PDA

View Full Version : Another mass grave found in Iraq



Knight
October 13th, 2004, 12:58 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces have exhumed a mass grave in northwestern Iraq and uncovered the remains of hundreds of people.

Many of the bodies found at the site near al-Hatra are believed to be the bodies of Kurdish women and children thought slaughtered by the Saddam Hussein regime.

A pool reporter recently was taken to the site, and the evidence gathered at the site -- a remote wadi, or valley that cannot be seen by passing vehicles -- is expected to be used in the war crimes trial against Saddam Hussein and his Baathist allies.

more.... (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/index.html)

cattyfan
October 13th, 2004, 01:14 PM
reports say some of the dead children are still clutching their stuffed animals...it's heartbreaking.

Skeptic
October 13th, 2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Knight

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces have exhumed a mass grave in northwestern Iraq and uncovered the remains of hundreds of people.

Many of the bodies found at the site near al-Hatra are believed to be the bodies of Kurdish women and children thought slaughtered by the Saddam Hussein regime. Those graves are quite old. There is no evidence that Saddam was in the middle of committing such atrocities in the months leading up to Bush's invasion. Atrocities committed by Saddam years ago did NOT justify the unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq in March 2003, which unnecessarily killed over 10,000 innocent men, women and children. Those thousands who were killed in March 2003 did NOT have to die. There were other options to deal with Saddam that Bush chose not to consider. There was no need to rush in and remove Saddam at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.

Without clear hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat to America or other countries, Bush's bloody invasion was unnecessary and WRONG!

BillyBob
October 13th, 2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Blah...blah...blah.........blah, blah, blah.......blahhhhhhhh, blah, blah, blahhhhhhhhhh..... blah...blah..blah.......blah......

:yawn:

Knight
October 13th, 2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

Those graves are quite old. There is no evidence that Saddam was in the middle of committing such atrocities in the months leading up to Bush's invasion. Atrocities committed by Saddam years ago did NOT justify the unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq in March 2003, which unnecessarily killed over 10,000 innocent men, women and children. Those thousands who were killed in March 2003 did NOT have to die. There were other options to deal with Saddam that Bush chose not to consider. There was no need to rush in and remove Saddam at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.

Without clear hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat to America or other countries, Bush's bloody invasion was unnecessary and WRONG! The same lame arguments could be made for not stopping Hitler.

Thank God idiots like you are not in charge.

Skeptic
October 13th, 2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Blah...blah...blah.........blah, blah, blah.......blahhhhhhhh, blah, blah, blahhhhhhhhhh..... blah...blah..blah.......blah...... This is what you say (while covering your ears) when you cannot address the moral issue I raise regarding preemption.

BillyBob
October 13th, 2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

This is what you say (while covering your ears) when you cannot address the moral issue I raise regarding preemption.

I have addressed these issues with you countless times, I'm not going to rewrite the same post every time you do!

Even John Kerry agrees with me about this! :doh:

Skeptic
October 13th, 2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Knight

The same lame arguments could be made for not stopping Hitler.
When we went to war against Hitler, he was invading other countries and actively exterminating groups of people. Do you think the U.S. could have gotten away with invading Germany and taking out Hitler if there had been no hard evidence he was an imminent threat to other countries or actively killing masses of people? Not likely.

When Bush invaded Iraq, Saddam was not invading other countries, was not a threat to other countries, and had not been actively engaged in mass murder in years. Therefore, there was no urgent need to rush into Iraq, which Bush knew would have resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocent people. We had time to explore other options, which could have spared the lives of over 10,000 innocent men, women and children, and could have avoided the chaos in Iraq and world-wide increased anti-Americanism.

Bush's policies are a miserable failure and immoral.

One Eyed Jack
October 13th, 2004, 06:59 PM
Skeptic, what is your basis for morality?

Knight
October 13th, 2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic

When we went to war against Hitler, he was invading other countriesWas Hitler invading the USA?

You continue....
...and had not been actively engaged in mass murder in years.How dumb are you?

Is there an amount of years that erase mass murder? If so... how many? How many years does it take to erase genocide?

You continue...
We had time to explore other options, which could have spared the lives of over 10,000 innocent men, women and children, and could have avoided the chaos in Iraq and world-wide increased anti-Americanism.

Bush's policies are a miserable failure and immoral. Immoral?????? Immoral????

Who are you to make a claim or morality??

ShadowMaid
October 13th, 2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by cattyfan

reports say some of the dead children are still clutching their stuffed animals...it's heartbreaking.

Oh! That is heartbreaking!!! :cry:

BillyBob
October 13th, 2004, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by ShadowMaid

Oh! That is heartbreaking!!! :cry:

Yep, but Skeptic and his commie cohorts have no problem with that. Of course, they support 'Affirmative Action', 'Minimum Wage' and 'Free Health Care', but infanticide is not worthy of US intervention.

SOTK
October 13th, 2004, 09:23 PM
I wish I was still in the Army and that Septic was fighting in my unit, although I'm not too sure Septic would like it! :D

BillyBob
October 13th, 2004, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by SOTK

I wish I was still in the Army and that Septic was fighting in my unit, although I'm not too sure Septic would like it! :D

I don't wish any 'ill will' on Skeptic, but I do wish his eyes could be opened....


....even if it means he needs a 'good ole boy assswhoopin' to straighten him out.....

Frank Ernest
October 14th, 2004, 06:07 AM
Skeppie is a true commie America-hater. Ignore the mass slaughter by Saddam Hussein because it's inconsequential to the current commie agenda of getting Kerry elected by fervently hating George Bush.

Skeppie would make a good commentator on PBS news. He's confused, has no idea of what truth and reality are, and has no moral standards beyond political expediency.

Gerald
October 14th, 2004, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Knight
The same lame arguments could be made for not stopping Hitler.
I've got a better argument: they weren't Americans.

Thank God idiots like you are not in charge.Wait. Before long, they'll be packing you guys off to concentration camps... :chuckle:

Gerald
October 14th, 2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest
Skeppie is a true commie America-hater. Ignore the mass slaughter by Saddam Hussein because it's inconsequential to the current commie agenda of getting Kerry elected by fervently hating George Bush.Actually, the "mass slaughter by Saddam Hussein" is inconsequential because it wasn't Americans that he slaughtered...

Gerald
October 14th, 2004, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob
I don't wish any 'ill will' on Skeptic...Watch it, BB, or people might think you're a soft-hearted nancy-boy...

...but I do wish his eyes could be opened......or a little-girly-man...

...even if it means he needs a 'good ole boy assswhoopin' to straighten him out...As opposed to an "@$$-whoopin'" meted out for the sheer pleasure of doing so?

Why, BillyBob, one might start to think you're almost human...you sure you wanna go that route? :chuckle:

On Fire
October 14th, 2004, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Gerald
Why, BillyBob, one might start to think you're almost human...you sure you wanna go that route? :chuckle:

And if you were as vile as you pretend to be, you wouldn't have time to post here....you'd be too busy plucking puppy fur or milking kittens.

Knight
October 14th, 2004, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

I've got a better argument: they weren't Americans. I don't get your point.

The Kurds are not American nor were the Jews that Hitler murdered. So what?

Granite
October 14th, 2004, 09:39 AM
Saddam should have been stopped when he was busy murdering these people.

philosophizer
October 14th, 2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Saddam should have been stopped when he was busy murdering these people.

Yeah. So shame on us. But is there some kind of statute of limitations that excuses genocide?

Knight
October 14th, 2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Saddam should have been stopped when he was busy murdering these people. So should have Hitler.

Gerald
October 14th, 2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by On Fire
And if you were as vile as you pretend to be, you wouldn't have time to post here....you'd be too busy plucking puppy fur or milking kittens. That's what Sundays are for! :thumb:

Granite
October 14th, 2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer

Yeah. So shame on us. But is there some kind of statute of limitations that excuses genocide?

No, of course not.

Granite
October 14th, 2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Knight

So should have Hitler.

Especially considering the Allies knew in '41-'42 that Auschwitz was NOT a sausage factory...

Gerald
October 14th, 2004, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Knight

I don't get your point.

The Kurds are not American nor were the Jews that Hitler murdered. So what? So their deaths are inconsequential; better them than us.

Yes, Knight, I am that big of an SOB.

Knight
October 14th, 2004, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Especially considering the Allies knew in '41-'42 that Auschwitz was NOT a sausage factory... Great! I am glad you have "come around".

Knight
October 14th, 2004, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

So their deaths are inconsequential; better them than us.

Yes, Knight, I am that big of an SOB. You are a fraud and you know it.

I rarely respond to you because you are a fake and a waste of disc space.

Morphy
October 14th, 2004, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic

When we went to war against Hitler, he was invading other countries and actively exterminating groups of people. Do you think the U.S. could have gotten away with invading Germany and taking out Hitler if there had been no hard evidence he was an imminent threat to other countries or actively killing masses of people? Not likely.


America didn't declare a war against Hitler's Germany. Hitler declared a war against America. Until then America was neutral, although there were overwhelming evidence of mass murders made by Germans.


Originally posted by Skeptic
Bush's policies are a miserable failure and immoral.

Unfortunately, true...

Gerald
October 14th, 2004, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Knight
You are a fraud...
Unsupported assertion. Let us all know when you have some evidence to back it up.

Not everybody who's generally misanthropic and favorably disposed to violence winds up in jail or an early grave...

To your credit, you didn't say I was a waste of oxygen or genetic material, though that's likely what you were thinking...

Knight
October 14th, 2004, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

Unsupported assertion. Let us all know when you have some evidence to back it up.

The evidence is in every idiotic post you make.

Poly
October 14th, 2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Gerald


To your credit, you didn't say I was a waste of oxygen or genetic material
I thought that was a given.

Gerald
October 14th, 2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Poly
I thought that was a given. Then explain why every Christian I've antagonized into doing something about it has failed.

Have I just not made the right person mad enough?

Granite
October 14th, 2004, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

Then explain why every Christian I've antagonized into doing something about it has failed.

Have I just not made the right person mad enough?

Probably.

Poly
October 14th, 2004, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

Then explain why every Christian I've antagonized into doing something about it has failed.

Have I just not made the right person mad enough?
I have trash that should be disposed of but it's not my job to do the disposing. My garbage man does it.

Turbo
October 14th, 2004, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

Then explain why every Christian I've antagonized into doing something about it has failed. Because you're lying. You don't antagonize anyone into doing anything. You're not a toughguy; you just play one on the internet.

Knight
October 14th, 2004, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Because you're lying. You don't antagonize anyone into doing anything. You're not a toughguy; you just play one on the internet. :chuckle:

Gerald
October 14th, 2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
Because you're lying. You don't antagonize anyone into doing anything. You're not a toughguy; you just play one on the internet. We all have our roles to play, and I am the Resident Fiend.

Every neighborhood needs its own fellow in a top hat and cape, who twirls his mustache and chuckles malevolently... :chuckle:

PastorZ77
October 14th, 2004, 10:42 AM
but infanticide is not worthy of US intervention.


I think it is worthy of world wide intervention.

Why do you suppose that didn't happen?

Poly
October 14th, 2004, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

We all have our roles to play, and I am the Resident Fiend.

Every neighborhood needs its own fellow in a top hat and cape, who twirls his mustache and chuckles malevolently... :chuckle:
You are SUCH an idiot! :rolleyes:

philosophizer
October 14th, 2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Poly

You are SUCH an idiot! :rolleyes:


No, he's greedy. He wants to be both the neighborhood "Snidely Whiplash" and the village idiot.

Nineveh
October 14th, 2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Skeptic
... moral issue ...

In all seriousness, would you know one?

SOTK
October 14th, 2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

In all seriousness, would you know one?

:chuckle:

I doubt it!

Skeptic
October 14th, 2004, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

But is there some kind of statute of limitations that excuses genocide? Are you implying that if Bush had not invaded Iraq, which slaughtered roughly 10,000 innocent men, women and children in March 2003, even though there was no imminent threat, this would have meant that the U.S. was excusing Saddam's pre-1991 atrocities?
What kind of logic is that? :confused:

By your reasoning, taking the time to find better options to deal with Saddam, which could have resulted in saving the lives of many thousands of innocent people, would be tantamount to excusing Saddam's past atrocities. That's nonsense!

No one excuses Saddam's past atrocities. But, when there is no evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, there are more rational and ethical ways of dealing with brutal dictators than recklessly rush in and invade and occupy a country, unnecessarily killing thousands of innocents, unnecessarily killing over 1000 brave U.S. troops, unnecessarily creating chaos, and unnecessarily increasing world-wide anti-American hatred.

BillyBob
October 14th, 2004, 08:18 PM
Saddam was absolutely a threat, he was a terrorist. Now he is a prisoner! :bannana:

OMEGA
October 14th, 2004, 11:42 PM
Skeptic,

I think that Saddam started out as a Bully

and the US wanted him to keep the Country in line

so that they could control the OIL supply to the USA .

aikido7
October 15th, 2004, 12:51 AM
Saddam was absolutely a threat, he was a terrorist. Now he is a prisoner!

...and now we have LESS threats and LESS terrorists in Iraq. Our troops can all come home now. Mission accomplished. Freedom on the march.

Gerald
October 15th, 2004, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob
Saddam was absolutely a threat, he was a terrorist. Now he is a prisoner! :bannana: At this point, I'm quite mystified as to why he's being kept alive.

He should have "committed suicide" in his cell by now...

Granite
October 15th, 2004, 08:38 AM
...or taken a bad fall, or tried to escape...

One Eyed Jack
October 15th, 2004, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic
No one excuses Saddam's past atrocities.

Except you guys.


But, when there is no evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, there are more rational and ethical ways of dealing with brutal dictators than recklessly rush in and invade and occupy a country, unnecessarily killing thousands of innocents, unnecessarily killing over 1000 brave U.S. troops, unnecessarily creating chaos, and unnecessarily increasing world-wide anti-American hatred.

You should be thanking him for increasing world-wide anti-American hatred. That gives you more allies.

BillyBob
October 15th, 2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

At this point, I'm quite mystified as to why he's being kept alive.

He should have "committed suicide" in his cell by now...

Because he will be tried by the new Iraqi government! :bannana:

And sentenced....:readthis:

And executed.....:dead:

Gerald
October 15th, 2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Because he will be tried by the new Iraqi government! :bannana:

And sentenced....:readthis:

And executed.....:dead: How much are you willing to bet he never makes it to trial?

But I s'pose the new Iraqi puppet government has to look legitimate, right?

On Fire
October 15th, 2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

How much are you willing to bet he never makes it to trial?


$50

Gerald
October 15th, 2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by On Fire $50 So, you're saying he will? You're saying that Saddam Hussein will be allowed to defend himself in a public trial?

The new Iraqi government has nothing to gain by allowing that.

After all, dead men tell no tales...

On Fire
October 15th, 2004, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

So, you're saying he will? You're saying that Saddam Hussein will be allowed to defend himself in a public trial?

The new Iraqi government has nothing to gain by allowing that.

After all, dead men tell no tales...

Who on Earth has anything to lose by letting a madman talk his way to a death sentence?

Gerald
October 15th, 2004, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by On Fire
Who on Earth has anything to lose by letting a madman talk his way to a death sentence? You fail to realize that the folks trying him are all as crooked as he was; their hands are just as dirty.

And the Iraqi populace knows it.

On Fire
October 15th, 2004, 01:42 PM
Put down the aluminum foil, Gerald.

Gerald
October 15th, 2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by On Fire
Put down the aluminum foil, Gerald. Next you'll tell me the folks running the new Iraqi government are upstanding and noble, and only interested in the well-being of the Iraqi people.

What a beautiful world you live in. Too bad it isn't real...

aikido7
October 16th, 2004, 12:47 AM
"No one excuses Saddam's past atrocities..."


Except you guys.

And, of course Bush. He supported Saddam when he gassed his own country. And Donald Rumsfeld had the cutest smile when he shook hands with the guy.

BillyBob
October 16th, 2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by aikido7

"No one excuses Saddam's past atrocities..."



And, of course Bush. He supported Saddam when he gassed his own country. And Donald Rumsfeld had the cutest smile when he shook hands with the guy.

So? Clinton had a dopey smirk on his face when he hung out with Arafat.

Delmar
October 16th, 2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by OMEGA

Skeptic,

I think that Saddam started out as a Bully

and the US wanted him to keep the Country in line

so that they could control the OIL supply to the USA . Every oil producing country in the world wants the US for a customer! Every person with a brain knows it cheaper to buy it than to fight a war for it! The blood for oil argument is brainless and with out a bit of merit!

Frank Ernest
October 17th, 2004, 04:31 AM
"No Blood For Oil " is just another commie slogan mantra. Sounds good, means nothing.

I must admit to a perverse amusement watching people chant it when those very same people would flee to safe haven no matter what the war was over. These are the same people who think peace can be bought with the same ease with which one buys a toaster oven at Wal-Mart.

They hate God, their parents, their boss at work, their grade-school teachers, their American heritage, all with the same fervor. They would sell YOUR grandmother if they could. (They'll avoid selling their own grandmothers because there might be an "image" problem.)

Commies and atheists (sorry for the redundancy) will support murder and carnage IF the "right people" are being murdered and brutalized.

One Eyed Jack
October 17th, 2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

And, of course Bush. He supported Saddam when he gassed his own country.

I don't think so.


And Donald Rumsfeld had the cutest smile when he shook hands with the guy.

This was what -- five years before the gassing incident?

BillyBob
October 17th, 2004, 02:50 PM
Aikido has been watching Michael Moore movies again. :dunce:

Delmar
October 17th, 2004, 05:21 PM
still

aikido7
October 17th, 2004, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I don't think so.
One-Eyed Jack, I am getting weary on this end doing your own civic duty for you. This is not the first time I have done so, either.

The official U.S. government reaction to Halabja? At first the government downplayed the reports, which were coming from Iranian sources. Once the media had confirmed the story and pictures of the dead villagers had been shown on television, the U.S. denounced the use of gas. Bush's press secretary told reporters, "Everyone in the administration saw the same reports you saw last night. They were horrible, outrageous, disgusting and should serve as a reminder to all countries of why chemical warfare should be banned." But as Power observes, "The United States issued no threats or demands." The government's objection was that Saddam had used gas to kill his own citizens, not that he had killed them. Indeed, subsequently State Department officials indicated that both sides--Iraq and Iran--were responsible perhaps for the gassing of civilian Kurds.
http://hnn.us/articles/862.html

I am getting ready to move and am cleaning out my library of books I have already read. One of them is The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll, a first-rate Christian evangelical himself. Send me your address in a PM and I will mail it to you.

The author calls it "an epistle from a wounded lover."

Mark Noll loves God and he loves academics, but he is wounded because many of his colleagues deny the possibility of maintaining the integrity of both loves.

Noll's epistle is a memoir, a historical study, and a wide-ranging piece of cultural criticism that argues, "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." Noll considers the effects of evangelical intellectual atrophy on American politics, science, and the arts, and he ultimately offers wise and practical advice for readers who want to explore the full intellectual implications of the incarnation of Christ
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802841805/qid=1098056472/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-5210188-8649665?v=glance&s=books


This was what -- five years before the gassing incident?
Rumsfeld was photographed shaking hands with Saddam during a visit in 1983. The Kurds were attacked in 1988, and as the first link will show you, our relationship with Saddam represented by the handshake and smiles was still going strong at the time.

BillyBob
October 17th, 2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

So? Clinton had a dopey smirk on his face when he hung out with Arafat.

This was what, 5 years before Arafat was a terrorist, Aikido?



:nono:

BillyBob
October 17th, 2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

Rumsfeld was photographed shaking hands with Saddam during a visit in 1983.

So? You need to stop watching Michael Moore movies and join the real world.

Delmar
October 17th, 2004, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

So? You need to stop watching Michael Moore movies and join the real world. Now that is just not fair. A7 has not once ever asked you to quit reading your Bible!

aikido7
October 17th, 2004, 06:12 PM
You guys keep saying "Michael Moore, Michael Moore." You Republican partisans really need to give it a rest.

I know about the guy. I've seen his movies and subsequently read parts of his books. Moore and his movies and books have been discussed ad nauseum.

Keep it up and you're just liable to keep the Farenheit 9/11 DVD number one nationally in rentals for at least a few more hours.

BillyBob
October 17th, 2004, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

You guys keep saying "Michael Moore, Michael Moore." You Republican partisans really need to give it a rest.

I know about the guy. I've seen his movies and subsequently read parts of his books. Moore and his movies and books have been discussed ad nauseum.

Keep it up and you're just liable to keep the Farenheit 9/11 DVD number one nationally in rentals for at least a few more hours.

I watched F 9-11 this weekend, Moore tried desperately to imply some covert connection between Rumsfeld, Saddam and the Bush family. He showed video tape of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam as if that is an indictment.

I know your mind, commie. I know how you think. I know what you are up to.

Hey, did you ever watch that DVD I sent you, 'Farenhype 9-11', that handily dismantles each of Moore's bogus claims?

BillyBob
October 17th, 2004, 06:44 PM
It's funny, before I saw Moore's F 9-11, I assumed he had taken some facts and manipulated them to show a side of the Bush Administration that was less than favorable, but after seeing it, I know that you'd have to be a complete moron to fall for such charlatanry.

Aikido, please tell us that you have been joking about Moore all along and you recognize him for the liar he really is......

aikido7
October 17th, 2004, 06:51 PM
Aikido, please tell us that you have been joking about Moore all along and you recognize him for the liar he really is......

Yeah. A liar.

How DID he fake all that previously unseen video showing our strong, resolute, truthful "friend of the common man" George Bush?

Who was it that faked the grieving mother in Washington? Was it all really a "set-up" as the woman in the film said? How DID that liar do it?

One Eyed Jack
October 17th, 2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

One-Eyed Jack, I am getting weary on this end doing your own civic duty for you.

Then give it a rest. I'm not asking you to do my 'civic duty' for me.


I am getting ready to move and am cleaning out my library of books I have already read. One of them is The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll, a first-rate Christian evangelical himself. Send me your address in a PM and I will mail it to you.

No way. First of all, I'd never give you my address, and secondly, anything recommended by you goes right on my list of things to avoid.


The author calls it "an epistle from a wounded lover."

I don't care what he calls it. Your theology is as wacky as your politics. I have no interest in reading this book.

BillyBob
October 18th, 2004, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by aikido7

Yeah. A liar.


It took me 2 hours to watch an hour of Moore's movie because I had to keep stopping the tape and discuss the lies with Mrs. BillyBob. Moore is a liar. I haven't even watched Morris's rebuttal yet, have you?



How DID he fake all that previously unseen video showing our strong, resolute, truthful "friend of the common man" George Bush?

The video is not incriminating, the narration [Moore] is, but it's all blatant lies and supposition.



Who was it that faked the grieving mother in Washington? Was it all really a "set-up" as the woman in the film said? How DID that liar do it?

See above. Go watch the DVD I sent you. Get back to afterwards.