Dee, Saddam's WMD's were supplied by the USA and Russia to be used against Iran, they consisted mostly of biological gas and nothing else. If you look at the relevant UN resolutions and replies by Saddam's regime, you may find that after the 1990's invasion, they were destroyed in return for aid.

The link you provide is full of hypocrisies, you can't have a secular state with a controlling government who are devoutly religious. You can only have a secular state when its controlled by a non religious government, other than that, its a religiously controlled state. And the religious are not secular.

People always think of religion as being associated with a belief in a omnipotent power, but religion acquaints to anything living in repetitious fantasy and denial, of the reality of the present future. Economics is a failed religion because it requires sacrifice of self, to attain unequal benefits for others.

You only have to look at any personal, sociological, religious or national situation to see, lies are a very important part of those wishing to be in control. We have a government who invaded a country because we wanted to keep our wheat deal. There was no threat to our country, but when we sided with the US, we became a target.

Most countries think of Australians as reasonable people whop accept everyone. Its the religious fools people vote for that puts us in the gun sights of the idiots of the world.

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

Both these examples indicate lies in the guise of argument.”

Philo, I look forward to the day when you may see your statement relates to your monotheistic beliefs. The word is not wrong, but the interpretation and application are the opposite to the word. Until, the interpretations and the books disappear, few will understand the meaning and application.

The alchemist,
Stop trynig to change the meaning of terms secular does not mean the absense of God. It means pertaining to the natural as contrasted to the spiritual. Governments ought not to be involved in determining our thoughts and beliefs, but they ought to be involved in providing services for living in society. The American constitution is a secular constitution as it does not interfere in freedom of thought and belief.

We well know your obsession with atheism and your attempt to control everyone by your belief as you espouse dihonesty to anything of faith. Your misrepresentation and exaggerations are a deliberate attempt to lead astray or degrade those of faith.

Philo

I don’t necessarily agree with everything the alchemist writes, however I must point out that by accusing him/her of attempting to “control everyone by your belief” you are engaging in the same “misrepresentation and exaggerations” you seem to detest.

It is always interesting to see that religious believers feel that they have the right to freely espouse their doctrines and beliefs, virtually shoving it down the throats of us heathens. Yet when those of us who reject their preachings and encourage them and others to question the (what appears to us irrational) basis for such beliefs, vehemently or otherwise, we are accused of controlling others, leading the faithful astray, and degrading those of faith.

Has it ever occurred to those of you with faith that we the unfaithful would actually prefer to go about our daily lives without having to hear your claptrap? But no, we are forced to live in its fetid backwardness whether we like it or not. And when we speak out about it we are accused of doing something wrong.

You accuse the alchemist of being obsessed with atheism, however you don’t see that atheists consider people like you to be obsessed with religious myth.

I think you ought to be a bit more honest with yourself Philo before making accusations about someone else.

What was that story about the removing the tree trunk out of your own eye before criticizing the splinter in your brother’s?

That's the trouble with faith-based conflicts - the first thing that goes out the window is the faith.

Just as one group uses their religious beliefs to justify killing, another will ignore it's religious beliefs to do the same thing.

In the end, they are two sides of the same coin.

The only real difference between them is marketing.

tao,

You are nearly there re: the historical Jesus. A lot of people would even dispute the fact he even existed. What separates you from believers [in his deity] is more research. Many anti Christ warriors before you ended up believing after examining the overwhelming facts available.

I agree to a degree that the US/ allies are all a dollar greedy bunch. However this is a religious/political campaign above your (and my) humble comprehension.

Islam my friend is a mighty enemy of all that the “west” stands for (freedom of speech, separation of church /state, democracy,…). Islam is at odds with the rest of us.

1991 was Saddam’s attempt at increasing his territory – hence power – by raping Kuwait.

Israel is pivotal to the whole ME conflict. Israel is quite capable of standing alone (militarily) against her enemies. So although your “US – Israel” economic theory exists, it is not their main interest. The nation of Israel is.

On the subject of “faith” I will not push anything down your throat – it is just amazing to us believers that visibly intelligent thinking human beings like yourself could not believe in a creator.

How can you explain that you and I are spinning at 500 meters a second on a merry-go-round yet everything around us seems perfectly stable? Or how can a few inert molecules decide to organise themselves to become the incredibly complex “human” form?

It takes more faith NOT to believe than to believe. Your non-faith is remarkable.

<.. your fatwas against Muslims are just xenaphobia and prejudice>

<.. it isn't against the law to harbour hatred for others. I just hope you never act on that hatred>

<I think the rest of us .. should be thankful the vast majority of Australians (indeed, the vast majority of human beings) aren't as inspired by such venom and hatred>

<I respect the fact that OLO forum moderators allows your comments here ..>

<I reckon you really hate Muslims..>

The above comments (and more) were directed at me – by Irf and others – in response to my posts about extremist Muslims and the dangers of large scale Islamic immigration. I was accused of wishing to act on my so called ‘hatred’ (by donning my KKK uniform and monstering the local mosque, no doubt). I was accused of hating *all* Muslims, although I asked reasonable questions and gave many examples of hatred directed at Australians by local Muslims such as Keysar Trad and his wife.

So I find it odd that our resident Jew-hater Leo Braun has been seemingly given a free pass to spout his bile (except for Johnj’s kool-aid reference). If his comments had been directed at Muslims, the screams of indignation and accusations of anti- Islamic bigotry would be deafening.

So why no condemnation of Leo’s psychotic hatred of Jews? Even if the translator renders Leos language into nonsense, the underlying venom is loud and clear.

‘ Jewanderthals fed concoctions’

‘ Judeo ruling elite of the ancient Greece’

‘ zionazi ruled global establishments’

‘ Jew lesser brethren’

‘ diabolical Zionist collaboration with their Nazi proxies’

‘ common denominator of the Jew dilemma’

‘ Jewanderthal expert liars’

‘ zionazi savagery’

Leo – have you overdosed on The Protocols of Zion? Are you related to Eva?

Irf – what would be your response if these tirades had been directed at Muslims? Considering your response to my mild-by-comparison criticisms of Islam, I’m surprised you have not responded to Leo with similar outrage or at least questioned the wisdom of OLO moderators for allowing his comments, as you did with mine.