₦airaland Forum

@Davidylan & Dayokanu,

Common sense is enough to show that the illegal invasion of Iraq was in the 21st century while the gassing of the Kurds and land and air invasion of Iran took place in the 20th century.

However, the 2 statements will bring to the fore the double standards and hypocrisy of the US.

1. US fully backed Iraq in the attack on Iran and supported Iraq for the 8 years of war between the 2 countries.

2. US never condemned the gassing of the Kurds and infact a serving minister in the present Iraqi government was in Washington to protest the atrocity by Saddam only to be told that Washington has a very good relationship with Saddam and would not want to spoil that.

Thanks a lot for bringing up 2 serious issues that made the US to display its double standards and hypocrisy.

Without the illegal invasion of Iraq based on lies by Bush and co, Iraq would have been a totally different place, a country that never experienced a single suicide attack suddenly became a haven for suicide bombings.

But again, it is convenient for some to talk about Sunnis fighting Shiites instead of the criminal invasion of a sovereign nation based on a pack of lies.

@TayoD,

If you believe that a senator (even though elected) can take a stand that does not represent his/her constituency, why then is it difficult for you to believe that Osama (never elected) may not be taking a stand based on what moslems want?

I have seen the links posted. Hovering about 40% still does not amount to very high rating to me sha.

Take care.

@TayoD,

You are providing conflicting information here.

First you stated the republicans are opposing Bush so that they can make bystanders support them.

Now you claim that americans are more in support of Bush when the issue is homeland security.

My dear, Iraq is part of Bush's homeland security project and the issue in question that even resulted in powerful republications voicing their oppositions to Bush had to do with Bush seeking harsher interrogation for terrorist suspects.

So, what would you rather have us believe, that america is so sophisticated in politics that when democrats and some republicans oppose a president it means that the president has a better support?

Rising polls? From where? To where?

Any links will do please as I have not seen anything nor heard any news in that regard.

On cartoons and free speech

We must know where our rights end and where those of others begin. You have said it all when you stated that the cartoonists should have shown more sense of responsibilities by refraining from such provocative posts.

We are certainly making progress.

Now, if we agree that Al qaeda does not represent all moslems then it will be ok for us to say that not all moslems support Al qaeda and naturally that means that all moslems do not have problems with the US or the West or even christians or jews or Israel.

If the statement and the attendant inferences are correct then it logically follows that islam is not at war with christainity and the followers of these religions are not at war.

If we all agree thus far then we may shift our focus to the militant groups like Al qaeda and try to know what their problems are.

What do they commonly cite as their excuses for attacks against the West? Palestine, occupation of arab lands by infidels according to them, Lebanon etc or generally middle east wahala.

Now, are these complaints real? Do we really have problems in this regions that can be tackled or solved? If yes, why not solve the problems now so we can take away the excuses that groups like Al qaeda readily use to launch attacks?

True, many may and will probably hide under injustices and use religion to wag wars against a people based on hatred. Put differently, the injustices (believe me, some are so real) now provides the catalyst for those that may harbour hatred to fight.

While the issue in the middle east and the solution to the problems there is not as easy or as simple as the paragraphs above, I believe that the world will make progress and move towards peace if the world decides to solve the problems in the middle east today.

While the problems may not be solved with any magic wand, a genuine attempt will go a long way in changing the direction things are taking right now.

Unfortunately, in Iraq today Bush has presented groups like Al qaeda a powerful reason for moslems to increase the hatred against the US to the extent that one could say that the US made the job of recruiting suicide bombers way to easy for Osama.

Al qaeda and other militant groups do not represent all moslems so I will not take a position taken by a militant group to mean the opinion of all moslems.

I am sure that the Hamas leader is the leader of a group labelled a terrorist organisation and yet he stated on TV that no one should touch any of their christian brothers and sisters in Palestine.

@Davidylan,

I have retracted the words when I read your post stating it was a mistake. Don't have time for fights.

I don't know if you are asking me why Israel has not sent suicide bombers into Iran based on the cartoons or not. Israel has more than enough weapons (including nuclear weapons) so suicide bombing won't be a viable alternative.

On the issue of the either you are with us or you are against us though ideal in theory is dangerous in practice. A real example being the case of either Bush and his war on terror or Osama and his jihad against the West.

In either case, I find anyone that completely supports any of these two dangerous people as part of the problem because they have contributed to the killing of innocent ones and there is no excuse for that.

@Davidylan,

My apologies for the harsh words. I thought it was delibrate.

Take care and let us agree or disagree on issues without personal attacks.

We may never see things the same way because of who we are and how we have developed in different environments and time.

@Davidylan,

The last time I heard from you on this thread you copied some part of my response to prove that I supported what I did not support. I guess my response with the complete statement must have exposed your dirty game.

Some minutes ago, I uncovered another shameless and unsuccessful attempt to credit someone else's post to Afam, how far can you go?

See the link incase you claim you don't know what I am talking about - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-23563.96.html#msg613604

As regards cartoons in Iran concerning Holocauts and Israel, do you want my opinion or what?

The cartoons are wrong, no excuses for that.

You better wake up from your dangerous mindset of "you are either with us 100% or you are against us".

There are people that are still able to condemn what is condemnable and at the same time commend what is commendable.

It is like your new song now is hypocrisy even when you don't mind lying and manufacturing lies to make your point.

@Davidylan,

The good thing about a public forum is that it will offer anyone the opportunity to self destruct if one chooses to.

Quote from: Afam on Today at 09:04:32 AM
God is powerful to defend Himself, yet people must defend Him when others malign Him. At least defend Him by your speech. People defend societies, nations, ideas, all are insignificant to God. But people will not even defend God, even with hating the evil deeds that are done against God with their hearts. How do you claim that you believe in God and yet you do not stand up for Justice and truth.

Read yourself! God is powerful to defend himself yet he needs men to defend him? Is that not an incongrous statement? How do you defend God? By killing your neighbor?

In what way are muslims "standing for justice and truth"? By murdering 3000 innocent souls most of whom do not know the direction to Mecca and cannot spell Muhammad on Sept 11?

How far can you go to manufacture lies and even twist other people's quotes to become mine.

Go through your last post and see how shameless your twisting of information has become. The text in italic above refers, I never made the statement even though you have criminally added Afam's name as the owner of the statement.

On the first part of your reply with the following

Quote from: Afam on Today at 09:04:32 AM

We must respect other peoples religions even if we don't believe in them.

We should move away from the position of "they are over reacting" when islam is attacked to a position of not attacking any religion for that matter.

Please read how this sounds: We should move away from the position of "they are over reacting" when Isreal is attacked to a position of not attacking any nation for that matter

Hypocrisy is so subtle.

Unfortunately, you have in your wisdom decided to see Hezbollah's attack as a first time attack and not as a response to Israel's campaign in Lebanon and imprisonment of about 10,000 Lebanese in Israeli jails.

My statement is valid and what it still shows is that if we start to do the right thing, if we stop using might to promote injustice things will be better.

Do yourself a favour and try to read an understand posts, being in a hurry to label Afam bad will only expose your intent which is very bad to say the least.

I hope you will find the courage to admit this mistake (if indeed it is one), it will be a better thing to do, far better than ignoring it and looking for diversion.

When the jihad comes, I will gladly defend christianity and pay the supreme price if necessary.

Christains should never be afraid to die for Christ. As a christian, I hope people should respect what I believe in even if they don't agree with it. I do not need anyone telling me that Christ may not have actually died and arose. I do not need anyone questioning my hope and belief that I will make heaven and live a a place where the streets will be decorated with gold. I do not need people talking to me about the notion of bigbang theory and creation not to talk about life after death.

Even if my belief is faulty, let me be, that is my choice and I will die believing in it rather than consider any other religion.

Being a good christian is not about rubbishing other peoples religion, that is certainly not what the bible teaches unless some of us have our own special bibles.

What makes the statement right? That an emperor said so? Or that a Pope quoted a statement made by an emperor who was spreading christianity in Turkey I think?

Can we move away from this blind commendation or condemnation of positions based on specific mindsets and focus on the root causes of the problems?

And the cartoonist does not have any right under the sun to make jest of any religion for that matter. Please, read your statements well before posting them.

Kaecy5,

Thanks for your post.

But again those statements are statements I feel that some of us (not all of us as you stated) on this forum believe in, they are certainly not statements of fact.

I wouldn't know why the republicans are opposing the president, all I know is that they are opposing him and I do not believe they are doing so sway public opinion to their party as you put it.

well if binladin and crew are fighting in the name of their god
then it is permissible for bush to be fighting under the pretext of his own god

Unfortunately, Osama has a better justification when compared to Bush because Osama cites the injustices in Palestine (and we know injustices are live there) while Bush keeps talking about an endless war on terror as if terror is a target that can be defeated instead of waging war on those that attacked the US on 911 and not plunging Iraq into the mess it is in today even when Iraq had nothing to do with 911 (and this grave mistake has helped in breeding more haters of US than Osama would have ever been able to breed).

We must learn to respect other peoples' religions.

You have stated what you believe, allow others to do same too.

I think we have a fundamental issue here, some of us believe a particular religion is bad and every arguement is geared towards proving that a particular religion is bad.

Even if someone decides to worship stone, that is the person's business and it will not be proper to abuse or insult the person because he has chosen to worship stone.

Who sets the standard for what is right and what is wrong? We cannot use a particular standard to judge everyone.

@Dayokanu,

Even Hamas leader stated on CNN that no one should attack their christain brothers and sisters in Palestine.

It is better for us to remove the causes of the bad blood so that we can listen to the excuses people give for fighting and killing innocent ones.

If possible, let the injustices be addressed and let us see the excuses that Osama will cite to carry out attacks against US & co.

Mutual respect is key.

netzymes:
I don't think signonafrica are to blame for what people choose to do with the hosting space they are provided. If a shop sells a knife or a gun and you go out and stab or shoot someone is the shop to blame?

I am sure a simple request for information would have been complied with by signonafrica or anyother hosting company for that matter.

That is just my humble opinion.

Regards

Tim

Tim,

I disagree with you on this, it is the duty of a web hosting provider to ensure that the customers are not using their services to promote fraud.

Guns and knives are things you buy and go away with, web hosting is not the same, the sites are hosted on the web hosting company's severs, the customers don't take the servers away.

You analogy would have been ok if you are talking about selling computers.

The statement from Hamas leader that their christain brothers and sisters should not be attacked based on the comments of the Pope is very welcome.

The Pope has done what is right to do, apologize for the unnecessary statement.

We must respect other peoples religions even if we don't believe in them.

We should move away from the position of "they are over reacting" when islam is attacked to a position of not attacking any religion for that matter.

Saddam's deputy was a christain, Late Arafat married a christain, I have witnessed marriages between christains and moslems without either converting.

Let the hate game stop and let there be mutual respect for all.

TayoD:
I applaud the Pope for his statement, and I think he is a very bold and brave man. While many of us will like to sweep the real issues under carpet, he believes it is time to address them in a spirit of dialogue. Those who take his statement out of context are just so insincere. Of course we will expect outrageous reactions from muslims all over the world. That is not the fault of the Pope. If their religion teaches them to seek peace and eschew violence, then they will have learned to pursue their grievances through other means. Unfortunately, the Pope's statement has only given them an excuse to go on a mad rampage again. With or without the Pope, they will always find an excuse to be violent so as to kill or be killed in the name of Allah for bountiful reward in the hereafter.

To Muslims, the Pope's statement should get them thinking why the world considers them and their faith violent. Their reaction should be to find ways to launder their image through the mass media and a genuine effort to seek peace with people of all faiths. Rather, they will be true to their nature and our fears, and go on a bloody carnage again. What a religion of Peace indeed.

Well, thankfully, while some of us applaud the Pope for such a wrong statement, the Pope has stated that he was deeply sorry especially for the problems the statement has caused.

I only hope that more and more people will be bold enough to apologise when they make mistakes as no one is perfect.

For those promoting war and hatred, leave discussion forum and head to the war zone to prove your point.

Late Pope John Paul spent 25 years building bridges across religions, the present Pope has spent about a year and is already causing bad blood and disaffection between religions.

If there was nothing wrong in the Pope's comments, the Vatican would not be trying to explain that the Pope meant no harm.

We are bound to respect people regardless of their religious beliefs. Questioning the very fabric of a religion is insulting and unnecessary.

Unfortunately, many have taken sides based on religion and not the exact comments.

Even the statement quoted by the Pope was made by an emperor that was spreading christianity.

We must move from the position of questioning the reactions of a people when provoked or insulted to a position of mutual respect for one another.

Those who brag about wars or encourage hatred should leave discussion forums and head for the war zones to make their points.

I have muslim friends that pray with me and join in sharing the Grace, some even join in the Lord's prayer. Ordinary there are no problems between religions, politicians or spiritual leaders unfortunately manipulate many into fighting one another even when they hide under heavy security.

Mutual respect is key, enough of the hate game.

@Davidylan,

Surprised at your comments here and I must say I agree completely with your definitions in the last post.

Unfortunately, some African leaders still take intsructions from the white house or 10 downing street instead of doing what is best for their countries.

Nigeria has all it takes to become a success story. Human resources, natural resources, intelligent people and hardworking. I guess it is more or less a case of leadership failure or purposeless leadership.

Kaecy5,

The statement made by the Pope is wrong or better put, inappropriate, the Vatican has stated that the Pope did not mean to insult the muslims, now, if the Pope really did not mean to do so all that is required is for him to apologize for the statements and retract them.

Pope John Paul spent 25 years building bridges across religions and the present Pope has just spent about 1 year and is already making statements that tend to create bad blood between islam and christianity.

Do not also forget that the Pope quoted something an emperor stated and what do you expect an emperor who fought wars in promoting a particular religion to say about a "rival" religion?

Regardless of whether we agree with another person's religion or not, we do not have a right to ridicule or insult that religion because religion is something that is personal and questioning or making insulting remarks on the very foundation of a particular religion amounts to insulting every single person that practices such religion.

It is becoming repulsive reading some posts where all we do is try to excuse the causes of problems while blaming in full measure reactions trailing avoidable provocations.

It is indeed very hard for one to become a good christain because it is difficult for many to pratice what they preach.

And which is easier to do, avoid problems or to solve them?

@Nutter,

I sometimes wonder why some of us will easily google something, come up with links even without taking time to understand the content and use same to support or oppose a position.

I am happy you were able to point the issue of code of conduct even based on the same link Mariory posted.

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.

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.

@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.

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,

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.

@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.

@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.

@Mariory,

Could you state the exact correction please? My stating I rely on CNN for most does not mean I do not watch other news channel but I do not have a strict schedule to split my news time as it does not make any sense to begin with.

So, state the correct so that we will be clear we were talking about correction.

It seems that the best way to keep some of us away from this thread is for Afam to refrain from posting because it seems the only time we now see posts by some of us is when Afam's post is being discussed.

I challenge you guys to discuss and prove otherwise the positions held by the people you freely focus on their personalities instead of the issue at hand.

TayoD,

I feel for you, I really do.

Bush stated on TV that God told him to invade Iraq. I heard him say so on TV and I wonder what proof you require, why don't you call CNN and ask them to verify that?

Bush lied about Iraq and continues to lie about the illegal invasion. I suppose you are in the US so you should be aware that currently, Bush is having problems with 2 issues in the Senate and even his own party has refused to back him.

One of the issues has to do with setting up tribunals to try terror suspects and my comment about trying to redefine Article 3 of the Geneva Convention was even the exact words of Collin Powell yesterday and he went ahead to state that the world is beginning to question the moral ground of the US in its fight against terrorism.

Yes, Bush lied but it was not the job of Bush to go to the UN to push for war, that was the Secretary of state's job and that was why Collin Powell was making the case.

It is a shame that you live in the US and things like these that are common knowledge are strange to you. For your information I live in Nigeria and I really think you should try to find out what is happening in your backyard.

So, based on the lies of Bush and Powell where lies the double standard you are refering to?

My promise to you is this - no matter how hard you try you will never be able to accuse me of double standards or bias or subjectivity on the issues thus far on this thread.

Truth will always prevail over lies, good will always prevail over bad, honest and objective contibutions will always stand the test of time.

Those of us that have stood on the side of truth, justice, fairplay and peace can comfortably maintain our positions whereas what I see some of us (including you) do here now is pick a line that Afam stated and attempt to twist and read meaning s into it just in a bid to paint Afam black.

I have left the type of game you are playing now a long time ago and I don't intend to go back to it.

Face the issues, stick to the issues and leave personalities out of the discussions.

It is not my making that you have been unable to force everyone to look at the issue from a religious angle.

Use logic, facts and superior arguements to make your points, you don't just make a statement and expect people to accept it and when they don't, you begin to attack the personalities, poor style.

N40K is good for the equipment and the price for 128kbs is fantastic only if you can get this in reality as there is a disconnect between what people offer and what they deliver.

Asking the company to give a guaranteed minimum bandwidth will do the magic, if the person isn't sure he/she will start to stammer while answering that simple question.

Brown-Eyes:
@Davidylan

Take a look at Afghanistan and Iraq. Who installed their government?

The US installed the present governments and handed over Saddam to the Shiites. The US even installed the former ruler of Iran and Iran was not an axis of evil until the revolution came and the puppet fled.

I only hope that countries will begin to do what is best for their people and not what another country wants them to do.

I am also happy that Collin Powell that made the case for the illegal invasion of Iraq at the UN is now opposing Bsh's plan to redefine Article 3 of the Geneva convention and even 3 influential Republicans are opposing Bush on that too. Maybe they are beginning to see through the many lies of Bush.

Just from yahoo news - read without bias if you can

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

IAEA: U.S. report on Iran 'dishonest'

VIENNA, Austria - A recent House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.

ADVERTISEMENT



The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.

The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is to construct weapons."

In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."

"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"

Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.

An IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."

Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House committee, confirmed they had received the letter and said the chairman had referred it to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. Rush Hold, D-N.J. They will review it and issue a formal response if necessary, he said.

"All IAEA complains about is a photo caption. If you read the report, it's very clear that what it is saying is that Iran is working to develop the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, not that they have done so," Ware said. "They use a string of adjectives, while not pointing to any substantive criticism of the report. There are areas where we would disagree with them. A disagreement does not make what we say erroneous."

The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the IAEA and Washington over whether Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam.

ElBaradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.

@Otokx,

Ok, let me try to make some of us happy.

1. All muslims want to kill all jews and christains.

2. Everything must be done to kill all muslims

3. Causing wars in places like Afghanistan and Iraq remains one of the best strategies.

4. The arabs don't want peace, so no need to pursue any peace initiative

All the points stated above are wrong and I disagree with them completely without conditions.

Killing of innocent ones is wrong regardless of who is doing the killing and the reasons behind such killings.

PEACE IS VERY MUCH ACHIEVABLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

Anyone that does not believe in the peace option should go to the war front and make his or her point, not on a discussion forum.