TayoD
Because of the desire to go to alJanna on time before the stock of 72 virgins and pool of beer gets exhausted that is why Arab moslems are blowing themselves up But Mandela and Martin Luther never beleived in such inanities

@TayoD,

Please answer the following question - Did Bush lie about the illegal invasion of Iraq?

Referencing the following

You calim religion is not part of these whole scenario, yet you say Bush said God told him to go to war!  What exactly are you sayiing Afam?  so God's name is associated with only secular things now, abi?

I have never stated that religion is not part of the project and I feel like throwing up for the cheap and senseless lie about my maintaining that religion has nothing to do with the issue.

No, I am not the only one that heard what Bush said on TV, it is becoming ridiculous to read such silly statements about what was said on TV.

By the way, 3 of the top republicans that agreed with Powell and opposed Bush all had military background, check that again.

Your telling me that senators are taking stands based on election is completely immaterial because their votes decide whether the proposals of Bush will go through or not. The excuses don't hold water.

So, if the senators are against the American public, you may need to show us proof that the American public do not agree with the senators.

For over 2 years now, the rating of Bush has been taking a nose dive and the respondents are not from Iraq but the US, so stop this dancing around what Americans feel about Bush.

@Mariory,

I forgot to add this in my last reply. Only a fool will assume he/she is beyond mistake. Whenever I make a mistake, I accept it and move on, quite unlike you that will ignore any mistakes you make or you focus on the person that pointed them out.

As a matter of fact, I am never afraid of making mistakes in life, maybe that is why I can discuss issues without focusing on the person involved. You may need to learn to do that.

@Afam,

So what exactly is the role of religion in this?  Why arent we addressing that as well? 

The military background of the opposers doesn't really come into play here.  Why did you mention that?  Because I said the military lawyers backed President Bush?  What about the other senators that are in support of the president's initiatives?  Are they on his payroll?  I have asked you what Bush wanted from Article 3, and you have failed to give an answer.  What exactly does Article 3 says?  And in my interpretation of the Geneva convention, I really don't believe it should cover the terrorists we are dealing with today.  That is my opinion and I have my reasons for saying so.

@dayokanu,

TayoD
Because of the desire to go to alJanna on time before the stock of 72 virgins and pool of beer gets exhausted that is why Arab moslems are blowing themselves up But Mandela and Martin Luther never beleived in such inanities

That is exactly what I am saying. There is a galvanising force and a blanket authorisation to do this evil from the koran. Until we address these teachings found in that book and in the lifestyle of that prophet, then we are going to keep seeing this cycle of violence.

Afam:

@Davidylan,

Interesting to note that since the issues boiled down to real thing you disappeared only to appear now it is about Afam.

Very interesting indeed.

Real issues? Sorry i have been busy, no time to banter on about hezbollah!

Afam:

Referencing the following

You calim religion is not part of these whole scenario, yet you say Bush said God told him to go to war!  What exactly are you sayiing Afam?  so God's name is associated with only secular things now, abi?

[size=14pt]I have never stated that religion is not part of the project and I feel like throwing up for the cheap and senseless lie about my maintaining that religion has nothing to do with the issue[/size].

@ Afam, i am sure you forgot making this statement on Sept 8, 2006 at 4.30pm. Thread no. 1318:
Please read your own words:

Afam (m)
Lagos, Nigeria
Posts: 330

Offline

 Re: Israel vs Hezbollah/Lebanon
« #1318 on: September 08, 2006, 04:30 PM »  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may see why I insist that the basic problem is not religion but injustices that have created a gap that many would rather fill and some will easily play the religious game to fill that gap.

Similar statement made on a separate thread:
Afam (m)
Lagos, Nigeria
Posts: 330

Offline

 Re: Cnn Biased Reporting In Lebanon
« #24 on: August 14, 2006, 02:11 PM »

I do hope that many people stop looking at this issue as a religious war because it is not. You have arabs and moslems in Israel just as you have christiens in Lebanon.

Please see another quote from our "learned" Afam:
Afam (m)
Lagos, Nigeria
Posts: 330

Offline

 Re: Israel vs Hezbollah/Lebanon
« #1284 on: September 07, 2006, 06:05 PM »

Unfortunately, we are dragging this issue to mean that religion is the root cause of the problem this thread highlighted and not the injustices in the middle east.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no greater definition for DOUBLE STANDARD and TWO FACEDNESS than exhibited above.

Afam:

@Mariory,

I forgot to add this in my last reply. Only a fool will assume he/she is beyond mistake. Whenever I make a mistake, I accept it and move on, quite unlike you that will ignore any mistakes you make or you focus on the person that pointed them out.

As a matter of fact, I am never afraid of making mistakes in life, maybe that is why I can discuss issues without focusing on the person involved. You may need to learn to do that.

What in God's name are you blabbing about now? :rolleyes:

@TayoD

I also commented on Bush declaring that his God told him to invade Iraq. I am surprised you didnt find out about it.

y doest afam want 2 see d truth?

@Sijien

What is the truth?

@TayoD,

You need to know where your rights end and where mine begins?

You ask me why I mentioned the military background of the opposers when you thought it was cool to attempt to confuse people that military lawyers backed Bush.

So, what makes it right for you to state that military lawyers backed Bush and makes it wrong for me to state that 3 influential republicans (all with military background) opposed Bush?

You see the type of world you think is ideal for human beings? You do something and complain when someone does exactly the same thing. That is what people call double standards and hypocrisy.

I am not here to answer every question you pose. You could not answer if Bush lied about the illegal invasion of Iraq because the answer will make nonsense of your defence, very understandable.

I should tell you what Article 3 of the Geneva Convention says, why don't you ask the military lawyers that backed Bush (according to you) or don't you even understand what they are backing in the first place.

What's your comment on Bush stating that his God told him to invade Iraq about? That he said it or not, there is no middle ground here, so stop playing with words.

@Davidylan,

For someone that claimed to have graduated with first class in Nigeria and doing a PhD program on schorlarship in the US, I am terribly shocked that you could marry any of my posts to the issue of religion being the root cause of the problems in the middle east.

I am sure my posts have been clear on where I think religion belongs in the issue. I can't do much to explain it to you if you cannot understand any of the posts you reproduced.

Take a hard look at the 3 statements you highlighted and you will notice words like root, basic and religious war.

If the words don't make any sense to you kindly ask anyone around you to interpret the statements.

@Mariory,

I am blabbing about your style of making mistakes and never acknowledging them, it is wrong and makes you look like someone that can do anything to cover up his mistakes just as you are asking me what I am blabbing about when it is clear.

@Sijien,

I think of all the posts I have seen on this thread yours is the most empty and silly.

@ afam u said d same thing to texazzpete yesterday, y should i take u serious?

Afam:

@Davidylan,

For someone that claimed to have graduated with first class in Nigeria and doing a PhD program on schorlarship in the US, I am terribly shocked that you could marry any of my posts to the issue of religion being the root cause of the problems in the middle east.

I am sure my posts have been clear on where I think religion belongs in the issue. I can't do much to explain it to you if you cannot understand any of the posts you reproduced.

Take a hard look at the 3 statements you highlight and you will notice words like root, basic and religious war.

If the words don't make any sense to you kindly ask anyone around you to interpret the statements.

No sir! I have no problems with English Language and have no need of anyone to expound the real intent of the three posts of yours highlighted above!

Since you wish to delve into semantics, putting all statements together this is what it sounds like " I have never stated that religion is NOT  a part of this project which is NOT a religious war neither is its root or basic cause RELIGION!"

Breaking down the "complex" sentence, here are your conjectures:
1. That you AGREE that RELIGION is a part of the ongoing conflict
2. BUT the conflict is NOT a religious war despite the fact that RELIGION plays a part in the war!  

tell him david

Sijien,

Another bloody liar on rampage. You talk about truth and spread lies.

I never said the same thing to texazzpete yesterday. Why don't you reproduce it since it is just yesterday, at least it won't be hard to find.

@Davidylan,

E no go better for who do you this thing. See what you are doing to yourself on a discussion forum.

Even TayoD that is playing games with words now will tell you that I have stated (in response to his question) that religion is only part of the problem and not the root cause.

How you fail to understand this is beyond me.

You keep doing yourself in with posts that make nonsense of the academic credentials you claim you have.

@TayoD

here is the link to Colin Powell's letter opposing Bush's anti-terrorism legislation

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2006-09/25385371.pdf

also see attached

Sijien
I am waiting for a reply. What is the truth?

@Afam,

I know what Article 3 states.  I only wonder if you know what Bush is trying to do with respect to that article.

The issue of military lawyers was stated because these are influential and non-political group that has an opposing view to what you stated.  I just wish you will consider their opinions too and not single out Powell and later 3 more senators who opposed Bush.  Whne Bush acts unilaterally, na wahala, and when he goes to congress again, you claim he is a liar.  Where is justice now?

Unfortunately, until I see a transcript of your accusation of Bush saying he went to war based on what God told him, then I will assume you have only stated your assumption.  So far, your conjectures have been wrong about Iraq and the Article 3 issue which are widely recorded.  Why then should I take your statement seriously about Bush saying God told him to go to war.  For all I know, it could be another wrong conclusion of what you may have thought you heard.

Bush never lied about the reason for the invasion of Iraq.  He only made a wrong conclusion from the evidence he had.  Democrats and Republicans alike voted for the war based on the same evidence.   The only way I can say Bush lied is if he doctored the report and evidence that the CIA and other agencies brought forward.  Until that is proved, then I see this as another smear campaign agains t his person.  And as you acknowledge, every human is prone to mistakes, and the Iraq war might just be a very bloody one.

Sijien, you really shouldn't be here, why not try the religion forum for a change and leave this discussion to more open minded people. . .

David, we have to remove that mindset that this is a religious war. When we do that we can move forward. This conflict is about the displacement of a people from a territory that they had come to see as their own by use of brute force, and the concentration of said peoples into a camp. Get the drift?

I'll be back here soon. . .

@Brown-eye,

I am aware of Powell's opposition. But what exactly is Bush's stand I ask? What about other opinions that are diametrically opposed to Powell's

Chxta,

While this conflict may have been caused primarily by perceived injustice, the reaction and violence that accompanies it is a result of a religious agenda. That is my point here.

And it is that same religion that provides the fuel for the crisis to have deteriorated this far. Assuming there is a denounciation and a curse in the Koran for all who kill others, do you think we will have the suicide bombings at the rate that we are experiencing today?

browneyes the truth is dat d isrelites have a right 2 defend themselves as dey see fit becos it is the proclaimed aim of d arabs to wipe dem off d face of d earth.

chxta i can go were i want, no vex me o.

afam i didnt abuse u so y r u abusing me u blind man?

TayoD:

Chxta,

While this conflict may have been caused primarily by perceived injustice, the reaction and violence that accompanies it is a result of a religious agenda. That is my point here.

And it is that same religion that provides the fuel for the crisis to have deteriorated this far. Assuming there is a denounciation and a curse in the Koran for all who kill others, do you think we will have the suicide bombings at the rate that we are experiencing today?

Prove it. I don't have the energy to argue at the moment, but don't tempt me.

@Davidylan,

To prove to you that I have made my point very clear on the issue of religion, find below a reply to TayoD's question (as you have ommmited this in your search)

See the post at https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-17880.1312.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Afam (m)
Lagos, Nigeria
Posts: 332

Online

 Re: Israel vs Hezbollah/Lebanon
« #1328 on: September 08, 2006, 06:22 PM »  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@TayoD,

There is no way you can distance religion from the crisis in the middle east, my position is that religion is not the root cause or even the main cause.

Injustices and deep wounds inflicted by either parties on the other side have taken so long to be redresssed or forgiven.

The question Do you believe that Islam is the final authority guiding the Middle-Eastern People? is still part of the problem.

Everyone in the middle east is not a muslim for heaven's sake. It is such stereotyping and racial profiling that is causing the disaffection, mistrust and hatred.

You have christians in Iraq, you have christian and jews in Lebanon, you have moslems in Israel.

Until we begin to be more specific and avoid the Bush approach where he has labelled a people based on their countries as axis of evil.

You are a yoruba person I believe, if I decide to say that all yorubas are idiots because some yoruba people did something bad to me, I am justified in doing so?

The bottomline is that we can create the future today and we can do so by either sowing love or hatred, the choice is ours.


@Mariory,

Devout moslem or ordinary moslem, the point has been made that in reality we we find in the bible or in the quran are not applied as written and we have a lot of real life examples to prove that.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@Brown-eyes,

These guys know the issues at hand, they only want to tie them to islam or nothing, real shame and disgusting.

Remember when it was revealed that Bush had secret prisons where he totured suspected terrorists? Well he now wants to amend article 3 to enable him to humiliate and degrade them without risk of prosecution.

@Brown-eyes,

Here is what Bush has to say about Article 3. Why do you just choose to lie and misrepresent what the man is trying to do.

Q: Thanks very much, sir.

What do you say to the argument that your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced evidence and secret hearings?

And Sen. McCain says your plan would put U.S. troops at risk. What do you think about that?

BUSH: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like — it's very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity ? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.

And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they're doing is legal.

You know, it's a — and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward.

The first question that we've got to ask is: Do we need the program?

I believe we do need the program. And I detailed in a speech in the East Room what the program has yielded; in other words, the kind of information we get when we interrogate people within the law.

You see, sometimes you can pick up information on the battlefield, sometimes you can pick it up, you know, through letters, but sometimes you actually have to question the people who know the strategy and plans of the enemy.

And in this case, we questioned people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we believe ordered the attacks on 9/11, or Ramzi Binalshibh or Abu Zubaydah, cold-blooded killers who were part of planning the attack that killed 3,000 people.

And we need to be able to question them, because it helps yield information, information necessary for us to be able to do our job.

Now, the court said that you've got to live under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. And the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law.

These are decent, honorable citizens who are on the front line of protecting the American people. And they expect our government to give them clarity about what is right and what is wrong in the law. And that's what we have asked to do.

And we believe a good way to go is to use the amendment that we worked with John McCain on, called the Detainee Treatment Act, as the basis for clarity for people we would ask to question the enemy.

In other words, it is a way to bring U.S. law into play. It provides more clarity for our professionals.

And that's what these people expect. These are decent citizens who don't want to break the law.

Now, this idea that somehow, you know, we've got to live under international treaties, you know — and that's fine; we do. But oftentimes the United States government passes law to clarify obligations under international treaty.

And what I'm concerned about is if we don't do that, that it's very conceivable our professionals could be held to account based upon court decisions in other countries. And I don't believe Americans want that.

I believe Americans want us to protect the country, to have clear standards for our law enforcement, intelligence officers, and give them the tools necessary to protect us within the law.

It's an important debate. It really is. It's a debate that really is going to define whether or not we can protect ourselves.

I will tell you this — and I've spent a lot of time on this issue, as you can imagine. And I've talked to professionals, people I count on for advice. These are the people who are going to represent those on the front line protecting this country.

They're not going forward with the program. They're professionals — will not step up unless there's clarity in the law.

So Congress has got a decision to make. You want the program to go forward or not? I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America.

thank you tayo. am out of here.

@TayoD
So what is he trying to do? you never gave your own explanantion.

@brown-eyes,

Isn't it self-eplanatory? He wants a legal clarification of the Geneva commoon Article 3.

To be candid, that article is really vague. Under the article, someone can claim that it is utmost degrading for him to be interrogated by a woman. They could site their cultural and religious reasons to back this up. This is why a legal interpretation is required. The interpretation should not be left to the judgement of those carrying out the command, but to the congress. This is what Bush wants done.

@TayoD

No best to leave it how it is. If there is 'clarification' then people will abuse it. That means if a particular action is not mentioned, certain people would seize the opportunity to carry it out and declare it is legal to do so for the reason being it has not been counted amongst the other acts that have been clarified.


I don't see what is so vague about treating a human being in a dignified manner, which requires acknowledgment of their rights.

Afam:

@Mariory,

I am blabbing about your style of making mistakes and never acknowledging them, it is wrong and makes you look like someone that can do anything to cover up his mistakes just as you are asking me what I am blabbing about when it is clear.

Look I've told you before, I do not care what you think of me. That's your opinion and it has nothing to do with this thread. I'm not going to argue with you about who made what mistakes. The pages in this thread already show that quite clearly. Quit whining like a kid.

I hope you perfectly understand that I only respond to direct posts when it has to do with people.

Put differently, if you do not direct any post at me, I will never direct any at you because the topic is far more important when compared to you so, would not dwell on personalities where issues are begging for attention.

Like I stated earlier, you are finding it supremely difficult to make any meaningful contribution on this thread since we all advocated for discussing the real problems in the middle east. I get to read from you these days only when you want to discuss Afam, shame on you.

Democracy at work here, I hope Bush respects the will of the senate as they respresent the Americans.

The problem is not that senators are opposing the bill, the problem is that the opposition is even coming from his own party and supporters.

But it seems Bush sees the wold in a different way as he seems to be the only person that keeps talking about making progress in Iraq even with the disaster that Iraq has become based on his lies that led to the illegal invasion of that country, a country that never witnessed a single suicide attack is now a recruiting ground for suicide bombers and rather than condemn the cause of the problem some of us choose to point out that muslims are carrying out suicide attacks.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bush fights GOP revolt over terror bill

WASHINGTON -        President Bush fought back Friday against a Republican revolt in the Senate over tough anti-terror legislation and rejected warnings that the United States had lost the high moral ground to adversaries. "It's flawed logic," he snapped.

ADVERTISEMENT




Bush urged lawmakers to quickly approve legislation authorizing military tribunals and harsh interrogations of terror suspects in order to shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, which set international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.

Tough interrogations have been instrumental in preventing attacks against the United States, Bush said. "Time's running out" for the legislation, he warned, with Congress set to adjourn in a few weeks.

The president called a Rose Garden news conference to confront a Republican rebellion led by Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

To the administration's dismay,        Colin Powell, Bush's former secretary of state, has joined with the lawmakers. Powell said Bush's plan to redefine the Geneva Conventions would cause the world "to doubt the moral basis" of the fight against terror and "put our own troops at risk."

Seven weeks before the November elections, the dispute left Republicans fighting among themselves — rather than with Democrats — about national security issues that have been a winning theme for the GOP in past elections.

Responding to Bush, McCain rejected the president's assertion that an alternative bill approved by the        Senate Armed Services Committee dealing with the trial and interrogation of terror suspects would require the closure of the        CIA's detainee program.

McCain said the measure would protect agents from criminal and civil liability and, by not reinterpreting the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, uphold the nation's obligations.

"To do any less risks our reputation, our moral standing and the lives of those Americans who risk everything to defend our country," the senator said.

Democrats were eager to point out the GOP disarray.

"When conservative military men like John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham and Colin Powell stand up to the president, it shows how wrong and isolated the White House is," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. "These military men are telling the president that in the war on terror you need to be both strong and smart, and it is about time he heeded their admonitions."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "Instead of picking fights with Colin Powell, John McCain and other military experts, President Bush should change course, do what the American people expect, and finally give them the real security they deserve."

Warner, a former Navy secretary, is chairman of the Armed Services Committee. McCain is a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years in enemy captivity during the Vietnam War. Graham is a former Air Force Reserve judge. Powell, a retired general, is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

On another major national security issue, Bush said he was disappointed that the number of U.S. troops in        Iraq was climbing rather than falling. He said hopes for troop withdrawals were dashed by a spike in violence in Baghdad, where in just the past two days more than 130 people were killed in attacks or tortured and dumped in rivers and on city streets.

"Look, we all want the troops to come home as quickly as possible," the president said. Polls show the war is unpopular among Americans, and Republicans worry it could cost them votes. He said he would base troop levels on the recommendations of his top commanders, Gen. William Casey and John Abizaid, and said he had great confidence in both men.

Bush took vehement exception when asked about Powell's assertion that the world might doubt the moral basis of the fight against terror if lawmakers went along with the administration's proposal to come up with a U.S. interpretation of the Geneva Convention's ban on "outrages upon personal dignity."

"If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic," Bush said. "It's just — I simply can't accept that."

Growing animated, he said, "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

Bush said the Geneva Convention's ban was "very vague" and required clarification. "What does that mean, 'outrages upon human dignity?' That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation."

He said that unless Congress acts, the CIA will end its program of tough interrogation methods that the administration says has prevented attacks.

"So Congress has got a decision to make," Bush said. "You want the program to go forward or not? I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America."

On another anti-terror matter, with        Osama bin Laden still at large five years after the 9/11 attacks, Bush said he could not send thousands of troops into Pakistan to search without an invitation from the government. "Pakistan's a sovereign nation," Bush said.

At the same time, Bush expressed frustration that the        United Nations had not sent peacekeepers to stop the misery in the Darfur region of Sudan. "What you'll hear is, well, the government of Sudan must invite the United Nations in for us to act. Well, there are other alternatives, like passing a resolution saying, we're coming in with a U.N. force, in order to save lives."

On other issues, Bush said:

_He will not meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad next week while both are at the United Nations. The U.S. won't sit down with Iranians until they suspend nuclear enrichment, he said.

_He would not have gone as far as House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio that Democrats "are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people." "I wouldn't exactly put it that way," Bush said. But he said that "there's a difference in attitude" between Republicans and Democrats.