Kindred spirits: Bush and Bin Laden

As the war on terror continues i find myself more and more worried about this apparent battle between Christianity and Islam. As i look into it more and more I begin to see how both sides of these fundamentalist campaigns are so strikingly similar.





Whos mouth are these words coming from?

I am at war against the enemy

All who oppose me are evil

I will have others fight and die in my war

It matters not that many civilians will die as a result of my war

My actions are directed by God

My God is the real God

Working out our differences in a non-violent matter is not an option

I will take vengeance against nations that do not support my war

There is only one way in life and that way is my way

I will gain support for my war by making people fear my enemy

I will convince the people that it is
honorable to die for my cause.

The law of the land matters not to me

www.tvnewslies.org...

Is there any moral high ground here?

[Edited on 5/4/2004 by earthtone]

Mods, I cannot get the pictures to display?

Me either. I've noticed this happens more in BTS than ATS. I don't know why.

It's just fickle.

try converting your files to jpg only, instead of jpeg.

I think I've seen that before too.

It happens alot on BTs, I would not really be sure of how to do that Morbid, ah well. ..

TNNewsLies is a rabidly left-wing rag; no credibility at all.

Your post is very misleading. Do you suggest that Bush has actually said

It matters not that many civilians will die as a result of my war

?

I didn't think so..

Originally posted by jsobecky
TNNewsLies is a rabidly left-wing rag; no credibility at all.

Your post is very misleading. Do you suggest that Bush has actually said

It matters not that many civilians will die as a result of my war

?

I didn't think so..

These are not direct quotes becky, you are right it is left wing spin, but these points can be applied to both leaders. It is not suggested that either person has said these things, however it is food for thought. .

Food for thopught? Certainly, but I see no substance in reality, only a "hate Bush" site trying to foment more hate.

I see no kindred of spirit between these two, their tactics are nothing comparable and neither is their religious ideologies. The U.S. doesn't target civilians in sneak attacks and the U.S. doesn't make it a policy to force religion upon otehrs by force. While the nation is Christian, the government is not, thereby giving us the means of doing trade with other type nations with no problem.

Bush's intent, as the official intent of the U.S., is greatly different than bin Laden's and those that follow him.

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/post.php?action=reply&fid=47&tid=47481www.abovetopsecret.com... d=47481

George W Bush is responsible for more deaths of innocent civilians than Osama Bin Laden .September 11th presented Bush and his coven the perfect opportunity to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.His primary objective was to secure oil.I find it unacceptable that Bush has decided to trade human lives for oil.link

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Food for thopught? Certainly, but I see no substance in reality, only a "hate Bush" site trying to foment more hate.

Yes I hate Bush and his actions

I see no kindred of spirit between these two, their tactics are nothing comparable and neither is their religious ideologies.

Tactics? They are both taking life, and they are both fundamental in their beliefs.



The U.S. doesn't target civilians in sneak attacks and the U.S. doesn't make it a policy to force religion upon otehrs by force.

It's certainly decided to use force to set 'democracy' on whichever country has their interests within it.

While the nation is Christian, the government is not, thereby giving us the means of doing trade with other type nations with no problem.


the government is not Christian? it's seemingly full of fundamentalist christians. I will have to find the thread which listed all the members of the government who had come from that same fanatical Christian posh school.


Bush's intent, as the official intent of the U.S., is greatly different than bin Laden's and those that follow him.

Maybe, but wouldn't you say that their use of force against other countries is similar? Except more civilians have died at the hands of the U.S in Iraq.

These two figureheads of this new 'war' are just two flipsides of a coin if you ask me.

Originally posted by imhotep
I find it unacceptable that Bush has decided to trade human lives for oil

I feel the same. Lives = secured oil. Means nothing to the administration.

Bush's intent, as the official intent of the U.S., is greatly different than bin Laden's and those that follow him.

What's the intent of the U.S.then? Seems rather unclear. Democracy cannot be it, because I actually believe this administration has many intelligent people in it (although I sometimes doubt it). If this were the intent the intelligent people of the administration had used another method.

Finding WMD? Please, don't say that...I repeat my statement above about intelligence.

The U.S. doesn't target civilians in sneak attacks and the U.S. doesn't make it a policy to force religion upon otehrs by force.

If the definition of a sneak attack is when the attacks come without warning, I guess every warring party can be labeled as sneaky. There are instances when civilian casualties are acceptable to the military. At least, so it seems.

Originally posted by yergen

[

The U.S. doesn't target civilians in sneak attacks and the U.S. doesn't make it a policy to force religion upon otehrs by force.

If the definition of a sneak attack is when the attacks come without warning, I guess every warring party can be labeled as sneaky. There are instances when civilian casualties are acceptable to the military. At least, so it seems.

They don't perform 'sneak attacks' or kill civilians Mr. Crowne, they just 'shock and awe' their streets right?

earthtone, it is very difficult to attempt a logical discussion with someone who is arguably as biased as you, but I will give it a shot.

To an extent I can understand your core problems with the war. I do not share your feelings, but I understand them and see how you reached them. What I cannot understand nor can I in any way agree with is the irrational attempt to make connections that just aren't there. I cannot in any way grasp the continued attempts to connect the war on terror to oil as that argument has been shot down in every manner except one, and that is that if it weren't for oil, nobody would give two hoots in Hades what goes on in the middle east.

Your argument that the government is full of "fundamentalist" Christians appears to be nothing more than a dislike for Christians fueled by hate-mongering websites that attempt to make people think that if a Christian is anywhere near a public office, it violates the 1st amendment and places us in grave jeopardy. Nothing can be further from the truth. We were cautioned by the Founding Fathers to elect Christian leaders, and due to the obvious fact that there isn't even anything in the KJV that would dictate the leaders attack Islamic states or anything to that effect, there is no reason to worry. AS a matter of fact, if you would lay off the fanatical sites you are reading and stop to think about it, you would realize that having leaders who answer to a Higher Power and have a desire to stick to ethics and principles that demand good character is better than having one who ultimately believes that he answers only to himself for his ethics and morals.

earthtone, you continue to make mention of the number of civilians that have dies in Iraq since we went to war against Hussein and his regime, but keep in mind a couple things. The number of civilian dead is a guestimate as just because one is in civvies in such an environment doesn't mean he is what we refer to as a noncombatant, and keep in mind that in the attempt to make us seem like villians, you are making light of the thousands killed at teh hands of the Hussein dictatorship, the gang rapes, the children's prisons, etc. It was this regime that caused the need for war against it. We didn't just decide to attack him, no matter what the baseless conspiracy theories want you to believe.

War sucks, earthtone. It sucked in WWII where many more noncombatants died Were you to stop and compare this war to others in the past, you would see that this has been one of the politest wars ever. We even place our own soldiers in more danger than need be in the atttempt to lessen civilian casualties. Meanwhile, the opposing force hides among the population and in mosques.

The fact that Bush and others in his cabinet are Christians does not make similarities with bin Laden. As a matter of fact, were you to look at it in a more factual and non-biased way, you would see that this increases the differences.

The fact that Bush has made several references to earlier clashes between Christianity and Islam doesn't help in any way to stop yerrorism. He is, in fact, using our common cultural past to align the western societies against the Islamic ones.

Of course it is rhetorics, and every leader has to be good at speeches, but the problem is that as Bush is talking about a "crusade" he is bordering on using the same rhetorics as Bin Laden. Moreover, he is creating larger incentives for muslims to join Bin Laden, as they feel threatened by this and become more susceptible to the Bin Laden way of doing business.

Originally posted by yergen

Of course it is rhetorics, and every leader has to be good at speeches, but the problem is that as Bush is talking about a "crusade" he is bordering on using the same rhetorics as Bin Laden. .

Exactely, it's like they are both on an evil, religiously moderated, campaign against one another. Both sides I see as wrong.

It only uses 3 letter extensions...take out the E's.






Edit...But you deleted them already....

[Edited on 18-6-2004 by dreamlandmafia]

Thanks anyway friend, I have only just figured out how to get it working, but this thread doesn't need it now.