Details are now being revealed about the preparations for President Bush’s visit to Ramallah. In addition to closing down parts of the city, President Bush’s costly visit (which included repairing parts of the Muqata so that Bush would not have to see Israel’s devastation of the building) the team made a reportedly number of demands on Abbas’s staff:
* President Bush would NOT stand at attention for the Palestinian national anthem (even though he stood at attention for the Israeli anthem;
* President Bush would NOT go to Bethlehem with President Abbas, thereby reinforcing the claim that Abbas is the President of Ramallah
* President Bush would NOT place a wreath of President Arafat’s grave;
* President Bush did NOT want to see any pictures of Arafat. It is reported that President Bush’s team asked Abbas’s team to remove President Arafat’s photograph from the wall of the meeting room where Presidents Bush and Abbas would be meeting. Although Chaim is still trying to determine whether the photo was actually removed or simply covered up by drapes (it certainly didn’t appear in any of the photo ops), it appears as though someone from the Whitehouse staff was not as detail-oriented as needed: one photo of the late President actually escaped the watchful eyes of the protocol team. Take a look at this.
Tarboush tip: Dion
Related posts:
- Abbas catches dictatorship bug in Egypt
- Divine Intervention?
- Admire Her Guts, But Not Her Logic
- Abbas Blows Fuse – Meeting Postponed
- Bush Noes Soccer
Whenever I travel overseas I tell everyone I’m Canadian.
Posted by Viktore | January 12, 2008, 8:59 amMahmoud Abbas reminds me of Pinocchio. He is a bona fide puppet “made by USA” and “made in Israel.” His makers are Bush and Olmert both who are Zionist puppetmasters. The Palestinian people need a leader not a puppet!
Posted by Anonymous | January 12, 2008, 9:02 amHi Diana. I haven’t seen you around here enough to know if you’re an unapologetic propagandist, yet, so I’ll respond to some points in your post seriously
* President Bush would NOT stand at attention for the Palestinian national anthem (even though he stood at attention for the Israeli anthem;
Well, that’s a tough call. When I was in the military, we were required to stand at attention during the host countries national anthem, regardless of whether it was an enemy or an ally, though we only saluted during our own. I assume the protocols are the same for federal officials, including the President.
Problem is, recognizing a Palestinian national anthem implies recognizing the existence of a Palestinian State. Can’t have a national anthem without a nation, right?
You may think he should have shown customary courtesies to the Palestinian “national anthem” anyway, but that’s only your personal opinion. He wasn’t showing disrespect by not standing at attention during the “anthem” of a state the US doesn’t recognize.
* President Bush would NOT go to Bethlehem with President Abbas, thereby reinforcing the claim that Abbas is the President of Ramallah
Perhaps he had other reasons. Is Abbas a Muslim or a Christian? I don’t think it would be appropriate for a Christian (like President Bush) to be escorted to a Christian Holy place like Bethlehem by a Muslim. I say that from a religious perspective, and you don’t get to decide what Bush feels is appropriate, based on his faith. You don’t even get to question it. Neither do I.
* President Bush would NOT place a wreath of President Arafat’s grave;
All the stuff about Arafat is irrelevant. Just because you think he’s a hero doesn’t mean the United States does. The mast majority of Americans, including me, consider Arafat to have been a bloody handed terrorist.
You don’t get to decide how Arafat is viewed by Americans, either. Just because you think he deserves respect doesn’t mean we have to show him respect.
I think you have a real problem with anyone who doesn’t view your “sacred cows” the same way you do. You do give people permission (in your own mind) to have different opinions, don’t you? You seem like a very intolerant and narrow minded person, to me.
Posted by programmer craig | January 12, 2008, 12:20 pmProgrammer craig:
I think you have a real problem with anyone who doesn’t view your “sacred cows” the same way you do. You do give people permission (in your own mind) to have different opinions, don’t you? You seem like a very intolerant and narrow minded person, to me.
Your sacred cows, I am guessing, probably being United States protocol and worldview and actions, American public opinion, the American media, maybe Ronald Reagan, your religion. Who knows, the list might be miles long, I don’t know. This is just a sample list. The real list is something only you can pigheadedly let us in on. Go on dear.
Posted by Anonymous | January 12, 2008, 3:35 pmDon’t call me “dear”, anonymous. I don’t even know who you are, because you haven’t shared your name, and you obviously don’t have any affection for me. Is this what I get for attempting to be serious on this blog for a change? Condescension from the peanut gallery?
As for your comment itself, it makes no sense whatsoever. Your assumptions about me are all over the map, and some of them are even contradictory. Can you name any “Reagan” conservatives who are fans of the American press, for instance? The “biased liberal media” is a conservative’s favorite rant
At least now I know one thing about you. You aren’t American, and you don’t know much about American politics.
Posted by programmer craig | January 12, 2008, 3:47 pmProgrammer Craig said:
“I don’t think it would be appropriate for a Christian (like President Bush) to be escorted to a Christian Holy place like Bethlehem by a Muslim. I say that from a religious perspective, and you don’t get to decide what Bush feels is appropriate, based on his faith. You don’t even get to question it. Neither do I.”
Is there anything at all in the Gospels that would make this an issue? No. Is there *any* doctrinal (let alone Scriptural) reason a Christian shouldn’t be accompanied to Bethlehem by a Muslim? No. So this comes not from a religious perspective but from a personal political perspective.
And, incidentally, if Bush’s supposed faith gets in the way of doing his job (acting as chief statesman for the U.S., which IS NOT A CHRISTIAN STATE), then, yes, we do ‘get’ to question his religious convictions. When he tells us that it was ok to bomb Iraq because he cleared it with Jesus, you better goddamn believe that we have the right to question the form and sincerity of his religiosity.
Especially since God Himself has no doubt spent much of the past eight years in heaven looking down at W and shaking His head in disgust at the weasely fake-Christian piece of shit.
Posted by Saladin | January 13, 2008, 7:37 amSaladin,
Is there anything at all in the Gospels that would make this an issue? No.
I disagree.
Is there *any* doctrinal (let alone Scriptural) reason a Christian shouldn’t be accompanied to Bethlehem by a Muslim? No.
I disagree on this, as well.
But I’m not going to argue scripture with you. If the Dome of the Rock was under Isreali control, would you think it appropriate that Muslim dignitaries who wanted to visit it, be accompanied by the Jewish Prime Minister?
So this comes not from a religious perspective but from a personal political perspective.
No, it comes from a common sense personal religious perspective. If Bush wanted to visit Bethlehem for personal religious reasons, which is probably the case, then he shouldn’t be expected or required to be escorted there by a non-Christian. That’s an infringement of his religious freedoms.
And, incidentally, if Bush’s supposed faith gets in the way of doing his job (acting as chief statesman for the U.S., which IS NOT A CHRISTIAN STATE), then, yes, we do ‘get’ to question his religious convictions.
Present some evidence that has happened, why don’t you? And I’m sorry to break it to you, but the US *is* in fact a Christian country. It always has been. I think the concept you were going for is “Theocracy”. The US is not a theocracy. The US *is* a secular Christian country. Period.
When he tells us that it was ok to bomb Iraq because he cleared it with Jesus, you better goddamn believe that we have the right to question the form and sincerity of his religiosity.
You’re just making stuff up, now. If you meant thats seriously, then perhaps somebody should start questioning your sanity.
Especially since God Himself has no doubt spent much of the past eight years in heaven looking down at W and shaking His head in disgust at the weasely fake-Christian piece of shit.
Oh, you know the mind of God now, do you? Strange comment from somebody who just ridiculed Bush for supposedly also knowing the mind of God, wouldn’t you say?
Posted by programmer craig | January 13, 2008, 10:42 amBy the way, Saladin, do you have any idea how offended most Americans would have been, seeing Bush escorted through Christian Churches and other Christian sites in a place as important to Christians as Bethlehem is? Try to turn it around and think of the same happening with a Muslim leader, and think of how Muslims would react. Just because Americans don’t demonstrate their outrage by burning flags, storming embassies and rioting in the streets, doesn’t mean that we are immune from feeling outraged.
Some people on this blog need to start using this heads a little bit more. There’s no reason we should even be arguing about this one. It’s obvious. Unless you actually WANT to offend Americans, in which case your desire to see Bush humiliated by paying homage to a known terrorist like Yassir Arafat and escorted to Christian holy cites by a Muslim leader like some kind of second class Dhimmi is perfectly understandable.
Posted by programmer craig | January 13, 2008, 10:54 amPC -
The US is a Christian country in the sense that most of its citizens claim to be Christians. But it is not, never has been, and I hope never will be a Christian STATE. This means that any religious reluctance Bush might have felt at visiting Bethlehem with Abbas should not have kept him from doing his job and acting like a statesman. But we all know that statesmanship is beyond him anyway, so who cares?
It’s probably for the best. I think if that greedy, arrogant, warmongering, rich-boy-pissing-on-poor-people scumbag Bush had walked the same tract of land as the generous, humble, peaceful, working class prophet whom he claims to worship, there would have been a supernatural explosion. Like matter meeting antimatter.
Oh, and please don’t tell me what “most Americans” would say about this issue. “Most Americans” don’t know anything about the religion they claim to follow. “Most Americans” don’t even know who King James was, and think the Bible was written in English.
Posted by Saladin | January 13, 2008, 12:51 pmSaladin,
The US is a Christian country in the sense that most of its citizens claim to be Christians.
It’s a bit more “Christian” than that! The first several waves of colonists to North America were refugees and exiles from the English Civil War, which was a religious war. Specifically, they were Puritans – the Christian “fundamentalists” of their day. This country was physically found by Christians, and all of it’s structures are based upon Christian principals, and the vast majority of it’s inhabitants “claim” to be Christian, and their ancestors were Christians… so on and so forth. To argue that the US is not a Christian country is to argue semantics. I may as well claim that Libya is not a Muslim country. Would you buy that one?
But it is not, never has been, and I hope never will be a Christian STATE.
I assume you mean that you don’t have to be a Christian to be a citizen. That’s very true. But there are only a few countries that have a religious requirement for citizenship. Saudi Arabia and Israel come to mind. I still think you’re arguing semantics. The concept of religious tolerance is very important to us. It’s written into our constitution. Is was put there by Christians. That doesn’t make the US any less of a Christian country. I reject your notion that a country can only be characterized by religion if it has a religious citizenship requirement. None of the nations in Europe had such a requirement during the Crusades, yet we still refer to Europe during those times as “Christendom” and say that they were Christian nations, do we not?
This means that any religious reluctance Bush might have felt at visiting Bethlehem with Abbas should not have kept him from doing his job and acting like a statesman.
It’s not part of Bush’s job to make pilgrimage’s to Christian holy places. He did that for personal reasons, and it’s nobodies business but his.
Most of the rest of your crap was just racist ranting and religious bigotry, so I’ll skip it.
Hey, I know how we can settle this. Next time Abbas visits Washington DC, we can insist he lay a wreath on Ronald Reagan’s grave and then play it on international television. Ronald Reagan is a pretty popular figure in the middle east, is he not? Perhaps not as well thought of as Yassir Arafat is here, but we do what we can do, no?
And we can put giant sized posters of Dick Cheney behind him, everywhere he goes, as well. Especially when he’s making policy speeches. Just kinda leering over his shoulder, eh?
I don’t think we have any Islamic holy lands here for Bush to escort him to, but maybe Bush could take him to a mosque or two for a nice little photo op?
And if that’s not good enough, we can try the same with Mubarrak? Time for you Arabs to show us dumb Yankees what real statesmanship is.
Posted by programmer craig | January 13, 2008, 2:22 pm“Most Americans” don’t even know who King James was, and think the Bible was written in English.
This part is true. We really are just that stupid. The only thing I know about King James is that his name is on my Bible, whoever the hell he was
Are you an expert on King James? Tell us about him, and why is his name on my Bible?
I actually did know that the Bible was originally written in Greek. I also knew that the King James Bible is translated from the original Greek, and not the Latin version of the Catholics.
I also knew that the Prophet was illiterate, and that the Quran wasn’t written at all until many years after his death. I’m sure there’s some explanation for why Muslims believe it’s still the absolute unaltered word of God, even give those circumstances, but I guess I’m again too stupid to understand exactly how that works, so I won’t try. I’ll just keep in mind that the main difference between Christians and Muslims is that Christians could read and write, and Muslims couldn’t.
Posted by programmer craig | January 13, 2008, 2:49 pmHey, Saladin (are you really Kurdish?) I have an idea I want to bounce off of you.
Instead of Bush’s latest and greatest but also doomed to fail as all the others before mideast peace initiative, I have another idea about how we can solve all of this. How about another crusade?
Seriously, take a moment and consider. Jews are in possession of some of their holy places. Muslims are in possession of ALL of their holy places, and also in possession of some Jewish and some Christian holy places.
Christians don’t have possession of any of their holy places. Not a single one. It hardly seems fair, does it?
Another crusade would solve not only this whole “Bush should have been escorted to the Christian holy land by Abbas” crisis, but it would also settle the whole Palestinian issue in general. It would unfortunately settle the whole Israel issue as well, which may not make Jews very happy, but you can’t have everything, can you?
It seems like Arabs and Jews could be best friends forever again, and Christians can actually make pilgrimages to Christian Holy Sites without getting their asses shot off or having to be escorted by some Abu Asshat to and fro, and even Osama bin Ladin will be happy, as he’ll finally have some real crusaders to whine and cry about. I really think it’s a winning situation for everybody.
Background to the first crusade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Hermit
According to Anna Comnena, he had attempted to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem before 1096, but was prevented by the Turks from reaching his goal and was tortured.
And Bush attempted to make a pilgrimage to Bethlehem, but was intercepted by Palestinians and was blah blah blah…
I think it’ll work. It really does seem like that’s what Diana is calling for when she taunts us with the fact that Bush can’t go to Bethlehem without a by-your-leave from a Palestinian Muslim.
Posted by programmer craig | January 13, 2008, 3:37 pmPC – to handle this in historical chronological order:
1)Bringing the Crusade-era notion of Christendom into this is pointless — different era, different notion of ‘citizenship’, ‘the state’, ‘religion’, etc. Apples and oranges.
2) King James’ name is on the Bible b/c he comissioned an unprecedented
English translation based on the work of a large panel of scholars. The thing about it being a ‘truer’ translation than the latin Bible is half true and half 17th century English anti-Catholic propoganda. What James’ scholars cut and left in and what words they chose to trnaslate into what other words is a complex story. But my point was mainly that many Americans who claim to be Christians barely understand that Jesus didn’t speak 17th century English, but Aramaic.
3)This country wasn’t ‘physically found[ed?]‘ by Christians — there were lots of people here when the Europeans got here. And the ‘physically’ part is a particularly dangerous lie, since non-Christian Africans were enslaved to do most of the building and agricultural work (that is, the laying of the ACTUAL and ECONOMIC foundations of this country). So the ‘foundations’ of this country are ‘heathen’ every bit as much as ‘Christian’.
4)Even among the early colonists and the “founding fathers”, there was more religious diversity than most Americans understand. For one, the colonists themselves — from the English Civil War escapees down to the framers of the constitution — had a wide variety of religious views, some of which (freethought, Unitarianism, Deism)
are only nominally or not at all Christian. More importantly, whatever their own views, they INTENTIONALLY WROTE THE CONSTITUTION TO BAR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATE RELIGION. So my contention that the US is a country where the majority of the population is Christian, but the government is not christian is not just semantics, but a vital constitutional principle…
Oh, and I hardly the thing about Bush claiming God said it was ok to bomb (from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040503/scheer0420)
Asked by [Bob] Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, if he had ever consulted the former president [Bush 41] before ordering the invasion of Iraq, Bush replied that “he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher father that I appeal to.”
And he appealed to that father, and went ahead and bombed. Like I said, FAKE Christian.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm
Posted by Saladin | January 13, 2008, 3:53 pmEr, that last paragraph should have read ‘hardly made up’…
Posted by Saladin | January 13, 2008, 3:56 pmSaladin,
1)Bringing the Crusade-era notion of Christendom into this is pointless — different era, different notion of ‘citizenship’, ‘the state’, ‘religion’, etc. Apples and oranges.
I don’t know why you say so. The US constitution was adopted in 1787. America much more closely resembled Medieval Europe in 1787 than it does the America of today. The US constitution is the law of the land, and it wasn’t written recently. Apples and apples.
But my point was mainly that many Americans who claim to be Christians barely understand that Jesus didn’t speak 17th century English, but Aramaic.
I believe that you believe that. I hope you continue to
3)This country wasn’t ‘physically found[ed?]‘ by Christians — there were lots of people here when the Europeans got here.
Yes? And did they have a nation here? Did they found the United States? This country – the United States – was founded by Christians. That’s what I said. That’s what I meant. That’s the truth.
And the ‘physically’ part is a particularly dangerous lie, since non-Christian Africans were enslaved to do most of the building and agricultural work
The slave trade didn’t begin until after the first colonists had been in North America over 100 years.
In any case, I don’t see how your point is at all relevant. It seems you just inserted that into the discussion to bring up the issue of slavery and to call me a liar. There were Europeans being held in slavery by Arab Muslims in North Africa during the same time period. Does that have any bearing on the fact that they were Arab Muslim vassal states of the Ottoman empire? Nevermind, I’m getting confused now, which was probably your intention, right? So what were we talking about, again?
Oh. Yes. There was no pre-existing “nation” where America is today. So when I said “founded” I meant just that. The FOUNDING FATHERS as we call them created a new nation here, where there wasn’t one before.
If you dispute that, you’ll have to dispute our history books. This isn’t my personal opinion.
(that is, the laying of the ACTUAL and ECONOMIC foundations of this country). So the ‘foundations’ of this country are ‘heathen’ every bit as much as ‘Christian’.
You sure do love to argue semantics, don’t you?
4)Even among the early colonists and the “founding fathers”, there was more religious diversity than most Americans understand.
It’s good that you are so much smarter than most Americans, so you can educate us about this stuff.
For one, the colonists themselves — from the English Civil War escapees down to the framers of the constitution — had a wide variety of religious views, some of which (freethought, Unitarianism, Deism)
are only nominally or not at all Christian.
OK, for one thing you are talking about Thomas Jefferson, not about a plethora of people spanning a period of 200 years. Nice try, though.
For another thing, “Deist” just means somebody who believes in a deity, but it’s usually used to describe Unitarians. So you tried to pass off one religious philosophy as two different ones, right?
And “freethought” is not a religious concept, but a philosophy.
Lastly, there’s no evidence that Thomas Jefferson was actually a Unitarian. He read from the King James Bible, and he went to Anglican services. He definitely had some issues with the trinity and some of the other doctrines that were introduced into Christianity by the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church. So do I. I don’t consider myself a Unitarian. I consider myself a Protestant. As far as any of us knows, including you, that’s what Thomas Jefferson considered himself to be as well.
More importantly, whatever their own views, they INTENTIONALLY WROTE THE CONSTITUTION TO BAR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATE RELIGION.
Yes, they did. I pointed that out myself, a few comments back.
So my contention that the US is a country where the majority of the population is Christian, but the government is not christian is not just semantics, but a vital constitutional principle…
That’s not the point you made. You took issue with me when I said the US was a Christian country. I said that it is, and that it always has been.
Oh, and I hardly the thing about Bush claiming God said it was ok to bomb…
Bush replied that “he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher father that I appeal to.”
And you went from Bush saying basically that he prays for guidance (which is what I interpret “appeal” to mean) to “Bush consulted with Jesus, and Jesus told him it’s OK to bomb Iraq”.
How creative and fun of you.
Posted by programmer craig | January 13, 2008, 4:29 pmBy the way, what did you think of my “crusade” idea? I think the time may be right. As you so eloquently point out yourself, the whole religious tolerance thing is grossly over-rated. I mean, why should we even have to argue about whose land that is, and whether or not it’s appropriate for a Muslim to even be ON Christian Holy Land? Christians aren’t allowed on Muslim Holy land, are they? No, I think they aren’t. It wouldn’t even be possible for Abbas to escort Bush to Medina would it? So why does he want to escort Bush to a Christian Holy Place? Why should he even be permitted to set foot in a Christian Holy place? Enough with the double standards. We tried it the other way, and it didn’t work. It’s time for a whole new way. As Confucius so famously said: “You can’t kill an idea, but you can kill all the people who have that idea”. Maybe it was Chairman Mao who said that, I always get them confused, but you get the point.
Posted by programmer craig | January 13, 2008, 4:37 pmWhoa pc you are losing it there a bit in that couple of posts – ranting even.
Getting back to the beginning of this, what I never got was why you are so firmly convinced all/some/any Americans would/do object/take offense at the notion of ‘abbas, or any muslim for that matter, accompanying Bush to bait laham (Bethlehem)???
(and why is it called bait laham anyway? that question is for arabic speakers more advanced than myself)
I am an American and have no problem at all with the 2 of them skipping into Bethlehem together. What’s the deal?? Shouldn’t the ‘tolerant’ Christian not try to ‘lower’ himself to the more restrictive rules of the other party?
Posted by al-fanaan | January 13, 2008, 7:50 pmShouldn't the 'tolerant' Christian not try to 'lower' himself to the more restrictive rules of the other party?Why?Bethlehem Arabic: بيت لحم, Bayt Laḥm (help·info), lit "House of Meat"; Greek: Βηθλεέμ; Hebrew: בית לחם, Beit Lehem, lit "House of Bread")It's not an Arabic name, by the way. "Bethlehem" pre-dates the existence of the Arabic language. I'm unclear on why you ask Arabic speakers for the origin of the name. Do you expect Christians to be tolerant of that show of disrespect as well?Why would you expect Christians or anybody else to be tolerant of the intolerant? Jesus himself was not.I thought the displays of ignorance and bigotry in this thread were pretty good arguments for settling some matters on the battlefield, the old fashioned way. I'm down with that, since that seems to be what everyone else wants to do.PS-Why would a recent American convert to Islam feel that his opinion about what should or should not offend "most Americans" have value, by the way? How many American converts to Islam are there? A few hundred, nation wide?
Posted by programmer craig | January 13, 2008, 5:55 pmPC -
Your threads are becoming loonier and loonier. When I asked you what exactly in Christian doctrine made it offensive to have Abbas accompany Bush to Bethlehem, you copped out saying ‘I won’t argue Scripture with you…but most Americans would be offended’ (as if American public opinion is more important to Christian thought than Jesus’ actual teachings!). Fine, but then don’t tell me that it’s Christianity and not Islampohobia that is fueling the offended feelings. I stick by my points: Bush is an arrogant, belligerent, warmongering poor-people-crushing, environment-raping asshole. His every action flies in the face of Jesus’ teachings. Similarly, most American Christians know very little about the faith they profess. Ask the average bible-thumping American the story of the transmission/passing down of the Gospels. Or about the tensions between Revelations and, say, the book of Luke. They’ll stare at you like retards and fumblingly quote their gay-hating corporate-whore pastor quoting the Bible. That’s not religion — it’s sheepiness. They aren’t offended at the notion of Abbas accompanying Bush to Bethlehem because of anything Jesus said — they’re offended because they are riding along with the easy assumptions of a racist, anti-Muslim culture and they’re too fucking lazy to do anything but what their corrupt pastors and president tell them to do.
A few other random correctins to your rant:
- the colonies in the 18th c. looked a hell of a lot more like our own era — in terms of political institutions, emergent corporate power, type of english spoken, etc. — than the medieval era. Any historian will tell you that.
- Of course the discussion of slave labor is relevant — do you think that a nation-state just magically
happens when you say ‘we are a nation’? No, dude – you need land, houses, crops, and money money money. Almost al of this was made possible through the most widespread, brutal and unrelenting system of slavery the world has ever seen. Without slaves there would have been no U.S. – period, do-not-pass-Go.
-A hell of a lot more people than Jefferson were Desits. And it’s a different thing than Unitarianism. Which is a different thing still than Christianity per se. Again, to say that the Founding Fathers were Christian is oversimplifying. Read Tom Paine’s (one of the Founding Fathers) “Age of Reason” some time.
- If Bush says that he appealed to his Higher Father and then STILL decided to go ahead and bomb little kids (make no mistake, that’s what he did), then, yes, he’s claiming that Jesus said it was ok. ANd you know what? I don’t believe him.
- Finally, your idea about a new crusade is cute in a bloodthirsty way. I’d only begin to consider it if it was all swords and lances and boilnig oil, though. Um, and of course battle axes. I think you said in some earlier thread that you were once in the service (maybe it was someone else)? So maybe you’d actually have the balls to get involved in such a Crusade. But most Americans, though they talk a lot of murderous shit from behind a keyboard/bomber flight stick/Presidential podium, are too chickenshit for what you propose. SO you might have trouble raising your Crusader army.
Posted by Saladin | January 14, 2008, 7:01 amSaladin,
Your threads are becoming loonier and loonier.
I thought insanity was what Kabobfest was all about? I posted a comment some time ago that this one is a no-brainer that we shouldn’t even be arguing about. It’s fucking OBVIOUS that the things Diana wanted from Bush are things that would be embarrassments (at best) for Bush and the United States.
And yet, you persisted with the dumb arguments about why he should have gone along with it.
When I asked you what exactly in Christian doctrine nlah blah blah…
That’s not what you asked me. You asked me if there was anything in Christian doctrine. It’s your tendency to retroactively change your the discussion around that convinces me arguing scripture with you would be a waste of time.
His every action flies in the face of Jesus’ teachings.
Here you are, claiming to know Jesus. Again. Do you think he would approve of your behavior in this thread?
(snipped some racism and bigotry)
A few other random correctins to your rant:
As many deliberate lies as you have told, and you’re still issuing “corrections”, eh?
- the colonies in the 18th c. looked a hell of a lot more like our own era — in terms of political institutions, emergent corporate power, type of english spoken, etc. — than the medieval era. Any historian will tell you that.
Nonsense. Any “historian” who tried to tell me that, would be a liar. You just made that up, didn’t you? Just completely made it up. And then endorsed yourself with imaginary historians
Way to go, mister holier-than-thou.
- Of course the discussion of slave labor is relevant
No, it’s not. Slaves do not wield and political power (or any other kind of power) within a state. I used Libya as an example of a Muslim country that employed non-Muslim slave labor during the same time period. Every Arab country employed slave labor during that time period. Did that make them less Arab? Or, less Muslim? Would you say that Saudi Arabia is not a Muslim country, today, because they employ hundreds of thousands of non-Muslim “guest workers”?
Your comments are stupid. Look at them. Seriously. Re-read what you have written. The arguments you make are stupid, and the cheap tactics you use to try to win despite the weakness of your arguments are sleazy.
Stupid and sleazy. That’s you.
-A hell of a lot more people than Jefferson were Desits.
Nonsense. And I challenged your claim that Jefferson was a Unitarian, for that matter.
And it’s a different thing than Unitarianism. Which is a different thing still than Christianity per se.
Again, these are bullshit arguments you are making. The difference between a Trinitarian and a Unitarian, is belief in the trinity. Since the concept of the trinity was invented several hundred years after the death of Jesus, and didn’t exist while he was alive, I think it[‘s a hard sell to claim somebody isn’t a Christian just because they don’t believe in the trinity. That wouldn’t be a LOGICAL position to have. That would be an extremely narrow-minded and dogmatic position to have. Is that you? Narrow-minded and dogmatic?
Again, to say that the Founding Fathers were Christian is oversimplifying.
No, it’s not. The founding fathers were Christians, as much as I am a Christian. Most of them were far more religious than I am, actually.
Read Tom Paine’s (one of the Founding Fathers) “Age of Reason” some time.
This is what I love about you. The assumption that everyone else knows absolutely nothing. Tell me, are you used to dealing with 10 year olds? Blank slates and all that?
You know, I’ve heard all these arguments before. Years ago. It became popular to challenge Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs back in the early 1990s. It became popular to claim the US was built by slaves in the 1980s, wasn’t it?
- If Bush says that he appealed to his Higher Father and then STILL decided to go ahead and bomb little kids (make no mistake, that’s what he did), then, yes, he’s claiming that Jesus said it was ok.
Are you completely insane? If I prayed for guidance about whether I should ask a girl out, and then I asked her out, would that mean Jesus told me I should ask her out?
You are an atheist, aren’t you? No religious person thinks that’s how prayer works.
Why don’t you just come out and say it? Are you afraid people will dismiss what you have to say about religion? They probably do that anyway, because what you say doesn’t make much sense
So maybe you’d actually have the balls to get involved in such a Crusade.
Oh, I would. This one would be coming from the heart, too. Which is something people in the military don’t have going for them, very often.
But most Americans, though they talk a lot of murderous shit from behind a keyboard/bomber flight stick/Presidential podium, are too chickenshit for what you propose. SO you might have trouble raising your Crusader army.
You think so? I think we could recapture a lot of Holy Land with the troops that are in Iraq right now. Maybe, all of it. It’s the Jews that would give us the most problem. But the United States Marine Corps alone is larger than the whole Israeli military, so I think it’s doable with the US military as it stands.
Now that I know you are an atheist, though, I understand why you think access to the Holy Land is such a trivial matter. Perhaps Diana is also an atheist. But a lot of wars have been fought for access to that land in the past. A lot of people died. Trying to tell Christians when they can visit their own holy lands and under what circumstances is not a wise thing to do.
Posted by programmer craig | January 14, 2008, 8:02 amPC -
I’m not an atheist. But I AM a professional scholar doing research in Eighteenth Century British studies. Which is how I know you’re both ignorant and full of shite when it comes to the historical stuff!
As to the other stuff, you haven’t answered any of the points I made with rebuttals of any substance, even though I made them in a less abusive tone than you’re using. Instead, you’re name-calling. So I’m done. I’ll just let you seethe and fantasize about a new Crusade. Hey – maybe in your fantasies the ‘Christians’ will atually WIN this time! If they’re not too busy eating people, like last time around…
Posted by Saladin | January 14, 2008, 8:34 amI’m not an atheist. But I AM a professional scholar doing research in Eighteenth Century British studies.
So you tell me a lie when you claim you aren’t an atheist, and in the same sentence you tell me your credentials which conveniently would offer you credibility in this argument. And you expect me to believe you. Does that about sum it up?
Hey – maybe in your fantasies the ‘Christians’ will atually WIN this time!
The Christians won every time. I thought you said you were a scholar?
Here is a link, “scholar”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
The First Crusade succeeded in establishing the “Crusader States” of Edessa, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Tripoli in Palestine and Syria (as well as allies along the Crusaders’ route, such as the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader_State
The Crusaders held the Holy Land for 50 years, the first time out. Not bad, for a first attempt
Quite a remarkable accomplishment, for that time period. I think we can do much better now. Most of the fighters in the 1st Crusade got to the Holy Land from Europe by walking there. Not so much of an issue, these days.
I’d only begin to consider it if it was all swords and lances and boilnig oil, though. Um, and of course battle axes.
Perhaps that would reduce the whining about technological advantages, though it seems to me the US military has a very small technological edge over the Israelis. I suppose we might have to empty our prisons and let convicts fight for their freedom, eh? We have… what? Some 3 million felons in our prisons? And maybe 10 million that are free on parole? That’s a lot of hardened criminals
It worked pretty well for Saddam, and he only had 60,000 criminals to release in Iraq.
By the way, since you changed your argument “the US is not a Christian country because it doesn’t have a state religion” – Britain has a state religion. That means the UK is a Christian Country, right? Even though the US (which is fare more religious) is not.
Does that make sense to you? Well, does it?
Posted by programmer craig | January 14, 2008, 8:48 amThe Christians won every time.
Well… there was that one time the Catholics accidentally sacked Constantinople. Best not to mention it.
Posted by programmer craig | January 14, 2008, 8:55 am“Can’t have a national anthem without a nation, right?”
Craig, I suggest you look up the definition of “nation” and the definition of “state.” The Palestinians are a nation, but do not have a state.
Posted by Fadi | January 14, 2008, 11:29 amFadi,
Craig, I suggest you look up the definition of “nation” and the definition of “state.” The Palestinians are a nation, but do not have a state.
Country, state and nation are synonyms. Perhaps you should look up the definition of “synonym”? Or I can just make it easy on you, and tell you that those are three different words that mean the same thing. So when you imply two of them have different meanings, you are wrong.
Of course, you could be using some vague alternate definition of “nation”, but if that’s the case then you certainly shouldn’t be attaching it to a “national anthem” which is a term the meaning of which is clearly understood, throughout the world.
Posted by programmer craig | January 14, 2008, 4:23 pmya allah! craig you are a fool and saladin you are wasting your time trying to converse with him.
pc: I know what bait laham literally means – I was asking why the place is named this. and how can you say bait laham is not an arabic name?
how would expect christians to be tolerant???????????????? you are hopeless.
Posted by al-fanaan | January 14, 2008, 10:23 pm“Country, state and nation are synonyms.”
Craig, you’re simply wrong here. To dumb it down for you a bit, nation refers to the people, state refers to the territory. Look it up, you’re embarrassing yourself here.
Posted by Fadi | January 15, 2008, 7:02 amI’m a political scientist, Fadi’s correct. Neither of these words are synonyms. Each has a very distinct meaning in the world of politics.
Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2008, 6:44 pm