christians refuse to even consider that their ways may be in error, because for example, they bundle it behind a verse from the bible.

I really am not having a go at you Gina (this time!)
I am being honest and serious.

I give an example - when Janet Jackson showed her breast on stage at some US football game the USA went ballistic. It was top story for weeks. The outcry was a total over-reaction.

I DO NOT see the same response to (and I know I mention it often) the innocent people that the US has killed in Iraq or Afghanistan for instance.

The measuring scale is NOT level in the US, especially in Christian circles, unfortunately.

I think that if we really knew God we'd find that we all look pretty much the same to him - no matter what the religion.

For what little it is worth, this is how the comment struck me.

Barrack Obama being a muslim is the line of attack being used (attack, based on the discussion with Stephaopolous). That is the meme. There would be no point for John McCain to refer top Obama's Christian faith. What as being discussed is the muslim faith, if McCain had made reference to Obamab being a muslim, or having a muslim faith. Obama was admitting that McCain hadn't taken part in these pot shots, that he made no reference to Obama being a muslim, or having a muslim faith. Obama, instead of talking about it in the third person, said McCain made no reference to "my muslim faith," he could of said "made to reference to me being a muslim."

To illustrate, imagine some one frequently (and erroneously) being described as gay. But one person, lets use the name Tammy, in the office wasn't bringing that up in discussing him. If the person being accused said something along the lines of "Tammy never made mention of my homosexuality," it wouldn't be admitting to being gay, it would merely be discussing the meme that he is gay.

I don't think it was transposition. I believe the words were exactly what Obama meant, that he simply meant it as a means of discussing the meme of "obama the muslim."

Don't get me wrong, none of this makes me any more inclined to vote Obama, just in this case, it seems like willfully taking something in a bad way. The same kind of empty political maneuvering (were to be used on its own) as the Obama camp uses when they describe John McCain's belief that you aren't rich unless you make more than 5 million a year, which was obviously just a wise crack joke in the context of the saddleback forum.

"...You could say that is ok, but just as a fanatical Muslim does does not 'see' the 'error' of his ways, which seems obvious to the rest of us, so too many fanatical Christians refuse to even consider that their ways may be in error, because for example, they bundle it behind a verse from the bible..."

LOL! you're right you know. The Amish are just waiting to launch an assault on downtown Philadelphia, and those Baptists have developed their own martial arts using a bible as a weapon to subdue their foes, ROTFLMAO. Your assertions are absurd. Did you not read the post that referred to 'Meekness' which was defined as 'absolute power under absolute control' and was considered a virtue?

"...I give an example - when Janet Jackson showed her breast on stage at some US football game the USA went ballistic. It was top story for weeks. The outcry was a total over-reaction..."

And you really have an unhealthy obsession with Janet Jackson's breast; this is like the 3rd time you've brought it up on this forum. That's a bit creepy. BTW, it wasn't the Christian right that made such a show; it was the main stream media that was embarrassed because their "5 second delay" failed.

Questions about religious faith are relevant. Is John McCain a Christian? Why are some Christians unsure of how central Christ is to his life? He does not talk about his faith much. Why did he critcize Rev. Falwell and Rev. Robertson? Does this make him a bad person? Sarah Palin is a professed Christian. Must all Christians agree with her views and support her? Obama is a Christian, but came to faith in his 20's in a black church, and is more liberal in his theological understandings than many of us. You certainly can disagree with his political positions and not like him, but it is disingenuous to contend he is a Muslim. His political positions are attractive to many, so folks like you try to stir things up with gossip and innuendo.

"...You certainly can disagree with his political positions and not like him, but it is disingenuous to contend he is a Muslim..."

"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith..."

He's not making it any easier, Bart. One minute he's a christian, the next he's professing his muslim faith. Ya can't be both.

I think it's disingenuous for you to criticize Gina for presenting facts based on his own presentation.

Gawf I knew that you woulden't be able to resist adding insults where you could to my post.

GINA - I've noticed that you have, at times, requested people to keep their posts polite.
I'd ask that you keep tabs on ALL people adding posts here - i.e. - including people like Gawfer and conservatives. You know - level scales...

Just as a side point Gawfer - I find it interesting that you seem to align yourself with Christians and like to add posts, as you have done here, in favour of Christianity.

I see that your website has a daily devotion. That is commendable. However I think that you'd probably find that true Christians would shy away from visiting Hooters - as you did on your boys day out. From the hooters website: "The element of female sex appeal is prevalent in the restaurants,..." I mean - you either are or arn't a Christian right?

Prehaps it's a more general problem in the USA - people calling themselves Christians but not really walking the walk.

Ányway, lets check how absurd things really are Gawfer, in numbers:-
More than a million deaths in Iraq - by more than one independent report - which was invaded by 80% Christian USA. We won't count Afghanistan.
Under 3000 people killed possibly by a bunch of radical Muslims. Terrorism will always be there - but it is not between Muslims and Christians - it is radical people.
Which country is the ONLY country to have dropped TWO nuclear bombs on another? Christian USA...
Nope - not so absurd.

I think that you would find that there probably wouldent even be terrorists if the USA and the west had never been meddling in the middle east from the very beginning. Most people don't just wake up one day and say lets go and kill someone - usually there is a reason - and especially if brothers, sisters, parents or children have been killed...

From that perspective then perhaps people shoulden't judge so harshly, it's not like either McCain or Obama are radical killers - but they seem pretty good human beings to me - with good morals.

WOW!!! I didn't think people's ignorance could reach any higher pitch. But it continues to spiral upwards and out of control. The man is not a muslim. Get over it and stop this fear-mongering over that issue. Additionally, last I looked, it was a core value of the founders (have any of you people heard of Jefferson or Adams, especially Adams) that America not have any state supported religions and that America, in fact, be a place of great religious tolerance. So, those of you who think you have a corner market on the views of the founding fathers cannot have it both ways. Quite simply, whether Obama is a muslim or a christian is immaterial in this pluralistic country where we do not discriminate on the basis of religion and, furthermore, profoundly do not support the concept of a state-supported religion. Christianity is not our state-supported religion. Therefore, it does not matter what Obama's religion might have been. That said, he is a Christian and has consistently said so. In fact, he took tons of flack because of the statements of his firey pastor. Interesting how the same people who took him to task for the words of his ex-pastor are those trying to paint him as a muslim. Shame on all of you. Go after his views on the issues and skip the silly fear-mongering stuff.

Just like with Obama, McCain has not talked about my muslim faith.

Because it's nonexistent, and this is a non-issue.

If you want to make the claim it was a freudian slip, maybe there is something thre. But, to claim he was professing his Muslim faith by taking his words out of the context of the interview is ridiculous.

I believe reasonable people understand exactly what he was saying.

Who is the real Sarah Palin?

Sadly, my friends, there is evidence to believe that she is secretly a muslim.

I have it on solid authority that Sarah Palin, when she took the oath of office, placed her hand on a Koran, not a bible.

She doesn't stand and place her hand over her heart when the national anthem is played.

What's more, she's secretly a terrorist.

She attended a terrorist training camp in Jakarta when she was 16, and was also responsible for spying on American officials, giving the terrorists vital information that is possibly linked to the tragic terrorist attacks on America on September 11th, that took 3000 American lives.

She doesn't believe that Jesus died for our sins, and only joined her church six months ago, when it became clear that McCain was going to choose her.

She opposed the Surge strategy in Iraq, only recently declaring that it was a "wild success." This means that she doesn't support American Troops, including her own Alaskan National Guard.

Sarah Palin. Muslim, terrorist, secret democrat. What kind of choice is SHE for vice president?

Great one Tropunlim.

I love it when liberated, thinking, intelligent people add reality and clarity to the one sided, extreme neocon, pro republican, propoganda on this site!

You have ventured into personal attacks. Typical liberal behavior so, OK.
Here’s a virtual Kleenex to wipe your nose. Since you provide so much in the form of fodder, you really make commenting fun.

As far as hooter’s goes, by your comments, it is clear to discern that you have never been to one. Hooter’s has the best Buffalo wings in the area and provides great sports coverage… the women, not so much. But dude, thanks for visiting my site! Don’t be afraid to leave a nugget. I’ll only scold you if your comments are as ridiculous as they are here.

Now, this may fly over your head, so stand up when you read this. Since 1921, there have been more than 60 terrorist attacks that resulted in 100 or more deaths; the sum of which is 13,556 and is reflected below. The problem is those attacks were mostly against unsuspecting civilians like yourself. You’ll also note that there are many attacks that didn’t make this list simply because there were less than 100 fatalities.

1. 13 Dec 1921: bombing of Bolgard palace in Bessarabia (modern Moldova) (100)
2. 16 Apr 1925: bombing of cathedral in Sophia, Bulgaria (160)
3. 18 May 1973: mid-air bombing of Aeroflot airliner, Siberia (100)
4. 4 Dec 1977: crash of hijacked Malaysian airliner near Malaysia (100)
5. 20 Aug 1978: arson of theater in Abadan, Iran (477)
6. 20 Nov-5 Dec 1979: hostage taking at Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia (includes 87 terrorists killed) (240)
7. 23 Sep 1983: crash of Gulf Air flight following mid-air bombing over the UAE (112)
8. 23 Oct 1983: truck bombings of U.S. Marine and French barracks, Beirut, Lebanon (301)
9. 14 May 1985: armed attack on crowds in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka (150)
10. 23 Jun 1985: mid-air bombing of Air India flight off Ireland, and attempted bombing of second flight in Canada (331)
11. 18 Apr 1987: roadway ambush near Alut Oya, Sri Lanka (127)
12. 21 Apr 1987: bombing of bus depot in Columbo, Sri Lanka (106)
13. 29 Nov 1987: mid-air bombing of Korean Air flight near Burma (115)
14. 21 Dec 1988: mid-air bombing of Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland (270)
15. 19 Sep 1989: mid-air bombing of French UTA flight near Bilma, Niger (171)
16. 27 Nov 1989: mid-air bombing of Avianca flight in Bogota, Columbia (110)
17. 3 Aug 1990: armed attack at two mosques in Kathankudy, Sri Lanka (140)
18. 13 Aug 1990: armed attack at mosque in Eravur, Sri Lanka (122)
19. 2 Oct 1990: crash of hijacked PRC airliner in Guangzhou, PRC (132)
20. 12 Mar 1993: 15 bombings in Bombay, India (317)
21. 22 Sep 1993: crash of airliner struck by missile in Sukhumi, Georgia (106)
22. 19 Apr 1995: truck bombing of federal building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA (169)
23. 14-19 June 1996: hostage taking in Budennovsk, Russia, and two failed rescue attempts (143)
24. 23 Nov 1996: crash of hijacked Ethiopian Air flight off Comoros (127)
25. 29 Aug 1997: attacks at Sidi Moussa and Hais Rais, Algeria (238)
26. 22 Sep 1997: attack at Ben Talha, Algeria (277)
27. 30 Dec 1997: attack at Ami Moussa, Algeria (272)
28. 4 Jan 1998: attacks at Had Chekala, Remka, and Ain Tarik, Algeria (172)
29. 11 Jan 1998: attack on movie theater and mosque at Sidi Hamed, Algeria (103)
30. 8 Aug 1998: truck bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Saalam, Tanzania (303)
31. 13 Sep 1999: bombing of apartment building in Moscow, Russia (130)
32. 31 Oct 1999: intentional crash of Egypt Air flight off Massachusetts, USA, by pilot (217)
33. 10 Aug 2001: attack on train south of Luanda, Angola (152)
34. 11 Sep 2001: crashing of hijacked planes into World Trade Center, New York City, New York, Pentagon in Alexandria, Virginia, and site in Pennsylvania, USA (2,993)
35. 12 Oct 2002: car bombing outside nightclub in Kuta, Indonesia (202)
36. 26 Oct 2002: hostage taking and attempted rescue in theater in Moscow, Russia (includes 41 terrorists killed) (170)
37. 29 Aug 2003: car bombing outside mosque in Najaf, Iraq (125)
38. 1 Feb 2004: two suicide bombings of political party offices in Irbil, Iraq (109)
39. 21 Feb 2004: armed attack and arson at refugee camp, Uganda (239)
40. 27 Feb 2004: bombing and fire on ferry near Manila, Philippines (118)
41. 2 Mar 2004: multiple suicide bombings at shrines in Kadhimiya and Karbala, Iraq (188)
42. 11 Mar 2004: bombings of four trains in Madrid, Spain (191)
43. 24 Jun 2004: multiple bombings and armed attacks in several cities in Iraq (103)
44. 1-3 Sep 2004: hostage taking at school in Beslan, Russia (includes 30 terrorists killed) (366)
45. 28 Feb 2005: car bombing outside medical clinic in Hilla, Iraq (135)
46. 14 Sep 2005: multiple suicide bombings and shooting attacks in Baghdad, Iraq (182)
47. 5 Jan 2006: bombings in Karbala, Ramadi, and Baghdad, Iraq (124)
48. 11 Jul 2006: multiple bombings on commuter trains in Mumbai, India (200)
49. 16 Oct 2006: truck bombing of military convoy near Habarana, Sri Lanka (103)
50. 23 Nov 2006: multiple car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (202)
51. 22 Jan 2007: multiple bombings in Baghdad area, Iraq (101)
52. 3 Feb 2007: truck bombing in market place in Baghdad, Iraq (137)
53. 6 Mar 2007: two bombings and other attacks on pilgrims, Hilla, Iraq (137)
54. 27 Mar 2007: two truck bombings in Tal Afar, Iraq (152)
55. 18 Apr 2007: bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (193)
56. 3-10 Jul 2007: hostage taking and subsequent storming of mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan (102)
57. 7 Jul 2007: bombings in Baghdad and Armili, Iraq (182)
58. 14 Aug 2007: multiple truck bombings in Al-Qataniyah and Al-Adnaniyah, Iraq (520)
59. 18 Oct 2007: bombing of motorcade in Karachi, Pakistan (137)
60. 17 Feb 2008: bombing at dogfighting festival in Kandahar, Afghanistan (105)
These fatalities were not a result of collateral damage, but resulted from being the targets.

Allow me to bring 3 specific attacks that occurred in 1992 and 1993, but are not listed. 2 bombings in London in 1992 and the first World trade Center attack in 1993 had peculiar similarities. The blast patterns revealed no scorching and all three registered on Richter scales. To register on the Righter scale, a bomb must have a certain payload, specifically .1 kiloton or greater. To achieve that level of detonation would take an extraordinary amount of explosives, but those explosives would leave scorching patterns.
The only way to achieve that kind of detonation without leaving scorching patterns would be a small nuclear weapon. Some folks believe terrorists have been able to gain possession of a quantity of the former Soviet Union’s portable nukes that were deployed up to the early 1990s. They also believe the two attacks in London and the first WTC attack were results of suitcase nukes also known as SADMs or Special Atomic Demolition Munitions.

You can argue as you have done on countless occasions that the collateral damage in Iraq was unacceptable, and I’ll argue that because the western world lead by the United States is standing up to terrorism around the globe, we can still enjoy a certain level of security, though, as I’ve said on numerous occasions, ‘Londonistan’ will soon be under Sharia Law.


And as a side note, y'all continue to go after Sarah Palin. The more you talk about her, the more people will get to know her. That's called 'free publicity'.

Is Barak Hussein Obama a muslim? Mu'ammar Al'-Quadhafi thinks so. Is this a case of "it takes one to know one?" Watch the video for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2737QUBxFY

Here you go gawfer - the LATEST US TERRORISM.

What is the difference dude - you can call it what you like - 90 innocent people were killed - 90....
Doesn't matter what is said - that is what happened.

There is no differenece - call yourself moral terrorists then.


VIDEO: Afghan civilians, including 60 children & 15 women, killed in U.S.-led raid
by BBC

Global Research, September 9, 2008

Since October 2001, extensive war crimes have been committed in Afghanistan by US-NATO troops. These war crimes have not been acknowledged by the mainstream media.

The crimes committed by the US-NATO occupation are invariably obfuscated or presented as "colateral damage". Civilian deaths are "accidental".

The following Video report, which details the massacre of Afghan civilians, was broadcast by the BBC.

It reveals the true nature of the US led "war on terrorism". It is by no means an isolated event, as conveyed in the press reports.

The two videos, obtained by The Associated Press, "give weight to Afghan and U.N. findings that scores of civilians, including 60 children and 15 women, died in the Aug. 22 U.S.-led raid in the village of Azizabad. U.S. special forces and Afghan commandos carried out the operation."(Huffington Post, September 8, 2008)

Meanwhile, public opinion is led to believe that the coalition forces are in Afghanistan as part of a peace-keeping operation. And that the US- NATO forces are involved in the reconstruction of Afghanstan. We are led to believe that the occupation forces have the support of Afghan people, whose lives are endangered by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

We are told that the "peacekeepers" are being attacked by "terrorists". The recent deaths of Canadian and French forces in Afghanistan are highlighted. The deaths of Afghan civilians are rarely acknowledged.

The occupation forces are presented as the victims rather than the perpetrators of war crimes.

The media never mentions the "resistance" to foreign occupation.

French public opinion should understand what is meant by "La Resistance". Ironically, the US and its NATO partners, including the government of President Nicolas Sarkozy, are using the same justification for their occupation of Afghanstan as that used by Nazi Germany in relation to the German occupation of France during World War II.

A country of 34 million people is invaded and occupied and we are led to believe that somehow the Afghan people have endorsed and accepted this occupation and that those who are against the invaders, a small minority, are "terrorists".

Let us not forget that the US-NATO led October 2001 invasion of Afganistan was announced on the 12th of September 2001.

Afghanistan was tagged, without a shred of evidence and prior to the conduct of an investigation, as the "state sponsor" of the 9/11 attacks. The invasion was presented as part of a counter-terrorism operation directed against the perpetrators of 9/11 and their state sponsors.

Trade unions, NGOs and many "progressive" intellectuals endorsed the US-NATO led invasion.

The war on Afghanistan was prepared prior to 9/11. War preparations were already in an advanced stage.

The press reports failed to reveal a fact which is known and acknowledged by military analysts: a major theater war cannot, under any circumnstances, be planned and carried out in a matter of 4-5 weeks.

9/11 was used as a justification to carry out a "humanitarian war".

Known to military analysts, the war on Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Ah, so you are calling the United States terrorists? LOL!


Hey, you’re right, that is kinda fun to write.

Anyway, rather than credit your comments with a response for which they don't deserve, I will say ironically, this statement in part is correct:

The press reports failed to reveal a fact which is known and acknowledged by military analysts: a major theater war cannot, under any circumnstances, be planned and carried out in a matter of 4-5 weeks..."

...Known to military analysts, the war on Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of the tragic events of September 11, 2001..."

That is what military strategists are paid to do: develop strategy and tactics for ALL potential threats. We knew the activities of the Taliban and connections with Bin Laden during the Clinton administration. Welcome to the real world of grown ups where people actually plan ahead. Once again you have 'lifted your skirt' (colloquialism) and revealed your simple adolescence.

Dear Mr. Gawfer,

Sometimes the military strategists (like strategists in any ither field, e.g. business) fail to plan really ahead, even being well paid.

WHo is Osama, where did he appear from? Here is an answer from Ottawa: http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0310/osama.htm

He is a product of the USA anti-Soviet policy. When he was fighting Soviet Army (and in fact the USSR) he was a good boy, even if his activity caused many civil deaths and sufferings of Afghan people.
When the jihadists made things in Checnya (and former Yugoslavia), they were also not too bad, as they were weakening evil Russia, which was, being a heir to the USSR, always to blame for everything bad happening worldwide.
Now they turned out to be bad guys - what a surprise, yeah?

We Russians also prey for thousands innocent souls lost in the unprecedented terrorists attacks of 9/11. Alas, in the real world of grown-ups even the good American plans can have unforeseen consequences...

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog."



  • Before posting a comment, ask yourself whether it is polite, fair, and truthful. Comments are auto-deleted if they contain profanity (even with ast*ri*ks). Comments may also be edited or deleted if they include anything false, misleading, insulting, unethical, illogical or spamlike. Rude comments or spam result in a permanent ban of future comments.