All religions have lies, violence and death as their most prominent partner. Again we see the inept reasoning put forward by the un-evolved religious. The reactions to this thread compared to threads involving our real future and not some trumped up religious reason to destroy everything in sight, is such a refreshing thing to see.

Lies and wars are a product of religion failing to convince people of their veracity, so they resort to violence, which equates to damnation, ridiculous statements, attempts to instil fear, and finally war, nothing else matters to the monotheist.

Israel, holier than thou, yet no different to the christian Nazis or muslim braindead, as they currently commit genocide in Gaza. Wipe them out, because we want what they have, is the religious motto. Australia headed by right-wing christians sent our troops to Iraq so we could sell them wheat, not for any threat to us or the world. This action was fully supported by all christian politicians and churches, more lies perpetrated by the despotically failed violent illusionists.

Bd, your faith determines all you say as does coaches, thats why most of your statements are so irrational and lacking substance, other than daily fantasy. Are you blind yet.

When someone says to me, their filled with the love of god, I know I'm looking at a threat to the sanity and all thats good in the world.

Coach, "In your "book of life", how was the first child molester originated?"

God created everything in his infinite wisdom, didn't he. Considering the vast majority of misfits, determine themselves as religious, you have your answer. I also note how much god cared for the little girl destroyed in Perth, the murderer's a christian, typical. Where was your god for that little girl and her deeply religious family. You'll always find him supporting the despotic perpetrators throughout the world, but not supporting the victims.

Sorry - above post obviously in wrong thread.

__________

DavidJackmanson,

>>coach, your simplistic view of Islamic politics is laughable.<<

Islamic sects have one thing in common : A Qur’an - actual words of Allah; their shared source of inspiration for their struggle to conquer the world for Allah and his prophet.

Islamic politics IS pathetically simplistic. For them the world is divided into two sectors

1. Dar el-Harb (house of war) - where Islam is a minority – therefore Jihad has to strive until Islam gains total political power. (Europe, Australia,…)

2. Dar el-Islam (house of Islam) - non-Moslems are a minority – therefore Islamic law is applied and “peace” reigns. (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, …)

Islamic sects are always at war BUT united in their Jihad against the rest of the world.

As for your prophetic statement:
>>Iran will develop nuclear weapons, they will _not_ use them against Israel, ...<<

And pigs will fly.

___________
tao,

>>Propaganda about God and the second coming of Christ is just as credible as me telling you there are fairies at the bottom of my garden.<<

Can you denounce Christ first coming too while you’re at it?

___________

What we should all learn is to see beyond the immediate and the observable. I agree that propaganda (lies) is a ploy to justify war.

My argument here is why would the US resort to such a tactic to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq (and now Iran)?

1. The existence of WMD was very questionable
2. Bin laden and Saddam could have been removed “peacefully”
3. The Oil trade sanctions were already squeezing Iraq to breaking point.
4. Most allies were against such attacks.

May I suggest that the main reason for Bush to have used his mighty powers was to settle an old score with Saddam (1991) to re-establish the US credibility by destabilising that eastern region which was gaining Islamic momentum post the USSR fall...(hence Bin Laden…)

The eminent threat to Israel’s existence by it’s Islamic neighbours is central to the current tensions.

Diligent Marilyn,

Shouldn't come as a complete surprise the horrors of the massacred Afghanis (jammed in shipping containers) as much as a double-crossed Iraqis, longed for liberation from Saddam, but instead to score megaton shock-n-owe annihilation. Not mentioning an entire infrastructure obliteration, modelled on the contemporary Zionist junta's ordeal in Gaza. Inflicted on 'untermensch' Palestinians in reflection on our Jew lesser brethren sustained holocaust ravages. According to Zionist refined proficiency during the Third Reich.

Earlier Zionists even brought Nazi Baron Von Mildenstein of the SS to Palestine for a six-month visit in support of the Zionism. This visit led to a twelve part report in Der Angriff (The Assault), courtesy of Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Dr Joseph Goebbels, praising Zionism in 1934. As Jew Dr Goebbels ordered a medallion to be struck with the Nazi Swastika on one side, and the Zionist Star of David on the other.

A very significant gesture for predominantly exclusive Jew elite officers cadre within the Nazi hierarchy. Who outperformed each other towards the final solution, according to Zionist recipe of the brutal coercion against the obstinate (to their roots), Jew lesser brethren of Europe (whose youngsters were prime candidates for Palestine deportation). Otherwise tainted with revolutionary Marxism ambitions, regarded as anti-Zionist enemy for their assimilationist tendencies. Not that Zionists minded Marxist ideology to propagate Israeli kibbutz movements.

No wonder in May 1935, Nazi Chief of the SS Reinhardt Heydrich wrote an article in which he separated Jews into two categories. Certainly aristocratic Jews he favoured were supremacist Zionists. "Our good wishes together with our official goodwill go with them"... concluded Jew Heydrich. Extraordinary in Sept 1935, after the Nuremberg anti-Jew lesser brethren Race Laws were enacted, the only two flags that were permitted for display within the Nazi Reich were Hitler's favourite swastika and the Zionist blue-n-white banner.

Zionists were also allowed to publish their own newspapers in the widespread propaganda. As supremacist Zionists and their cultivated Nazi proxies had a common interest in making assimilationist Jew lesser brethren of Europe to depart to Palestine.

Mind you that in 1937, the Zionist Socialist Labor Militia (founded by Jabotinsky, Haganah) executive hierarchy, sent an agent Feivel Polkes to the fascist Berlin as a head hunter, offering to spy on Jew lesser brethren for the Nazi SS in exchange for moreover of Nazi resources release towards the Zionist colonisation of Palestine.

Last but not least the infamous Adolf Eichmann was also invited to Palestine as a guest of the Haganah. Whilst Feivel Polkes informed Eichmann: "Jewish Nationalist circles are were very pleased with the radical Nazi policy. Since the strength of the Jewish population in Palestine would be by far increased thereby. That in the foreseeable future Jews could reckon upon numerical superiority over the Arabs".

Obviously these testimonies are certainly open to challenge on this forum! A propos heinous acts perpetration via diabolical Zionist collaboration with their Nazi proxies in reflection on the present day systematically conducted genocide of Afghani, Iraqi and Palestinian peoples (to name a few). One must wonder moreover if the holocaust spun tragedy wasn't in a way the consequence of the Zionist barter in human merchandise? When old, assimilationist and obstinate (to the roots) Jews of Europe burdened Zionist enterprise.

Weren't thus Germany for its tenacious, so awesome people to be chosen precisely for the bloodbath, with its sons as executioners? Destined to be ravaged, debilitated and demoralised for generations to come! Yet aren't currently right now in the 21st century being conditioned likewise so massively impenetrable the American people in turn? Are they destined to face the reality after the fact? Are we to revisit moreover of bloody calamities, just to suss it out? So uniquely typical kind of the hereditary endowed zionazi savagery!

Mr Boaz asked:

“Can any of you who are ripping into my position, provide a viable ALTERNATIVE which is based on a sound ideology, a political system, which has not proven to be flawed due to human nature?”

Mr Boaz,

You KNOW there is no political system that is not flawed by human nature and you KNOW there is no alternative with sound ideology. But I believe that in my original response (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4632#46235) to your similar question above (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4632#46213), now re-worded (possibly due to my response), that I had at least pointed to the lesser of the two evils. When the Democrats pull such an undemocratic and unconstitutional stunt as that (along with the countless other stunts the Republicans have pulled over the last 6 years such as the Patriot Act), I will agree that there is no reasonable alternative. But until then, it’s anyone but Bush as far as I’m concerned.

What was the worst thing Clinton did? He had an affair with an intern and lied to America about it. The Republicans on the other hand, pulled 200 FBI agents from their jobs and blew $50 Million to investigate the situation. Why? Because APPARENTLY, they were so staunchly opposed to the fact that the President could so blatantly lie to the American people.

Well…I guess the shoe’s on the other foot now. Who knows, if those 200 FBI agents hadn’t been pulled away from investigating more important issue problems, maybe they could have done more to prevent 9/11…we’ll never know.

Hmmmm…Is the fact that Bush & Co. are Christians, the only reason you support them? I only ask because I know of a fanatical member of the Christian-Right who, whenever I point out the wrong-doings of the Bush Administration, says: “But they’re a Christian Government!” Whenever he’s cornered in a debate, he relies on that one line.

The signs of a liar are:
1.They misrepresent and degrade their opponents with emotive hostility.
2.They exaggerate facts with emotion they believe benifit their political position.

Both these examples indicate lies in the guise of argument.

Examples of this can be seen in the posts that express hatred of their opponent rather than a balanced argument they have a warlike mind and are more prone to lie; they fail to intelligently present their case. A balanced argument should draw some agreement even from an opponent. An emotive attack on the person will draw the same response and rouse level of threat, unless they are self controlled.