Which goes back to my original post.

 

You are probably more like a "rare medium"

 

I guess...my point was just that their is many many more radical muslims then you let on, whether you agree or not.


If it was up to the largest majority of Christians, i believe there would NOT be any abortion.

All i'm saying is this....

If the terror acts were up to the largest majority of ppl in the muslim faith, would the acts of terror still go on?

 

You couldn't be more wrong!

The founding fathers took great care and went to great pains to insure our government was seperate from any religion. That was one of their founding principles. The "under God" that you refer to comes from The Pledge of Alligience and "under God" was inserted in 1954 as a McCarthy era response to Communism. Before 1954 the Pledge was secular as our founding fathers intended our government to be.

Where did you get the idea that our founding fathers wanted to mix religion and government?

 

I would like to set the record straight on a point of fact.

Hussein did not meet with or fund terrorists. He didn't knowingly let them into his country either. On numerous times terrorist leaders attempted to meet with Hussein but he always refused to even talk to them. He ran a secular government and distanced himself from religious extremism/terrorism.

Those are the facts. Where did you get the crazy idea that terrorists had influence over Hussein and that he helped fund terrorism?

 

That's not what he is saying. The Republic was established to give everyone the freedom to choose to worship or not to worship and to keep government out of our lives, including out of the churches. "Separation of Church and State" was originally intended for this purpose and was never intended to keep Biblical morality out of the gov't.

Many of the founders knew that if this nation ever became a wholly agnostic/atheistic nation that freedoms would decrease, as we are seeing now with gov't taking a larger role in everyone's lives. The basic laws of this nation are even based on Biblical laws of justice, capital punishment, restitution, etc. All of this is explained more clearly in the Federalist Papers and even in personal letters written by Washington, Jefferson, etc.

Much of what we are taught, if we are taught much at all about the Constitution, is revisionist in nature. The worst of course is that the Constitution is a "living document" that is open to change and liberal interpretation.

 

The Constitution is a living document, that's why there is a process to add ammendments. The Constitution took effect in 1789 but did not include freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. Had the constitution not been ammended two years later, the Bill of Rights (1791) and the right to bear arms and freedom of speech would not be in force.

The ammendments were added by most of the same people who created the constitution in the first place so, clearly, it was a document intended to be added to and revised as necessary. Why do you think it should not be open to change? Even the founders recognized it was not perfect.

 

Where do you get your info? You must of known him on a deep personal level from the sound of it.

This is Saddam Hussien we're talking about. Remember the guy who terrorized and oppressed his ppl? Remember, the tyrant who lived the life of luxury in his ridicules palaces?!
Thats terrorism.
Here's one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pA59x72eg
Thats terrorism.
He totured his olympic athletes, everyone knos that.
Terrorism.
And i kno, some say this was his son. He didn't have the power to stop his son if he really wanted?
Here is another.......
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/550kmbzd.asp
here is another.......
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
another.......
"Here he was in his glory days, perhaps relishing the fact that he had invaded Kuwait, burned its oil fields in a dastardly act of eco-vandalism, killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves."

Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.
“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.8


Aziz simply echoed the policy his boss established one week earlier. As Saddam Hussein put it on Iraqi TV on March 4, 2002:
(Saddam himself)
"We are glad of the Istishhadiyyah [suicide] and heroic spirit of the Palestinian people. By Allah, what the Palestinian people does is beyond my expectations…”
and here...

Introduction



Saddam Hussein, after being captured by

U.S. forces in Iraq on December 13, 2003

Here he is, the man they called “The Butcher of Baghdad,” Mr. Saddam Hussein, shortly after U.S. soldiers pulled him from his so-called spider hole in Iraq. How bewildered he must have felt. Not so long before, he was sitting pretty.



Hussein, while still in power

Here he was in his glory days, perhaps relishing the fact that he had invaded Kuwait, burned its oil fields in a dastardly act of eco-vandalism, killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves.

Did he still possess Weapons of Mass Death? Seemingly not, at least not in the quantities America and its allies expected. But wasn't there another reason America and its Coalition partners invaded Iraq? Didn't Saddam Hussein have ties to terrorism?

The notion that he did not is an article of faith among the critics of President Bush, Tony Blair and their allies. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Listen to a few of these more notable detractors:






“I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism,” former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flatly declared in an October 21, 2003 essay published in Australia’s Melbourne Herald Sun.1





Former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright >

“Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one,” Senator Ted Kennedy said October 16, 2003.2 “We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not.”










< Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)

“As we all know by now,” Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen sniffed last May, “there was never a proven link between Saddam, al-Qaida or even the Crips.” 3










Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen >

In August 2003, former vice president Albert Gore reassuringly stated: “The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all.” 4

< Former vice president Albert Gore

Even those who would be President of the United States cast doubts. "Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion," 5 Democratic candidate John Kerry told Philadelphia voters September 24. At the September 30, 2004 presidential debate, Kerry asserted, "Iraq was not even close to the center of the War on Terror before the president invaded it." 6
Presidential hopeful, Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) >

* * *

Actually, Saddam Hussein knew plenty about terrorism. In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention. Such assistance violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The results not only broke international law, but also were deadly, as this chart demonstrates:7



The public evidence of Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant and clear. The Baathist government’s contacts and collaboration with terrorists in general, al-Qaeda in particular, and even the September 11 conspirators should make all Americans highly grateful that President Bush led an international effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Funds for Terrorists

Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.



“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.8


Ousted Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz >



Saddam Hussein
Aziz simply echoed the policy his boss established one week earlier. As Saddam Hussein put it on Iraqi TV on March 4, 2002:

"We are glad of the Istishhadiyyah [suicide] and heroic spirit of the Palestinian people. By Allah, what the Palestinian people does is beyond my expectations…” 9

Saddam Hussein’s vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, is the man who Israeli intelligence believes was directly involved in funneling money from Baghdad into the hands of the families of homicide bombers. Documents that the Israeli Defense Force captured in the Palestinian town of Ramallah indicate that Vice President Ramadan used the Arab Liberation Front, the Palestinian Liberation Front, and the Palestinian branch of the Iraqi Baathist party to pass these funds into the hands of terrorists’ families.





Deposed Iraqi Vice President

Taha Yassin Ramadan



Here’s the sort of thing Ramadan bought with Saddam Hussein’s money: On March 9, 2002, Fuad Isma’il Ahmad al-Hurani blew himself up in a Jerusalem restaurant called the Moment Café.



The devastation was extensive inside the eatery.



Far worse, of course, was the human toll. Eleven Israelies were murdered while 52 were wounded.



A little over three months after that carnage, Mrs. Khaldiya Isma’il Abd al-Aziz al-Hurani collected a check for $25,000 as a bonus for her son’s suicide and his homicide of nearly a dozen others. The following check was a “President Saddam Hussein’s Grant” paid via the Palestine Investment Bank. These funds were transferred on June 23, 2002.



In another case, Usama Muhammad Id Bahr and Nabil Mahmud Jamil Halbiyyah blew themselves up in Jerusalem's Zion Square on December 1, 2001. Before setting off to "martyrdom," they also left a car bomb set on a timer two blocks away. It exploded just as rescue workers and emergency personnel arrived on the scene.



Emergency personnel examine terrorist

casualties in Jerusalem's Zion Square

Here again, the physical damage was extensive, but largely reparable. Alas, the human toll was far more severe, what with 11 deaths and 188 injuries.



A secondary car bomb explodes, left behind by terrorists who

blew themselves up in Zion Square moments earlier

The deceased were all between ages 14 and 21. They were out for a night of fun after the end of Sabbath.



Victims of the December 1, 2001 Zion Square terrorist bombing

The only people who benefitted from this barbarism were the relatives of these two bombers who received President Saddam Hussein Grants here, as well.



The following document, captured by the Israeli military in Ramallah, shows a list of Iraqi-subsidized homicide bombers and their atrocities. It mentions the name of Raghib Ahmad Izat Jarradat.



On April 10, 2002, Izat Jarradat boarded a crowded bus strapped with explosives. As the bus approached the busy Yagur junction near Haifa, he blew himself up. Here is his handiwork. This vulgarity killed eight Israelis and wounded 15 others.



A demolished bus, surrounded by victims

of an April 10, 2002 terrorist blast at Yagur Junction

Not all of these victims are Israeli. American Abigail Litle, the daughter of a Baptist minister, was just 14 years old when she was killed on an Israeli bus on March 5, 2003.



Abigail Litle, terror victim

Litle is not alone in that distinction. Between the time Saddam Hussein boosted his bonus payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists and the March 20, 2003 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans. These bonus checks were handed out at ceremonies where banners proclaimed the friendship of the PLO’s Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein.
and........
General Vincent Brooks, who briefed reporters throughout the initial phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom, had his own observations about Saddam Hussein's terrorist pedagogy. Speaking at an April 6, 2003 press conference, General Brooks said: “The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training that they received, all of these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak.”


It's not hard to find info and this kinda stuff was on the news a few years ago.....
how quickly we forget.....

Liberals were all for the war in iraq.......
but they are against it when the public started getting tired of war. How convenient.
All politicians, i just happen to believe liberals are so much worse, and bad for this country, but they change their minds like a fart in the wind. Whatever keeps them in power. They're power hungry, all oof them.

 

idk why it posted all that? my b!
But the way he treated his ppl made him a terrorist by itself.
His ppl were happy to see him go. Remember the statues being pulled down.
The shoe throwing.
I'm gettin tired of talkin about it tho.

Have a good one,
offroad

 

Because the founders knew that changing the Constitution to reflect "contemporary" society would eventually lead to more government controls and fewer freedoms. Many people today that believe that the Constitution is a "living document" also believe that rights like the 2nd amendment are "outdated", and some even think that the 1st amendment should be regulated. Also, some even think that welfare and entitlement programs are guaranteed by the statement, "...promote the general welfare...".

The "general welfare" clause was meant for the government to spend money in ways called for in Article 1, Section 8. (such as the creation of roads, funding the military, etc.). It does not give power to the government for endless spending, such as we see today for foreign aid, welfare programs, etc.