Note to American Voters: There is no escape!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

AL QAEDA IN IRAQ MOCKS 'LAME DUCK' BUSH

VOWS TO 'BLOW UP WHITE HOUSE'...
Claims It's Winning War...
Internet audio clip boasts of 12,000 terror 'troops' in Iraq...

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-11-10T172059Z_01_IBO132069_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

---

Khamenei calls US elections a victory for Iran...

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-10T140135Z_01_L10266591_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-ELECTIONS-IRAN.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

---

I get the feeling history will view Bush's invasion of Iraq as NOT a war of choice, but as a battleground of choice.

American voters will soon realize that it doesn't matter if we withdraw from Iraq, the war unleashed on us on 9/11 will continue unabated.

The GOP deserved their historical loss this past Tuesday, but the Dem victory is boosting the moral of our enemies. 

The Dem leadership needs push Bush to take a MORE aggressive strategy in the War on Terror.  If Iraq doesn't improve in 3-6 months, maybe we should treat Iraq for what it is: a battleground.  And stop trying to turn it into a democracy.

The Dems wanted to lead during a time a war.  Now, they will get their chance.  World events will not wait since our enemies are choosing to escalate the battle.  If the Dems do not show leadership, they will be swept away by world events and Bush will take matters into his own hands and the American people will rally behind him.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Agreed, we should do all those things.  But that doesn't address the situation CURRENTLY in Iraq.  The decision was made to invade Iraq and we are there.  It is very hard to argue that pulling out of Iraq now is going to save American lives, since it will only make us look weaker in the eyes of our enemies.

More importantly, our enemies (Al Qaeda, Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc) are not waiting for us to make a move, rather they are escalating the fight.

---

Here is George McGovern’s plan:

If Democrats don't take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won't be in power very long, McGovern told reporters before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

"I think the Democratic leadership is wise enough to know that if they're going to follow the message that election sent, they're going to have to take steps to bring the war to a conclusion," he said.

McGovern will present his recommendations before the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a 62-member group led by Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee.

McGovern told the audience Thursday that the Iraq and Vietnam wars were equally "foolish enterprises" and that the current threat of terrorism developed because _ not before _ the United States went into Iraq.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/09/D8LA01L00.html

I don’t know what calendar George McGovern uses, but I bet the calendar most Americans use has Sept 2001 coming BEFORE March 2003, not after.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also urged the U.S. to stay in Iraq so his group would have more opportunities to kill American troops. “We haven’t had enough of your blood yet,” he told the U.S.

Al-Muhajir became the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June. The tape could not be independently verified.

“The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president’s betrayal in supporting Israel,” the terror leader said. “So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections.”

Describing President Bush as “the most stupid president” in U.S. history, al-Masri reached out to the Muslim world and said his group was winning the war in Iraq faster than expected due to U.S. policies.

He said Bush’s policies had allowed Iran to spread its influence in Afghanistan and Iraq after Washington toppled their Sunni rulers, and expanded Iran’s reach into Syria and Lebanon.

“I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we ... blow up the filthiest house known as the White House,” he added.

Challenging the Bush administration, he said: “I tell the lame duck do not rush to escape as did your defense minister ...  stay on the battleground.”

---

As you can see, Israel is the main target in the War on Terror.  Bin Laden mentioned Israel as the reason for 9/11, Iran's President Mentions the destruction of Israel as his main goal, and now Al-Muhajir has mentioned Israel as his ultimate objective.

The War on Terror is all about Israel.  We're just stuck in the middle of it because we are Israel's main ally.

 Al-Muhajir says he wants more American blood and challenges us to remain on the "battleground" (demonstrating that the Muslims understand Iraq is simply a battlefield in a much broader war).

So, what do you say, Dems?   Are you going to advocate pulling out of Iraq and conceding the country to terrorists while those same terrorists openly mock our will to fight?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have destroyed the dirty black house -- which is called the White House," al-Muhajir said.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, obviously they know that this rhetoric helps out their pal Bush.

sadly, you just don't get it:  regardless of the mistakes Bush has made, Bush is NOT the enemy.  And if Bush were to drop dead tonight, these terrorists would still try to destroy us.  Bush wasn’t the target of 9/11, Israel’s main ally, America, was.

The GOP and the Dems need to speak with one voice.  They need to define an aggressive strategy in the War on Terror and announce their agreement in a joint news conference.  The elections are over, it is time to unify and stop fighting amongst ourselves and take the fight to the terrorists and the states that sponsor them.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"They are getting ready to leave, because they are no longer capable of staying," the Al Qaeda leader said.

"Remain steadfast in the battlefield you coward," he called on the U.S president.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, obviously they know that this rhetoric helps out their pal Bush.

Why would they want to do that? Assuming what you say is true, why wouldn't they have done this several days ago when it might have exerted some influence on the election?

forget jfern.

I don't know about you, but I think if we leave Iraq, we will only be inviting 10 times more trouble on ourselves.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

sadly, you just don't get it:  regardless of the mistakes Bush has made, Bush is NOT the enemy.

Oh really? That's a big laugh.

dude, we don't have time to point our fingers at Bush for the next two years.  A much bigger war is brewing and will boil over before Nov 2008.

"The responsibility for preventing Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities has moved conclusively from Washington to Jerusalem. "

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=3&cid=1162378367330&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Foreign policy is often more about internal politics than anything else.

True, but stating this obvious point doesn't help solve the situation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the lack of meaningful responses to this thread speaks volumes

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

First we should adopt a comprehensive approach that will get the civilized world, meaning the moderate governments and parties of all countries, united. That means tackling long-standing issues like Palestine and Syria

They are intent on destroying Israel.  They only negotiate to buy time to regroup and rearm.  Their religion teaches them that they are the heirs of Abraham.  That is not negotiable

---

We do what we can to ideologically destroy them as well as militarily. Then we destroy those bastards.

ideologically destroy them?  This isn’t communism you’re fighting, it’s religion.  You can’t ideologically destroy it.

---

The Iraqis would do this for us. Al Qaida is not popular in Iraq at all. Right now they are desperately attempting to claim credit for something that has been the doing of the Bush administration's stubborn, see-no-evil incompetent approach to nation-building, combined with the Sunni and Shiite insurgents and militias which are taking advantage of that incompetence and the absence of Saddam. But most Iraqis do not welcome the Al Qaida ilk of scum, which has slaughtered thousands of Iraqis. But we have to remember that Iraq is not the world.

Iraqis will not do our bidding even if they were willing.  Iraqis are too busy fighting themselves in a religious civil war.

---

There have been plenty of meaningful responses.

if you say so

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the lack of meaningful responses to this thread speaks volumes

About the desire of people to get into a debate with someone who tends to be more than a little standoffish?

I considered posting something, but then I decided that it would be more productive to hit my head against a brick wall.

Indeed - in fact I already did that.

I am not sure what yalls’ argument is.  I am simply saying:

1) The War on Terror is predicated upon and driven by religion.
2) The intent of the radical Muslims is to destroy Israel and any her allies.
3) Withdrawing from Iraq will only encourage our enemies and will allow them to move the battlefield closer to their ultimate targets.
4) Iran is intent on nuclear war with Israel within the next 10 years, possibly within the next two years.
5) Iran is using Syria and Hezbollah as proxies to gear up for the coming war with Israel.
6) Therefore, we can not simply withdraw and go home.  And, in spite of your denials, we are at war

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

WE have enough bioweaposn to make the middle east be depopulated osi ts nto an issue

and how is that a solution to the problem?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

First we should adopt a comprehensive approach that will get the civilized world, meaning the moderate governments and parties of all countries, united. That means tackling long-standing issues like Palestine and Syria

They are intent on destroying Israel.  They only negotiate to buy time to regroup and rearm.  Their religion teaches them that they are the heirs of Abraham.  That is not negotiable

hate to add another nail in the Peace Coffin, I mean "Peace Process", but...

The ruling Islamic militant group Hamas said on Tuesday a planned Palestinian unity government would not recognize Israel or accept a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15710924/from/RS.3/

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

From Hamas' charter:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

A waqf is an inalienable religious endowment in Islam.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

more news...

Plutonium Found in Iran Waste Facility

International Atomic Energy experts have found unexplained plutonium and enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran and have asked Tehran for an explanation, an IAEA report said Tuesday.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/14/D8LCVEU01.html

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Of course there are also a lot of dispensationalists who also yearn for a bloody war in the middle east, as they see it as a forebear of 'end times' as interpereted by their prophet John Nelson Darby by stringing together various phrases out of the old and new testaments along with a number of vauge 'interperetations' which had nothing to do with history and a lot to do with apocolyptism.

In their twisting of fate and yearning for violent struggle (as well as opposition to any sort of spiritual  or intelectual growth), one almost has to wonder if the two groups are not both closer to Crowley than the Christ.

“Intelectual” is spelled i-n-t-e-l-l-e-c-t-u-a-l
…and “interpereted” is spelled i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-e-d
…and “vauge” is spelled v-a-g-u-e

And this is the definition of yearn:

Main Entry: yearn
Pronunciation: 'y&rn
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English yernen, from Old English giernan; akin to Old High German gerOn to desire, Latin hortari to urge, encourage, Greek chairein to rejoice
1 : to long persistently, wistfully, or sadly <yearns to make a difference>
2 : to feel tenderness or compassion

But, I believe the word you're searching for is foresee:

Main Entry: fore•see
Pronunciation: for-'sE
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): fore•saw  /-'so/; fore•seen  /-'sEn/; -see•ing
: to see (as a development) beforehand

---

As for as the differences between our religions...May the Lord always grant us peace.  But consider carefully the following question:

Can you name a single prophet of your religion who did NOT prophesy war?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And you wonder why most people would rather eat sh**t than have a discussion with you.

Well, if someone is going to trumpet their intellectual superiority over me, is the capability to spell the word intellectual too much to expect?

Notwithstanding his mis-labeling of my concern as war-mongering, the main point of my post was the following:

As for as the differences between our religions...May the Lord always grant us peace.  But consider carefully the following question:

Can you name a single prophet of your religion who did NOT prophesy war?

In other words, if every single prophet of the bible prophesied war, why should he, a Christian, have a problem with fellow Christians' expectations of war?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As for as the differences between our religions...May the Lord always grant us peace.  But consider carefully the following question:

Can you name a single prophet of your religion who did NOT prophesy war?

Well, I'm not up to looking up "every single prophet". Though I doubt that all the speakers in the Bible spoke as a single Greek chorus.

… I consider Mr. Darby to be a false prophet

Has it ever occurred to you that you know more about the beliefs of people you disagree with than you know about your own bible?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And it would seem to me from your postings that yearn (definition 1) describes you to a T.

no, actually warnings are meant to PREVENT.  Those who warned against Hitler in the mid-1930s were also dismissed as extremists and alarmists.

---

  As for forsee, I consider Mr. Darby to be a false prophet - and possibly you as well as you seem so certain of your ineritterant belief in very specific interperetations of texts which are quite vague.

f-o-r-e-s-e-e does not equate to prophecy.  Those who warned against Hitler in the mid-30's were NOT claiming divine revelations, they simply compared Hilter’s beliefs to his actions and concluded he meant what he said.  Likewise, this Iranian president also means what he says – he intends to destroy Israel 

And the word interpretation has only 5 syllables, not 6.

---

Perhaps you are dragging the scriptures out of their historical context and twisting them so you can feel important as one of the "good guys" in a world filled only with the good, the evil, and the ignorant sheep.  I really don't know.  I wish you could get the help you seem to need, but you must use your God-Given free will to turn away from your madness and recognize that faith (even some varieties of fundementalist faith) goes far beyond and far deeper than a petty "us vs. them" mentality.   Remember what Jesus said was the second most important commandment.  Does that not mean anything to you?  Or is war and enimity all you know?

warning that war clouds are on the horizon does NOT equate to hating people, otherwise ALL the prophets of the bible, including Jesus himself, would be haters.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/24/wiran24.xml

N Korea helping Iran with nuclear testing
By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 3:23pm GMT 24/01/2007

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.

Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists.

Nuclear partners? Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong il of N Korea

North Korea provoked an international outcry when it successfully fired a bomb at a secret underground location and Western intelligence officials are convinced that Iran is working on its own weapons programme.

A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year.

There were unconfirmed reports at the time of the Korean firing that an Iranian team was present. Iranian military advisers regularly visit North Korea to participate in missile tests.

Now the long-standing military co-operation between the countries has been extended to nuclear issues.

As a result, senior western military officials are deeply concerned that the North Koreans' technical superiority will allow the Iranians to accelerate development of their own nuclear weapon.

"The Iranians are working closely with the North Koreans to study the results of last year's North Korean nuclear bomb test," said the European defence official.

"We have identified increased activity at all of Iran's nuclear facilities since the turn of the year," he said.

"All the indications are that the Iranians are working hard to prepare for their own underground nuclear test."

The disclosure of the nuclear co-operation between North Korea and Iran comes as Teheran seems set on a collision course with the West over its nuclear programme, although it insists it is entirely peaceful.

Both countries were named in President George W Bush's famous "axis of evil" State of the Union speech in 2002.

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously authorised the imposition of "smart" sanctions against Iran.

This is because of its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, which most Western intelligence agencies believe is part of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.

France expressed concern yesterday over an Iranian decision to bar 38 UN nuclear inspectors from Iran, claiming that Teheran appeared to be singling out westerners from the inspection team.

Intelligence estimates vary about how long it could take Teheran to produce a nuclear warhead. But defence officials monitoring the growing co-operation between North Korea and Iran believe the Iranians could be in a position to test fire a low-grade device — less than half a kiloton — within 12 months.

The precise location of the Iranian test site is unknown, but is likely to be located in a mountainous region where it is difficult for spy satellites to pick up any unusual activity.

Teheran successfully concealed the existence of several key nuclear sites — including the controversial Natanz uranium enrichment complex — until their locations were disclosed by Iranian dissidents three years ago.

Western intelligence agencies have reported an increase in the number of North Korean and Iranian scientists travelling between the two countries.

The increased co-operation on nuclear issues began last November when a team of Iranian nuclear scientists met their North Korean counterparts to study the technical and political implications of Pyongyang's nuclear test.

The Iranians are reported to have been encouraged by the fact that no punitive action was taken against North Korea, despite the international outcry that greeted the underground firing.

This has persuaded the Iranian regime to press ahead with its own nuclear programme with the aim of testing a low-grade device, which would be difficult for international inspectors to detect.
 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

and besides, I am in a position to ascertain whether or not opedo has the sense of a mini-wiener dog - I own two of them

Your post has been reported to the nazis, theocrat.

Unfortunately, “nazi” and “theocrat“ are banned under the Terms of Endearment Clause in Article II Section III of the New Personal Attack Policy.

They are obviously jealous of our love and are conspiring to end our relationship.

Love and kisses,

jmfcst

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Claim discrimination based on homophobia and thus motion to get Peter Bell's mod powers revoked based on personal attack grounds.

I will not acknowledge you until you get a hair-cut.