God told him to do it

[Xandax]

My comment was a general response to this statement:

"Shrub's claims that "god told him to do it" is but a step on the path to tyranny that the neo-cons are taking America on. I argue that tyranny is what we already experience in America now."

Oddly enough, I don`t see a similar response from you to that poster.

I didn't feel the need to respond to Chanak, because the statement there was supported by arguments. I agree that perhaps the word tyranny in its literally meaning is to "strong" or harsh, however, when you view the actions taken to secure the powerbase in the US, and many other actions (such as limiting the free press) then it is not a far fetched comparison.

And where did I say it was OK for them to have done what they did?

Then why state that there have been worse leaders in history, if not to "justify" the actions of the current one? Then it is a totally unrelated to mention that aspect.

<snip>
Well, sorry to dash your "hopes," but I don`t. We wouldn`t be in this mess if people such as Bin Laden hadn`t chose to drag the US into his own personal holy war. <snip>

Well - the question is if we would then be in this mess if religous people in power, in the US didn't try to exercise their views towards other people and justifying their actions by "God". I would almost guarrentee that this is the predominant view in much of the middle east for instance.
Bin Laden claming that God justifies his actions is not any differnet to me from any other (Bush included) justifies their actions. The actions themselves might be different and it isn't that which I'm pointing at - but using a religon as justification is always extreemly bad in my view, both when viewing from a historical perspective, but also in a current world view context.

<snip>
So does the thought of Gandhi scare you too? I mean, his principals were derrived from Hindu sanskrit. What about Alexander, or Napolean, or Mustafa Kemal Ataturk? All these people spoke, ruled, conqured or redefined the peoples and nations they encountered. Sometimes, their religion was involved.

Gandhi is not using God as a reason for him invading Iraq, hunting terrorist in Afganistan or what else. Ghandi is not the focus of our debate, but if Ghandi was the leader of a "free" country and used "God" as justification to invade another, then it would indeed "scare" (annoy is likely a better word) as well yes. As for Alexander and Napolean, they can hardly be used as characters to build a point on alone due to the anacronisme which would be involved in that, and the context of their existance.

How? Give some examples. From where I`m at (the poor side of town,) I see no evidence of his "forcing" his religion on me, or anyone else where I live. I don`t see anyone demanding a conversion from their religious beliefs to fit in line with his, but maybe you have. So what examples can you provide?

By him drawing justifications from his God, it is him saying that God in some manner governs his actions. That is indeed drawing God into the affairs of the state once more in a supposedly Church/State segregation.
And who said anything about conversions or forcing religon upon others?

So athiest are all sane? Moreover, this is clearly prejudice on your part that anyone who`s religious and talks to their "God" is less than sane. Disprove the existence of any supernatural entity and we`ll talk some more.

I never said atheists are all sane. However, when you don't have some unknown, unprovable, undefinable entity to base your decisions on you have to pull out arguments which can be scrutinized, and thus have to stand in the light of logic. You can't do that with arguments based on comming from any God, because religon is a non-logical concept. It is based on personal beliefs and thus can't be objective.
Furthermore nobody can disprove the existance of a supernatural entity, but it isn't up to me (us) to prove that something *doesn't* exist. Prove such an entity does infact exists and we can talk.
The one who must prove something is the one who claims it is there in the first place. If I see a UFO, it is up to me to prove to you that I saw it - not for you to disprove that I didn't see it - similar you can't disprove that I'm holding a rock right now, I need prove that I infact hold it.

I think these are some dangerous times, but judging from your response alone, I think you sound as though you are itching for a fight in regards to justifying your hatred for Bush. Personally, I may not like him, but I don`t hate him - that`d just make me blind in regards to judging objectively.

Well, then you have me pegged all wrong. If you search GB archives, then I'm actually (well, I was) in favor of both the actions in Afganistan and Iraq, however - I personally thought the argument of WMD was somewhat limited, but I saw it as a means to bring end to a dangerous despot in a country in a very unstable region of the world.
I knew full well that the only reason they went into Iraq was for Oil and trying to stabilize that supply. However - when Bush uses God as a reason he makes a mockery of all which have occured up to and include the actions in Iraq, because then he uses the exact same rethoric as Osama Bin Laden. This is why I view Bush as dangerous, well - one of the reasons why I view Bush as dangerous. (Not mentioning what he is doing with the US economy).

[Wolfguard]

when you view the actions taken to secure the powerbase in the US, and many other actions (such as limiting the free press) then it is not a far fetched comparison.

Examples?

Then why state that there have been worse leaders in history, if not to "justify" the actions of the current one? Then it is a totally unrelated to mention that aspect.

The overall impression I got was how terrible this guy is because of what he said. My whole point being that other have invoked the name of their god or gos, or have used their religion to do far worse than what Bush has done.

the question is if we would then be in this mess if religous people in power, in the US didn't try to exercise their views towards other people and justifying their actions by "God".

I would agree, however me being part of the "US," I don`t feel that every action which has been taken is about "God" and imposing Christianity on anyone. Is Bush justifying his actions this way? It seems to be the case. Are the US soldiers waving the banner of Christiandom and the spread of Christianity while in combat? I don`t think so.

I would almost guarrentee that this is the predominant view in much of the middle east for instance

I`d say the same about their views towards us when we appear defeated.

The actions themselves might be different and it isn't that which I'm pointing at - but using a religon as justification is always extreemly bad in my view, both when viewing from a historical perspective, but also in a current world view context.

I think to an extent we can agree on this point.

Gandhi is not using God as a reason for him invading Iraq, hunting terrorist in Afganistan or what else. Ghandi is not the focus of our debate, but if Ghandi was the leader of a "free" country and used "God" as justification to invade another, then it would indeed "scare" (annoy is likely a better word) as well yes. As for Alexander and Napolean, they can hardly be used as characters to build a point on alone due to the anacronisme which would be involved in that, and the context of their existance.

You missed my point altogether, which was that each of them used religion or reshaped the way religion perceived the people and world around them when they invoked their beliefs or use of. Sometimes it was good, sometimes it was bad, sometimes it`s even. In the case of Bush, I think it`s even. If he believes that, I`m OK with it. If he starts enforcing it through action (as in manditory conversions, or executions when conversions are rejected etc etc. ) then I would put him on par with Napolean crowning himself Emperor.

That`s not the case at this point, nor do I believe it will be the case.

So all is okay, as long as the human race is still here? Well, sorry, but I don't view that as any kind of argument. Just because "we" are still here, doesn't mean what we are doing is neither right or good.

I was reading an article in the LA Times last week which stated world conflict was actually on the decline. I think the source was the Maryland Institute...hmm, should`ve clipped that article. Anyhow, I`m not arguing as to whether what we`re doing is "right or good," I`m stating that what is, is what has been. We, as a species, will adapt, change and move forward as we always have. Even if we do wipe ourselves out (as some may believe,) it won`t really matter since there won`t be anyone to lament that action.

By him drawing justifications from his God, it is him saying that God in some manner governs his actions.

So what`s the difference between his saying it and believing it, and someone else who says nothing, yet still believes it? Nothing. There`s no difference except that one makes it public while the other does not.

That is indeed drawing God into the affairs of the state once more in a supposedly Church/State segregation.

You`re not providing any examples.

And who said anything about conversions or forcing religon upon others?

Me. I provided my own examples in regards to your statements.

when you don't have some unknown, unprovable, undefinable entity to base your decisions on you have to pull out arguments which can be scrutinized, and thus have to stand in the light of logic. You can't do that with arguments based on comming from any God, because religon is a non-logical concept.

OK, what`s your disproof of it? You are saying that it is non-logical as a matter of fact. OK, where are your facts?

It is based on personal beliefs and thus can't be objective.

LOL! The information which people go by in many instances is based on personal beliefs! Pick up a dinosaur book. Get scientist`s opinion about life on other planets. What`s the consensus on color of King Tut`s skin? How `bout the Great White`s ability to breach in parts of the world other than South Africa?

Personal beliefs are what leads us to finding answers. Much of what we consider factual is information BASED on those said personal beliefs.

nobody can disprove the existance of a supernatural entity, but it isn't up to me (us) to prove that something *doesn't* exist. Prove such an entity does infact exists and we can talk.

So we`re on even ground in this regard.

The one who must prove something is the one who claims it is there in the first place.

Agreed to an extent. I`m still waiting for proof regarding dinosaurs being either warm blooded or something different. I`m also waiting for proof of life on other planets. Till then, I`ll stick with whatever theories I agree with and maintain my "faith" in them and the people who speak of them. If someone claims that one theory is disproven, I`ll take their information into account.

If I see a UFO, it is up to me to prove to you that I saw it - not for you to disprove that I didn't see it

Not nessesarily. One can offer counter proof in order to disprove a person`s claim to what they consider the truth by offering evidence to the contrary.

Well, then you have me pegged all wrong. If you search GB archives, then I'm actually (well, I was) in favor of both the actions in Afganistan and Iraq, however - I personally thought the argument of WMD was somewhat limited, but I saw it as a means to bring end to a dangerous despot in a country in a very unstable region of the world.

This is where I stand at present. I don`t like Bush, but I support the war effort and believe the best thing we can do now is stay focussed on securing Iraq, training the Iraqis, and killing the terrorists so we can get the hell out of there.

I knew full well that the only reason they went into Iraq was for Oil and trying to stabilize that supply.

I`ve yet to see any barrels here.

when Bush uses God as a reason he makes a mockery of all which have occured up to and include the actions in Iraq, because then he uses the exact same rethoric as Osama Bin Laden.

Bush is not saying we should kill all non Christians and their allies wherever they are and force them out of the Christian Holy Lands (Israel) as Bin Laden had done. Here, you can do a comparison if you like:

[url="http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm"]http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm[/url]

This is why I view Bush as dangerous, well - one of the reasons why I view Bush as dangerous. (Not mentioning what he is doing with the US economy).

I agree with you in regards to the economy, among other things.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Wolfguard]<snip>
LOL! The information which people go by in many instances is based on personal beliefs! Pick up a dinosaur book. Get scientist`s opinion about life on other planets. What`s the consensus on color of King Tut`s skin? How `bout the Great White`s ability to breach in parts of the world other than South Africa?

Personal beliefs are what leads us to finding answers. Much of what we consider factual is information BASED on those said personal beliefs.
<snip>[/QUOTE]

To avoid derailing this thread into yet another thread which has to explain the difference between science/scientifcally evidence and religon/personal beliefs, then I'd simply advice you to read some of the threads which for instance exists in this forum.

[SyntheticD]

ahhh hahahaha what a retard hasent the the office monkeys told this guy shut his mouth when speaking to people bush i mean

[Phreddie]

Heres a quote that might sway some poeple one way or the other:

"The woman who knew I had dyslexia - I never interviewed her."

-President George W. Bush
Orange, California 9-15-2000



Personally it makes me feel bad, making fun of that poor man, only to find out he was mentally retarded.

As for the havard degree do some research, he didnt pass all of his classes with the best grades, my guess is papa pulled some strings. Yes, america is not full of law abiding citizens shocking... people will pull personal favors.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=SyntheticD]ahhh hahahaha what a retard hasent the the office monkeys told this guy shut his mouth when speaking to people bush i mean [/QUOTE]

Please keep it clean. You might disagree with Bush, or think he isn't the brigthests of the bunch, but calling him a retard as an insult is getting close to the line of what is acceptable on GameBanshee.
Even though people don't like him, it is still possible to be civil in discussions.

__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules

[Phreddie]

i think a little more lee way on the rules should be allowed on this thread and the ammendments one, you never know, some1 maybe angry because some1 they knew just came home from iraq (not in a good way either), personally im mad at bush for sending my cousin and her husband to iraq (thankfully they returned home safely but that doesnt excuse the danger he put them in.) and politically i dont tihnk he has made a single correct decision... but thats my opinion.

[fable]

Phreddie, if you want to step outside the rules, you'd best send a PM to the site owner, Buck Satan. He's the only one who can okay that. But be specific if and when you write him, and explain exactly which rule you want to override, and why.

[Chimaera182]

I think we should just exercise restraint, no matter how we feel about the man. Granted, I don't like the man and maybe I think he's a {this comment is being edited out for content and because I'm too lazy to think up a long string of insults}, but we might be insulting some people who like Bush, and I don't think people want to come on a public message board to be insulted or see something like that; I know it's public, and it's bound to happen, but the moderators have to keep it to a minimum as much as possible.

Anyway, just creatively reword your sentences to make it less vulgar. I work at a Godiva Chocolatier store, and we get to sample products so that we can tell customers how they taste (we're told to tell them they taste great, no matter how we actually feel ). Well, the assistant manager damaged out several of our new pieces, Pumpkin Spice Truffles, and she, another worker, and I tried them. God awful (at first, it tasted like pumpkin pie, but the after taste required mass amounts of liquid to get rid of). So, how did I respond when asked how it tastes? "It has a very unique flavor."

[Phreddie]

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]

Anyway, just creatively reword your sentences to make it less vulgar. I work at a Godiva Chocolatier store, and we get to sample products so that we can tell customers how they taste (we're told to tell them they taste great, no matter how we actually feel ). Well, the assistant manager damaged out several of our new pieces, Pumpkin Spice Truffles, and she, another worker, and I tried them. God awful (at first, it tasted like pumpkin pie, but the after taste required mass amounts of liquid to get rid of). So, how did I respond when asked how it tastes? "It has a very unique flavor." [/QUOTE]

Not unlike Bush's unique style of speech and his or his speechwriters passion for overriding websters and creating new words (personal fav: misunderestimate- no one can deny that wasnt an original to the bush admin.)

@Fable im not asking to step outside rules, im just saying this can be a very emoitional topic for soem and if they ( i am NOT encouraging anyone to break rules here at gb) happen to step outa line, that they be given a little more respect than a common dissident given what they may have gone through because of the iraq war or if the vehemently support bush for his actions after they lost a loved one in 9/11

[fable]

@Fable im not asking to step outside rules, im just saying this can be a very emoitional topic for soem and if they ( i am NOT encouraging anyone to break rules here at gb) happen to step outa line, that they be given a little more respect than a common dissident given what they may have gone through because of the iraq war or if the vehemently support bush for his actions after they lost a loved one in 9/11

How do you define "respect," Aretha Franklin notwithstanding? If you think anybody should be treated in a special fashion, it's a change of Buck's policy, so take it to him.

For the rest, I attacked Bush back in early 2001, after noting what he was doing to slash state subsidies, remove public right-of-access to federal documents, deny Congress access to executive branch materials, and follow up the PNAC Manifesto, most of whose signatories he'd personally hired into high profile positions. I was told here that I was being very unfair. Now, everybody jumps on this particular bandwagon everywhere, attacks Bush indiscriminately and without bothering to support accusations with facts--and all I can do is watch, and sigh.

[Phreddie]

Back in 01 everyone was behind bush because of 9/11 (unless you post preattack, then evryone was most likely enjoying that new president smell that you always get with newer models) but since then his support has slowly dissapeared one controversial issue after another, iraq, social security, that CIA leak, now delay under indictment, etc. and now its the popular thing to do, i stated opposing bush after iraq, originallyt i was pro-war (in the 7th grade i was very wel informed on the whitehouse briefings as you can imagine) but then wen it came out there reall werent ne wmds, my eyes opened and i saw the world in a differnt light (blue isntead of multi colored, but that may have been the depression kiking in)...

[fable]

I posted back in early 2001, which means before September. My point is that many people who are opposed to Bush now are just as wrong, for lack of genuine study into the facts, as they were when they strongly supported him a couple of years ago. It isn't the opinion that matters, but the research that's made, first, into getting at the facts.

So Bush's remarks about "God telling him to do" whatever, is completely beside the point. First, it's hearsay. Second, even if it were true, it's likely, based on previous evidence, that he didn't mean it. Third, even if he did mean it, all that would matter is his record of actions, not his words. And if you really research these, they are damning enough without trying to somehow make him out to be worse because he expresses himself other than we do.

[Phreddie]

I still believe that americans where intoxicated by the new car smell that the President GW BUSH 2001 model exuded from the floor model that was then on display.

[SyntheticD]

[QUOTE=Phreddie]i think a little more lee way on the rules should be allowed on this thread and the ammendments one, you never know, some1 maybe angry because some1 they knew just came home from iraq (not in a good way either), personally im mad at bush for sending my cousin and her husband to iraq (thankfully they returned home safely but that doesnt excuse the danger he put them in.) and politically i dont tihnk he has made a single correct decision... but thats my opinion.[/QUOTE]

i dont hate bush i just dont like him and his way of handling situations,

also my uncle whom i really like was in Iraq, he came back to us with 23 .223 rounds in in his back and arms explain that iraqy soilders dont use .223 ammo only americans due its very disturbing but i dont allow it to cloud my judgement about america, my father is american my mother is german, and its pretty sad when my dad says that at this current state of our political system he would rather live in a communist goverment, i think that says something, our president has made some real poor decioons that have cost alot of americans lives and people from other countries as well, so i think i have the right to speak my mind when i say i dont like him and i do thinks hes a retard what are they gonna do come on gamebanshee and find out who i am and exicute me no i think not i belive they have bigger fish to fry than me this is speak you mind forum right as long as i keep it clean what is the problem?

[Hill-Shatar]

@ Fable: some of us who try not to pay attention to the American media spaltted upon our TVs nightly already know more than we want to know.

I think we just enjoy carrying on a topic in which seems to be a constant problem in itself. Not that comment about god (yes, we already know all about the other problems. We would rather discuss a topic that has not been brought up before. You see, unlike some gods here, we dont have ESP ) but rather the current turmoil in the Us about the need to constantly combine the church and the government ( I know, too strong) together, underneath the Bush campaign.

Therefore, I think we are all agreed on this topic. now we are getting nitpicky on the details of the arguments itself.

@ synthetic: Of course you can speak your opinion. Just try to be more polite and follow the guidelines set out by Buck.

Personally, if I disagree with a religion, or a political party, I don't go calling them retards, I simply state that I strongly dislike them for a multitude of reasons, from which I state several. People who are Bush supporters come to this site regularily. We don't want complaints filling Buck's email box.

[Dottie]

@Phreddie: To think that everyone was behind bush after 9/11 is a huge misunderstanding. There were several threads about that topic at the time, and there were nothing close to a consensus.

You might also want to know that many potentially emotional topics have been discussed here at SYM, and it's quite rare, and in my opinion bizarre, to claim extra rights because you are personally involved. It creates a really difficult situation when many people are coming from different backgrounds and places.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Phreddie]i think a little more lee way on the rules should be allowed on this thread and the ammendments one, you never know, some1 maybe angry because some1 they knew just came home from iraq (not in a good way either), personally im mad at bush for sending my cousin and her husband to iraq (thankfully they returned home safely but that doesnt excuse the danger he put them in.) and politically i dont tihnk he has made a single correct decision... but thats my opinion.[/QUOTE]

If you are angry, then relax before you post.

If you disagree with every single descision Bush has made, then post why in a clam and clear maner and you'll not only get more response, but also more respect from the people posting/reading.

[QUOTE=Phreddie]
<snip>
@Fable im not asking to step outside rules, im just saying this can be a very emoitional topic for soem and if they ( i am NOT encouraging anyone to break rules here at gb) happen to step outa line, that they be given a little more respect than a common dissident given what they may have gone through because of the iraq war or if the vehemently support bush for his actions after they lost a loved one in 9/11<snip>[/QUOTE]

Excatly because it is an emotional topic for some/many - it is even more needed to stay well within the forum rules and not insult each other. It is very much the same with for instance religious threads.


There is no need to differentiate the forum rules for the sake of a few (subjectively) chosen threads at all. Post within the rules and everybody is "happy" and people can engage in meaningful discussion instead of reverting to namecalling, trolling and flaming.
__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules

[Phreddie]

You make a good point, I now, see the light as it were. (a little too bright i might add, doesnt this thing have a dimmer switch on it?)

[Hill-Shatar]

Just a note. Do not try to find much about peoples opinions before April in 2001. You will find nothing.

Do a general search for the word George (if that word is too common, try one of his nicknames, like Dubyah) and you will find a great deal of opinions and facts already discussed and set aside.